In late August, press from around the world were able to beam up to the Star Trek: Discovery sets in Toronto, and several reports from that visit have begun to debut online as we are now officially two weeks away from having seen the first episode of the upcoming series.

First up, TV Guide’s Alexander Zalben got to shoot a bit of video on the USS Discovery bridge set, and here’s a look at the real-life transparent displays, our first great view at how these innovative set designs rely more on practical effects than digital compositing.

Here’s a few caps of those incredible displays:

As part of their on-set interviews, TV Guide learned a few secrets not yet revealed from the series, such as:

  • Captain Lorca (Jason Isaacs) has a standing desk in his ready room, rather than the traditional chair-and-desk configuration seen in previous captains’ offices
  • Viewscreen communication has been upgraded to holographic displays in the series, to allow “two actors in a a room, playing a scene” – per producer Aaron Harberts
  • Michael Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green) will be primarily based out of the USS Discovery’s engineering section below decks, paired up with Tilly (Mary Wiseman) and Stamets (Anthony Rapp) for a key part of the storyline — a section of the ship that also features a mystery room and a strange “reaction cube,” both of which details about are being kept under wraps.
  • Lorca has a secure-access room referred to by producers as “Lorca’s menagerie,” without offering any more details on this tantalizing space aboard ship
  • A bottle of Chateau Picard wine has a spot in Captain Georgiou’s (Michelle Yeoh) Shenzhou ready room

In addition, several of the cast speak in yet another new interview video focusing on some of the more negative ‘anti-diversity’ feedback some people have expressed towards the show.

*   *   *

IGN also had an opportunity to visit the Discovery sets, and IGN’s Scott Collura sat down with producer Aaron Harberts to talk about the Klingon War, concerns with Star Trek: Enterprise-era canon, and faith in the Final Frontier.

On the burgeoning Klingon War that impacts the first season of the show, Harberts spoke about how the United Federation of Planets approaches such a conflict.

[The] question becomes… how do you end a war, how do you find peace, without crushing and annihilating your opponent? And to me, that’s the Star Trek way of doing a war story. It’s not the Federation annihilates the Klingons. It’s Starfleet and the Federation figure out a way to truly make peace.

Now we know that when TOS picks up, that peace doesn’t last. But we have to find peace in our time, in our slice of the Star Trek pie. That’s a really important thing to us, and we’re going to offer up a way that these two warring factions come to an understanding.

The USS Discovery takes flight. (CBS)

“Anyone remember when we used to be explorers?” This quote from Captain Picard in Star Trek: Insurrection seems to apply to the crew of the Discovery, revealed now to actually be a science vessel during times of peace:

These Starfleet officers who find themselves in war are very quick to remind the audience that they didn’t sign up to do that. That they are explorers first, that they are diplomats first… in fact, Discovery is a science vessel that has been conscripted for the war effort.

[Stamets’] methods and life’s work is now being converted to be used for the war effort, and that bothers him greatly.

Much ado has been made about the time period Discovery is placed in — a year after “The Cage,” and about a decade before Captain Kirk takes command of the USS Enterprise — and Harberts himself expressed a bit of frustration about how the tales told during the most recent Trek television series, Star Trek: Enterprise, impacts their storytelling abilities.

The only thing that’s felt limiting is the era and time that we are telling our story, because you’ve got ‘Enterprise’…

I find that ‘Enterprise actually’ has made things the most limiting, because of some of the retconning that they did in certain ways. And we consider Enterprise canon as well in certain ways, and just as valid, and we’re always trying to kind of make sure that that’s taken into consideration.

Jason Isaacs as Captain Gabriel Lorca. (CBS)

Finally, Harberts took on the “overblown” report that from last month that Discovery characters “can’t say ‘God'” — emphasizing that is strictly a character note for Gabriel Lorca (Isaacs), and not for the Trek universe as a whole.

You will come to understand why [Lorca] has faith — or doesn’t have faith — is of vital importance. We had no interest in killing God, you know, and by God I mean anyone’s God.

So the fact of the matter is I don’t think religion is going anywhere. Polls may say differently, but I think faith and hope and spirituality, whatever you may think that is, we’re carrying that into the future. We have to.

I think that the world is, and our Star Trek universe, is open to any and all belief systems.

I want to actually do some storylines about [faith]…. Let’s talk about what place it has in the future. Let’s talk about what it makes people do. Let’s talk about encountering new ones.

*   *   *

Harberts shows off costumes; Prosthetics supervisor James Mackinnon highlights detail on ‘Osnullus’ alien appliances. (CBS)

CNET has even more detail to share, especially about the technical aspects of the series’ sets and props — starting with a tidbit about a Klingon/Federation war status map that adorns Captain Lorca’s ready room wall:

Along the right wall of the ready room is a bank of flat-panel monitors… [with] a map of several planets with a red line dividing United Federation of Planets and Klingon Empire territories. Aaron Harberts, one of the showrunners of “Star Trek: Discovery”… says the line will change from episode to episode — a detail most viewers may not even catch.


And here’s some insight into the new capabilities about the Starfleet communicators, updated with video functionality:

The Discovery crew opted for a subtle update to the communicator using bits of gold and gray. They make it work by jamming Apple iPod Nanos inside of the flip-style communicators, says Sang Maier, who’s in charge of props for the show. He says the screen allows for the playback of images or video appropriate to any scene.

*   *   *

Sonequa Martin-Green as Michael Burham. (CBS)

Finally, Sonequa Martin-Green spoke with about how her character, Michael Burnham, assimilated into Vulcan culture after being raised by Sarek and Amanda after her parents were killed during her youth.

The idea of how Vulcan I am versus how human I am is one facet we’re exploring. Because there is this dichotomy of Vulcan indoctrination versus human emotion and human DNA, versus Starfleet ideology. And so, it’s really about all of these things, all of these tenets of my being, and how they are relating to each other, and how they’re opposing each other, right?

So, I was born into a human family, and a human life, and then was sort of forced into Vulcan culture. So, there’s the acculturation that has happened, and there was certainly the assimilation that I fought to achieve. And then you have Starfleet. And so almost, I feel as if Starfleet has provided a bridge for me between my humanity and my Vulcan upbringing.

Young Michael Burnham is rescued by Sarek (James Frain). (CBS)

So, it’s interesting because it’s not the same journey as Spock. He, in his DNA, is Vulcan and human. But for me, it’s really about someone who attempted to become someone they were not born to be. Under tremendous pressure. Against insurmountable odds. (She’s) someone who’s succeeded in that to a point, and possibly to a fault.

So, there’s certainly that inner conflict, and a lot of the inner conflict has to do with that, because obviously there’s an identity crisis there, that, “Who am I? Who do I want to be? Who am I becoming, based on these decisions I’m making? Is it Vulcan logic, or is it human emotion that caused me to make that decision? I actually don’t know!”

Phew! That’s a lot of news for one Sunday evening – but keep checking back here at TrekCore for more Star Trek: Discovery updates as they arrive!

  • M33

    That would be a silly rumor that Trek wouldn’t say God.
    They did it a lot actually.

    • It may have been a restriction on his character.

      • M33

        Ah, but not the show itself. Interesting point.

        • We say God often as a cultural thing. Some cultures and people will drop that. So that is what I think it was.

        • Thomas Elkins

          Kirk has an interesting line in “Who Mourns for Adonais” when he says “Mankind has no need for gods. We find the one quite adequate.” This would seem to imply humanity, or some individuals at least, still worshiped a single god. Even in Deep Space Nine we see Joseph Sisko reading from his Bible. Basically I’d argue that the concept of religion has been abandoned in the future, but individual spirituality remains.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            There’s a book I once read on religion in Star Trek. It’s a pretty good book.

        • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

          Doesn’t Kirk talk about gods to Mitchell and say something like “We are fine with the one” to Apollo?

          • M33

            “We find the one God quite sufficient.”

          • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

            Right, so it is mentioned.

  • Tom

    What’s with the SJW lecture video? I’m not going to pay CBS for the privilege of being talked down upon.

    We’ve had a woman captain, a black captain, and diverse casts in the past. This is nothing new, so stop virtue signaling.

    • Amusingly, that initial blowback they received concerning diversity has led to them discussing it even more! I think you would engender more good discussion if you could express yourself without using the SJW term. It’s often used in a manner similar to “name calling”, which comes across as immature and needlessly aggressive.

      • M33

        Name calling never helps a situation… ever.

      • pittrek

        “Amusingly, that initial blowback they received concerning diversity has led to them discussing it even more!”

        Well and that’s the reason why they create even MORE blowback.

      • Pedro Ferreira

        An SJW is an SJW.

    • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

      Well said, Discovery will be Ghostbusters 2016.

      • SpaceCadet

        Nope. Discovery is not a film nor a comedy.

      • I honestly don’t get your point. It will be a re-make that replaces the original male cast with women? How is Discovery similar to that at all? These are all-new characters, on new ships, in a plot that we haven’t seen before. The fact that they feel the need to respond to the diversity conversation says nothing about the show but everything about the conversation. Did anyone really think that a Star Trek show wouldn’t promote diversity, understanding, and putting yourselves into someone else’s shoes?

        • SpaceCadet

          This guy trolls just to troll. He doesn’t understand the very principles of Star Trek. He should stick to Star Wars. Oh wait, they went all SJW too! :p

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Don’t get me started on that awful Farce Awakens movie.

        • pittrek

          There is ONE similarity – after the extremely bad trailer for GB2016 was released on youtube, they automatically labelled everybody who didn’t like it as an sexist/misogynist. That included poor James Rolfe, who was attacked for doing an extremely polite video. They even went as far as deleting constructive criticism from the youtube comments and intentionally left the troll comments in. And that’s how they marketed the movie.

          Discovery – a couple of jerks complain on twitter that there are not enough white people on the show, while thousands of people had a lot of different, and mostly valid criticism. That criticism was completely ignored and instead they started to concentrate in the marketing department to address ALL critics as racists / sexists / misogynists.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            This, this, all this!

    • SpaceCadet

      Gene Roddenberry was the original SJW. Good thing Discovery furthers his legacy.

      • Tom

        That’s a huge myth. This is from Gene Roddenberry’s original memo pitching Star

        “The Captain’s Yeoman”
        “Except for problems in naval parlance, “Colt” would be called a yeowoman; blonde and with a shape even a uniform could not hide. She serves as Robert April’s secretary, reporter, bookkeeper, and undoubtedly wishes she could also serve him in more personal departments.”

        You can read it for yourself here:

        He also wanted a simultaneous open relationship with Nichelle Nichols and Majel Barrett. Read his official Wikipedia entry.

        • Lee O.

          Well, he was for eqality AND he also liked women’s virtues 😉

          Anyway, I think many people are blowing the whole equality thing waaay out of proportion. It’s great they continue the multicultural diversity tradition and it doesn’t hurt any TV show or film, unless it is a historical drama set in certain times (a white man in a film based on Edo period Japan would be just as out of place as a female ship captain in a story on Victorian England), but to me, it doesn’t have any novelty anymore. Though it might have been admittedly weird if they wouldn’t have continued in the tradition.

        • SpaceCadet

          He was also a man of his era and flawed as we all are. He was also progressive enough to cast a Black woman and Asian-American in the main cast of his series, tried to cast a woman as the first officer in the same series, and was all for depicting homosexual relationships on TNG.

      • pittrek

        I think you don’t understand the meaning of the term SJW. He was a direct opposite of it. He was an egalitarian.

        • SpaceCadet

          I don’t think you understand that people who espouse egalitarian views like they are doing on Discovery are labeled as SJW. So yes, by that logic, Gene was a SJW himself.

        • Pedro Ferreira

          Roddenberry wanted equality. He didn’t want to look for issues in society where none existed and change it just because.

          • SpaceCadet

            Look for what issues? What are you talking about?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            You seem to have a complete non understanding of what an SJW is. I’m not going to explain to you what that type of person is. Do some actual research. Thanks.

      • Pedro Ferreira

        That’s an insult to Gene Roddenberry’s name man.

        • SpaceCadet

          Not really. He put diversity front and center and cemented a progressive future where the fact there was a black woman and Asian-American man on the bridge didn’t even need to be commented on. The only reason you’re hearing so much about diversity is because of the bigots who are complaining about it in the first place.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            You should look up what SJW means. It has nothing to do with what good things Gene did.

          • SpaceCadet

            “An individual promoting socially progressive views…” Sounds like Gene Roddenberry alright! Lol

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Nope, check again. Someone who goes after social justice is Gene, an SJW takes that further for their own political needs. As I said the term is a complete insult to the man’s name. You might as well call Gene a keyboard warrior or an Internet troll since that’s what SJWs are as well.

          • Abaddon1125

            So-called “Social Justice Warriors” tend to not really care about the things they claim to espouse.

          • SpaceCadet

            And how does that apply to myself and others on this forum that do care about diversity and champion it? So we’re not really SJW?

          • Abaddon1125

            No, you’re just decent human beings.

          • TUP

            The alt right and bigots and losers have hijacked the idea of SJW to make championing the cause of goodness a bad thing.

            They want this effort for diversity to stop and be replaced by a tenuous belief that everyone is now equal and has the same opportunities. They want this now…while the white nationals in power still have their grip on that power. The last thing they want is true equality or fairness. So the effort to create that is branded as left wing nuttery.

            Which is not to say there arent left wing nuts. Im a Conservative. But a social liberal. There has been a lot of shameful comments here.

            A TV show with female leads, with an Asian and Black lead with a gay character? ALL of which are GOOD developments. Not bad. What is there to argue about? Only the bigots would have a problem with that. I mean, are they worried straight white men are losing jobs? lol

          • SpaceCadet

            Oh I know. By taking a whole group of people and labeling them with a derogatory name (in their minds) like SJW is a means to shut down the conversation or create the implication that we must be unhinged because we have some radical political agenda. It’s like how someone who’s liberal is called a “crazy lib” for even being pro-environment or daring to have the belief that a equally qualified woman should get the same pay for the same job as a man. “Feminist” being another label that bigots imply must be someone with a radical agenda.

          • M33

            Be careful with the word “progressive”.
            It isn’t interchangable with “liberal” or “open-minded” or “inclusive” or “diversity”, especially historically in regards to social issues.
            The origins of Progressivism goes back a ways and does not mean what most people think it means in terms of social/civil/racial issues.
            However Progressivism’s Constitutional viewpoints have remained largely unchanged.

    • Quintillion Tesla

      It’s because there have been very vocal trolls complaining about the so-called diversity ( even though Trek crews in the past have been even MORE diverse ), that they are having to defend themselves.

      Having one Asian actress and one african-american actress is not something anyone should be getting themselves in a knot about, be they for or against “diversity”.

      But the actors SHOULD be allowed to counter the trolls that continually rear their head.

      • Pedro Ferreira

        Who?! Who are these trolls?! I haven’t heard anyone complain about a black female not being able to be a lead!

      • TUP

        Seeing the same people get so upset makes me wonder if its a guilty conscience at work. Imagine being so ignorant that one would choose the other side of the diversity issue… like its a bad thing!

        I guess these minority actors should just shut up and be happy with the roles THEY have that WE allowed. Disgusting. Comments here are exactly why diversity is STILL important and still an issue.

        Good for CBS and the producers of Discovery for understanding that even when a vocal minority of Trek fans have their heads buried in the sand and are seemingly offended by the fact there are Black, Asian, Gay, Female characters on this show.

      • Karl

        The problem is due to these people pushing diversity as a marketing ploy, rather than just letting it be as-is and getting on with the business of making tv.

    • Perplexum

      They pat themselves on their own back so hard for their “progressiveness” it’s crazy. As if a black female cast member or a gay character are something groundbreaking nowadays. Having a russian character being part of the crew in the middle of the cold war, that was bold. A afroamerican woman and a bunch of white guys are not.

      • SpaceCadet

        A black female lead and the first ever gay character is groundbreaking because it’s never been done on Star Trek before and you don’t see it much in sci-fi television in general.

        • M33

          Wasn’t there a black female lead in Extant? Or am I thinking of a different sci-fi show?

          • SpaceCadet

            I don’t know. I’ve never heard of that show which ties into my main point that you don’t see or it’s hard to recall a black female lead of a genre show, and certainly not of the name recognition and legacy and importance of a Star Trek series.

        • Perplexum

          Never been done in Star Trek before is not groundbreaking, it’s “catching up”.

        • Karl

          It was done in Beyond.

          • SpaceCadet

            I’m talking about Star Trek on television not a few seconds in a film about an alternate universe character.

    • Mo

      What’s with the reliance upon MRA-favorite pejoratives to describe Trek philosophy? If you feel you’re being “talked down upon,” perhaps you should stick with Stargate.

    • Pedro Ferreira

      See my above post. I’m at nerves ends with this SJW promotional rubbish.

      • SpaceCadet

        Well I’m sure they’ll stop the diversity promotion just to make you happy. 🙄

        • Pedro Ferreira

          I never said they would?

        • TUP

          This diversity stuff is sad. If people can’t see why its important they should bury their racist heads back in the sand. Its the lowest of the low hanging fruit to attack Discovery. if someone hates the show that much, they should be ashamed of themselves.

  • M33

    “The only thing that’s felt limiting is the era and time that we are telling our story, because you’ve got ‘Enterprise’…
    I find that ‘Enterprise actually’ has made things the most limiting, because of some of the retconning that they did in certain ways. And we consider Enterprise canon as well in certain ways, and just as valid, and we’re always trying to kind of make sure that that’s taken into consideration.”

    Interesting. Wouldn’t all of Trek be limiting story wise? TOS and the films being the most so since it is in that era?

    It is cool that they are acknowledging Enterprise, but he does say canon “in certain ways”.

    • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

      Like I said in another comment, if it is so ‘limiting’ don’t make a prequel.

      • SpaceCadet

        Obviously it wasn’t so limiting or they wouldn’t have bothered to set the series in the time period they did.

      • Pedro Ferreira

        That would require some level of imagination.

    • Thomas Elkins

      I wonder what specific thing about Enterprise was restricting? I want to say the augment virus, but it sounds like they’re embracing that so I don’t understand what’s restricting.

      • I think it was just that. It was a massive retcon.

        • Thomas Elkins

          But it wasn’t. A retcon is a change made to previously established information. There was nothing in previous Star Trek canon to explain why Klingons looked different after TOS. It was just something that was ignored in-universe until DS9 acknowledged it, which gave the Enterprise writers an opening to explore it further. So some Klingons are “disfigured” while others aren’t. What exactly is so restricting about that? I’m not a professional writer, but I can think of a few ways they could explore this storyline without feeling restricted.

          • It was a retcon. Klingons had always looked like whatever the current make up looked like. No explanation was needed. Everyone just knew, that was a Klingon, this is how they had always looked. Kirk and gang never got confused in TMP, no one in TNG got confused when the make up changed again. Or when worf kept changing season to season. He and they always had looked that way.

            However, the ENT retcon now changed history. Kirk and the gang should have been confused with klingon changes. Starfleet should have had files and spys IN the empire. each and every major look change now changes history. Now they need to either play with each and every single of the at lest 5 make up changes or ignore the silly ENT retcon.

          • Thomas Elkins

            “It was a retcon.”

            No, it wasn’t. “Retroactive continuity, or retcon for short, is the alteration of previously established facts in the continuity of a fictional work.”

            It was NEVER established why Klingons looked different until Enterprise. Their explanation changed absolutely nothing. It only answered a question previous writers and series never bothered to address. It sounds like you’re trying to say that the “sudden” appearance of different Klingons in TMP should be jarring to characters in-universe because they had only seen the human looking Klingons in TOS. But that’s not how it would work within the canon.

            We, the audience, only saw TOS style Klingons in TOS because it was a television show made 50 years ago. All Klingons looked that way to US because that’s what they could accomplish with their budget at the time. Characters in-universe however would not share this limitation. The other Klingons still existed and the characters would have encountered them just like they encountered the TOS style.

            Think of it like this: We never see a Bat’leth in TOS or any of the TMP movies. And yet James T Kirk has a Bat’leth in his cabin in Star Trek Generations. How can he own a Bat’leth if a weapon of this type was never shown before? Easy. It wasn’t shown to us because it didn’t exist in the real world, but it did exist in-universe. James Kirk obviously encountered a Klingon with a Bat’leth at some point and he managed to take one for himself. We didn’t see this happen, but it did happen. The same logic applies to the different Klingon styles. We don’t see TMP Klingons in TOS because they didn’t exist until 1979, but as far as the in-universe canon is concerned they always existed side-by-side the others we did see.

            That’s why I said before in another post that we might not have needed an explanation for the different designs, but we did get one so we should embrace it. It’s canon now and personally I think it could open to the doors to some interesting stories, if they’re not afraid to acknowledge it.

          • They never looked differnt. This was a retcon as it made them look different. In canon they had always looked like whatever the current version was.

            Changing that, changed canon.

          • Tuskin38

            DS9 retconned it before Enterprise.

          • No, they had a joke. It was just that, a fun joke for the fans for the 30th.

          • Tuskin38

            They still pointed it out, and started the debate among fans long before Enterprise ever came along.

          • But did not change anything. It was a silly joke at odds with how DS9 handled the non issue.

          • Tuskin38

            It pointed out the fact that flat headed Klingons existed.

            While I liked those two episodes of Enterprise, I do agree that they were not needed. DS9 handled it fine.

          • No, it was a silly joke.

          • Tuskin38

            Not to everyone. The moment Worf pointing it out it started years of questions.

          • Yeah, fan canon ran with the joke, just like they ran with an off hand comment and thought a race had 4 genders. But it was simply a joke

          • Tuskin38

            It doesn’t matter if it was a joke, the show acknowledged it which makes it fact.

            What race had 4 genders?

          • I disagree, I mean DS9 put Khan and the gang in the 22nd century. Once more, on one of those throw away lines.

          • Tuskin38

            How is that the same? They were physically there, you could see the differences between Worf and the TOS Klingons. His hat didn’t completely cover his lower ridge. The line you mention about Khan is just a continuity error.

            I saw a suggestion that they should have put Worf in TOS Makeup and pretend it nothing had changed. Now that would have been clever.

          • Its a change of canon, so yeah its the same.

            I agree, that is how I would have done it. But no, they wanted to go for a silly joke. Which was funny but caused issues

          • M33

            That one was easily just a slip of the tongue. People misstate things all the time, especially when there are mountains of evidence which contradict that one person’s mistaken statement.

          • Thomas Elkins

            “In canon they had always looked like whatever the current version was.”

            Prove it. Where in the canon was this established?

          • The whole time. Plase point out before the joke where it was noted they looked differnt?

            TMP, no ond noticeed t he massive change to the race in 3 years time. Not a single bit of confusion. Nor when they changed again.

            Nor was Dax confused her TOS buddies looked like TNG klingons. Not a single line or acknowlage ment.

            What about tr ill? Org the ha lf dozen other races that change, all t he t ime?

          • Thomas Elkins

            “Plase point out before the joke where it was noted they looked differnt?”

            We don’t need to. Klingons didn’t change in-universe between TOS and TMP. There were Klingons affected by the augment virus, but it didn’t affect EVERY Klingon. The TOS, TMP, TNG Klingons all existed together at the same time.

            “TMP, no ond noticeed t he massive change to the race in 3 years time.”

            You didn’t read a single thing I wrote did you?

            You’re trying to say that the “sudden” appearance of different Klingons in TMP should be jarring to characters in-universe because they had only seen the human looking Klingons in TOS. But that’s not how it would work within the canon.

            We, the audience, only saw TOS style Klingons in TOS because it was a television show made 50 years ago. All TOS Klingons looked that way to US because that’s what they could accomplish with their budget at the time. Characters in-universe however would not share this limitation. The other Klingons still existed and the characters would have encountered them just like they encountered the TOS style.

            This is why no one noticed the change. There was no change. Only a small group of Klingons were affected and TOS characters would have encountered more than just that one group of infected.

          • Yes, they did change in universe. Saying they did not is just dishonest. You are using fan canon and the retcon to hand wave issue away.

          • Tuskin38

            Of course Dax wouldn’t be confused. She would have known that they changed. She probably kept tabs on them. Plus she lived before, during and after the TOS era, it wouldn’t be confusing for her.

          • Yet, it should have. Just as it should have confused Kirk, I mean magically every Klingon changed almost over night and not a single word was said. And again when they changed once more, not a word.

          • M33

            Yeah, the Trill change was pretty major.
            My best guess was that the TNG Trill was a sub-set of Trills indigenous to the Trill homeworld, and only the symbionts could bond with those “types” of Trills after the intial bonding. Same with the Dax-type of Trills.

            My best guess…

          • Even the symbote ( spelling?)looked and acted different. and this was not the only race redesigned like that. Its pretty common to just pure up change make up. And not minor changes, but major changes.

            Off hand,
            * Romans
            * Andorians
            * Tellraites
            * Bolians
            * Bajorins
            * Gorn
            *Catians( cat people, not sure of the spelling)
            * Nausicaans
            * Whatever that race Nomi Camble was half of ( went from but headed to spikes)

            There is a list somewhere. I know I missed some.

          • Jamie Thomas

            Enterprise didn’t retcon anything.

            If anything Enterprise helped explain the Klingons smooth heads in the TOS era by way of the Augment virus. Granted it wasnt overtly mentioned onscreen during TOS. I mean the Klingons didn’t go up to Kirk and say “oh by the way, we should have ridged foreheads”, why would they? The Klingons appearance in TOS was normal to them. They were the result of the Augment virus, they didn’t whine about it, they continued on, proud of who they were, not being defined by an illness.

            As others have said, Enterprise took an opening in Trek history and filled it and very well at that.

          • Once more, it eas a retcon as it changed trek history. You are simply not choosing to see how this would have changed history.

            Every make up change is now a new Klingon race that needs explianed. Not just the TOS ones.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            What I think is hilarious is you choose to ignore something that is canon because you dislike it. Cherry picking eh?

          • TUP

            Yup. The weirdest thing was that everyone forgot what Klingons looked like by TNG era.

            Yet, the TOS crew interacted significantly with both augment virus Klingons and “regular” Klingons. That means it was common knowledge until at least the TOS era officers died off. We’re to assume all of Star Fleet forgot between the death of the TOS era folks and the birth of TNG era folks?

            DS9 made that a problem with their “joke”. Enterprise made it worse with their solution to that “problem”. The story on Enterprise was a decent little story. But unneeded and did too much damage over-all. To undo it now..well, to be fair, its easier to mingle in the Enterprise explanation than it is to explain how the DS9 crew didnt recognize Klingons.

          • Yeah, I am unsure how no one is not seeing the massive canon changes that retcon caused. It more or less rewrote any klingon interaction.

    • Lee O.

      They obviously go for the story-is-canon-but-aesthetics-are-fluid approach…. only that Enterprise canonized how there can be two different aesthetics for a species can exist in the same universe.

      • M33

        Such an unusual choice, especially when there is no benchmark for doing that prior.
        They could be creating their own precedent, but that means anything seen visually from The Cage forward, including all the movies, TNG, DS9 and Voyager is all subject to being reinterpreted to “fit” the times.
        It makes me wonder what will happen 50 years from now…
        Will people look at DSC and go
        “Damn, that crap looks dated… Let’s retcon it.”
        It would be funny if at that time the 1960s aesthetic is in vogue at that time.
        I mean, really, that’s what we are talking about here–the 60s “look”– which fashion changes all the time and retro looks come back often.

    • TUP

      They probably mean that Enterprise is a prequel and “close” to Discovery era. With TOS, they arent as restricted because 1) they clearly are cool with a visual re boot and rightfully so and 2) there is a sense of serving TOS to a degree, leading to Kirk etc.

      With Enterprise, they have to respect the visual style and tech that was created there because it pre-dates Discovery.

      And of course, things like Klingons and other elements of Enterprise.

      • M33

        It is an interesting question re visual reinterpretation, because if they can redo the TOS look, why not redo what the klingon “augment” look was as well? If looks are not fixed, wouldnt this give them the same creative license?

        • If they show flat heads, I hope they at lest did better make up.

          • M33

            Maybe they can throw in some spoon-heads for some DS9 connections, too…

          • I rather they retcon the joke out. But of they have to go with it, I want more than guys in blackface.

          • M33

            You mean F-Troop-style brownface, right?

          • Yeah, I mean they can do something updated and cool, something that looks like a half breed.

          • TUP

            I suspect the people working on Enterprise at the time, Manny Coto etc, were just throwing everything at the wall. They knew Enterprise was very very likely to be cancelled. And that would mean a strong likelihood of no Trek on TV for a long time.

            Coto was correct in his interpretation of what Enterprise should be as a prequel. But the Augment thing was too much. It only worked if the space between Enterprise, TOS and TNG was 1000+ years, not 100.

          • I agree, the whole story just does not work

        • TUP

          Yeah, thats actually a good point. So you’re saying maybe the different look of the Disco Klingons is because of the virus changing them from the traditional TNG looking Klingons?

          I doubt it. But thats perfectly suitable. Other then the idea that the virus, being a human augment thing, caused them to look like humans. So Im not sure how we reconcile that.

          To be honest, a BETTER solution is a throw away line about the augment virus being a lot more minor than it ever seemed in Enterprise and do a sort of double Retcon. Or something we can call the double secret retcon switcheroo.

          So the end result is:

          TOS Klingons and TNG Klingons were always meant to be the same.

          Enterprise retcons this so that TOS Klingons ARE different

          Discovery Retcons the Retcon so that TOS Klingons are back to looking the same as TNG.

          Im fine with that!

          • M33

            “Or something we can call the double secret retcon switcheroo.”


            Very MST3k!

  • M33

    Hot damn, those are some very impressive visual effects!
    Cinematic quality!

    • Pedro Ferreira

      Ha, ha!

  • M33

    “Now we know that when TOS picks up, that peace doesn’t last. But we have to find peace in our time, in our slice of the Star Trek pie. That’s a really important thing to us, and we’re going to offer up a way that these two warring factions come to an understanding.”

    This is a very odd choice, I think. What does it matter how that “peace” comes about if it in the end didn’t even achieve the desired lasting result?
    Wouldn’t that be like a reminder of the systemic failure of the Treaty that ended World War I which only laid the groundwork to instigate World War II?
    Showing how “that peace” happened might be meaningless, really, considering the principles that it was built on did not stand?

    Very odd.
    I think it would make more sense to have the show come to no peaceful resolution at all, but rather a stalemate. Errand of Mercy indicates that whatever came before did not work and only outside third-party intervention by the Organians is what prevented all-out war only 10 years later.

    • SpaceCadet

      Why is it so odd? Our very human history is full of cycles of peace that are interrupted with times of warfare before the process repeats again. So why in this fictional world is it any less meaningful to show a chapter where a hard-fought peace ends a period of conflict even if does not last forever?

      • M33

        Often because most of the “peaces” in our bistory were not sought for actual peace, but merely stalemates or truces until each side could rebuild itself to attack yet again.
        It is mostly in since WWII that we have entered into an era of unprecedented peace where major powers have not engaged in direct or total war with each other–which we have never had a period of peace this long ever. Looking at what caused that and how we can replicate that would be worthy, in my opinion, of understanding the mechanics of it and how Trek can show that as a way for our time.
        Given that whatever “peace” they come up with in DSC re Klingons, it will be as ineffectively conceived as the 90s agreement with DPRK which in the end only made them more powerful and did not resolve the fundamental issues which created the conflicts to begin with.

  • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

    Since he claims the time period was ‘limiting’ why set it then?

    • You’re really asking why they chose the storyline that they’re using. We know the time period it’s set in is due to Fuller’s initial idea, exploring an event mentioned in TOS. Sometimes working with limitations, creatively, can lead to great results. It certainly must make them think everything through very carefully.

    • SpaceCadet

      Because some people enjoy being challenged when they are up against limits. Limits don’t prevent good storytelling.

  • I love that Lorca is coming across as a man of mystery, with his secure “menagerie” room. Does he have a separate, parallel mission to the one the rest of the crew know about? Also, the set looks really great. Having the transparent displays will make the bridge much more dynamic. I’m reminded a bit of Westworld, and their rooms with transparent walls.

    • Locutus

      Yeah, the menagerie room sounds interesting. Deep dark secrets!

      • John Harmon

        “deep dark secrets”

        Yeah exactly the opposite of what Trek is about

        • Locutus

          Oh please. Star Trek has had PLENTY of flawed and rogue Starfleet captains and human leaders … “Whom Gods Destroy” (Lord Garth), “The Omega Glory” (Captain Tracey”), “Bread and Circuses” (Captain Merrick), “The Doomsday Machine” (Commodore Decker), Patterns of Force” (John Gill), “The Equinox” (Captain Ransom), The Wounded” (Captain Maxwell) … this PERFECT Star Trek so many talk about is drama-less, boring … and fantasy. It never existed!

  • M33

    BTW, off topic…

    Did anyone see Orville, yet?

    Any good?

    More Galaxy Quest or is more violent gore humor Family Guy?

    • Haven’t seen it. I’ve read a couple of reviews though that have been… luke-warm, at best. They’ve focused on the mixture of humor and drama not working well.

      • Very, very little drama. What was there could have been great, but really wasn’t

        • TUP

          The drama is really only there to set up an excuse for the humor. But none of it is actually dramatic. As expected in a comedy, especially one with the sort of lame jokes inherent with Seth, there is no tension to serve the drama.

          And that makes it boring.

          I actually wonder if the show was ever considered to be 30 minutes. Maybe it was too expensive to justify doing a 30 minute show…so the idea is to go 60, spend money on CGI (not good enough though), hire these good sound, make up, writers that have relevance to sci fi and Trek and hope to attract an audience that wants to laugh at itself.

          There is merit in that. But this just fell far too short.

    • I saw it. All My opinion here
      1: Its low humor but not totally gutter, penis joke in like the 1st 2 mins
      2: Its very much a trek rip off
      3: The pacing is off, the show really should be 30 mins
      4: The CGI goes from “Eh not bad” to “1995 called and wants their CGI back”
      5: Its GQ style, but do not expect QG quality

      All in all, its “meh” but may get better. All its got going for it is its very TNGish

      • TUP

        Agreed mostly.

        I thought the majority of jokes were bad. Anyone who argued that Orville was real Star Trek can now stop trolling. Orville is a comedy. But its in the vein of Family Guy, as one would expect.

        Unfortunately, Seth has become the embodiment of the law of diminishing returns so a warmed-over 6th generation Family Guy just isnt that funny.

        I was surprised at the ejaculation joke. But since it wasnt overtly said what it was, they could argue it wasnt what it was, I guess. But they even had the blue jizz on the woman (was it on her face) as she argued with the Captain.

        Its a Trek rip off in the sense its premise is sort of relying on viewers to “get it”. If you have never seen Star Trek then some of the humor of the premise would be lost. For example the one bridge officer who is essentially the “Klingon” is funny because he’s doing the Michael Dorn delivery. But if you dont know that, he’s just a boring character.

        The android, they didnt really do anything with.

        I thought the same thing about pacing. It’s a 30 minute show that was stretched out to be an hour. I get the impression, they hired these Trek vets and did the one hour and said all the right things hoping to attract a Trek audience who were willing to “laugh at themselves” every week. Thats the basis for success for Orville. But its not going to work.

        If FOX wants to re-tool it, drop it to 30 minutes. Thats a start.

        With Seth as the lead, it can never be good. Without animation and funny voices to hide behind, he’s very weak. He would have made a better first officer actually, someone to be the comedy foil for a straight laced Captain.

        CGI was noticeably poor. Its TV but if you want to draw comparisons to Star Trek, you have to be better. It was “worst of Enterprise” bad. Everything from Discovery looks WAY better.

        • I can not disagree

        • Pedro Ferreira

          “Everything from Discovery looks WAY better.” I would say the complete opposite.

          • TUP

            Pedro, you have admitted you have not seen Orville. So why dont you stop this.

            I have seen it. I am now comparing watching Orville with all the promos, teasers, trailers from Discovery. Orville badly underwhelmed. It was awful.

            So stop. I realise that as an irrational anti-Discovery person, your default position is to love and embrace Orville, sight unseen. But really, it was awful.

            If you actually watch it and like it, GREAT! But its not very good. And just the visuals alone arent even close to what we’ve seen from Discovery.

            There really is no comparison. Orville is a comedy. Its not the same genre. We might as well compare Modern Family to Voyager next.

          • Actually the CGI is not even up to current SY-FY channel standard’s

          • TUP

            Yeah, I was ready to not to TOO critical but it jumped out at me right off the bat. If everyone was critical of the “teaser” Fuller released last year for being lousy CGI, they have to be critical of Orville too. Discovery was worse but not by much and that was quite clearly unfinished.

            If Orville was 30 minutes, making it easier for people to accept for what it is – a comedy – then the CGI would be less of an issue. But for a one hour “drama”, its not good enough.

          • Totally agree

    • Have now watched most of episode 1. More “Spaceballs” than “Galaxy Quest.” Set design is very TNG, including carpet on the walls. It feels like a high-budget fan production, but a well-made one. I can’t imagine them filling up an entire season of one hour episodes with good content, but stranger things have happened.

      • Oh totally more spaceballs, but not as funny.

      • pittrek

        Oh it’s airing already? Thanks, I completely forgot. I have to “check” it, I think McFarlane’s humour is very “hit and miss”, but this looks worth checking

      • Pedro Ferreira

        Sounds better than Discovery.

    • TUP

      Orville is terrible. Its really what most of us expected. Its a lame, 6th generation Family Guy rip off (ie. its an example of the diminishing returns of Seth’s comedy).

      The sets look cheap. The CGI is comparable to bad Enterprise (and I would give the CGI a pass because its TV but Discovery looks 100 times better). The costuming looks cheap except a few of the “creatures”, which have solid make up.

      Its really a 30 minute comedy that has been stretched far too thin over 60 minutes.

      I dont think its really a heartwarming valentine to TNG either. It definitely takes some homage from TNG in the sterile operating room look and music (the main theme is a TNG theme rip off) and the clean lines of the ship. But the familiarity of the environment is there to avoid having to actually tell the story.

      It really tells no story. It doesnt explain the future. And its not needed. The people who complained about “cool” in Discovery will have their heads explode watching Orville.

      Its very much a late 90’s dude bro comedy with some of the dialogue. Its meant to be 90’s style comedy transported to the 2400’s. There is nothing to say this is future humanity aside from the mere fact its the 2400’s.

      If you like Seth’s comedy, you’d probably be disappointed. I loved Family Guy and American Dad in their day. But the jokes on Orville would never have passed on those shows. But some of the style is similar.

      There were maybe 3 good jokes. And they arose from sort of organic reactions and sarcasm. The doctor talking about the Captain’s balls, the reaction to the “anti-banana gun” and the Krill giving relationship advice. Thats it.

      Orville isnt remotely Star Trek. Its not offensive. Which is good, because it could have been. i DO think it makes fun of Trek a but but to an offensive level. its relying on the audience knowing Trek to think some of the mundane things are funny (like the officer who is basically a Klingon).

      And as a comedy, its not very funny. Most reviews call it uneven and not sure what it wants to be. But I dont think thats accurate. I think it knows what it wants to be, it just isnt very good at it. Its not going to get more serious. Its simply not good enough to be a serious drama.

      It could get funnier and more goofy. But Im not sure Seth has it anymore. And the reviews indicate it gets worse, not better.

      Ill probably watch another episode if for no other reason than its a topic for Trek fans. But its really not good. Probably doesnt last the season.

      • Pedro Ferreira

        Why are you duplicating your posts?

        • TUP

          If you have a problem with my posts, report them. Stop trolling me. REPORTED.

          • Final warning to both of you. Use the ignorance function of you need to to stay out of each other’s way, there will not be another chance.

          • TUP

            I reported. Not sure why I got the warning…lol but noted. And thank you!

          • I have the dude on ignore. Trolls hate that function.

          • TUP

            I might have to. I hate to use ignore because I dont want to miss anything. lol

          • I agree. But this dude left me 8 trolling comments today. I was done. G2ou can always remove them later and act like you still can’t see them lol

          • M33

            I only wish the DSC folks would do the same to the trolls that pester them instead of giving them attention they so desperately crave.

          • I did block this guy, sooooo

          • TUP

            Yeah, good point.

        • Final warning to both of you. Use the ignorance function if you need to to stay out of each other’s way, there will not be another chance.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Okay I apologise.

  • I’d also like to add that this cast is impressing me with their interviews. Fun loving, smart, thoughtful, engaged. The more I’ve seen of them and everything else the more I’ve felt confident in the quality of the show. If it fails, it certainly won’t be due to lack of effort and ability. I don’t think it will fail. Star Trek on television has a way of finding its feet and excelling, not always at the starting line, but always by the finish line. Even Enterprise, which is the most often derided incarnation, eventually found its groove, though many had already stopped watching by that point.

    • pittrek

      Hopefully they’ll be a good team. BTW I loved Enterprise, it’s funny to read all the time how bad it was 🙂

      • M33

        It grows on you.

    • Pedro Ferreira

      No they’re not impressing, they’re saying the same thing again and again…

    • SpaceCadet

      I agree. It’s a very talented lot and they’re coming from a nicely varied degree of backgrounds. I would love it if Michelle Yeoh gets to show off her marital arts skills on the series and if the writers have Anthony Rapp show off his impressive singing and dancing abilities, perhaps as something his character does in his off-duty recreation hours.

  • I keep gleaning more details re-reading the article. There’s a “reaction cube” in the engineering section. Might this have something to do with the “new way to fly” comment from Lorca? Some type of experimental propulsion system or power source? Federation or non-Federation tech or perhaps an alien artifact? War tends to push both sides to progress their technology faster looking for an edge.

    • TUP

      Im a little worried about this new way to fly and reaction cube. lol I dont want some crazy new sci fi technobabble BS plot device. BUT…we dont know what it is, so I am intrigued. Hopefully its good.

      The idea of Lorca having a secret room is both potentially good and bad. It allows for some mystery. It also allows for Future Guy level crap. lets hope its the former.

      Its clear there are mysteries and spoilers they are trying to hold back. Even to the extent they did not make screeners available to reviewers. I think, if we avoid soilers, that premiere is going to be FUN and surprising.

      Hey maybe it DOES take place in an alternate future lol

  • pittrek

    For the first time I managed to read the “white genocide” and I thought it’s hilarious. I think that somebody should explain to the actors the concept of shitposting, that’s clearly not a post which should be taken seriously.

    • Pedro Ferreira

      I think by this point Discovery has lost all it’s dignity.

  • pittrek

    Also the bridge looks great, but absolutely inappropriate for the era in which this series should take place

    • TUP

      Its not the 60s anymore.

      • pittrek

        I know. So?

        • TUP

          You keep saying how it doesnt look like the cage era. Which was made in the 60’s. So I assumed you didnt know it was made in the 60’s.

          • I will never understand how they do not grasp this.

          • Karl

            That’s because you’re so obsessed with getting more TOS that it’s blinding you to what normal people see when looking at this garbage.

          • Funny that you sre calling others a troll. We were haing a discussion, not doing what you normally and just have done.

            You can’t even make a soild point. You have nothing to back your mindless dislike up with either.

          • Karl

            Are you intentionally obtuse, or is it part of your actual personality?

          • TUP

            Which part? The part where you interjected in a conversation not involving you for no reason other then to throw in a lame insult? or the part where it isnt the 60’s anymore?

            Like…you do know its not the 60’s right? Ask a trusted adult, they will explain it to you.

  • SpaceCadet

    I like the fact this series is using holographic visual communication. It’s much more dramatic when you have two actors playing off of each other in a room than over a view screen which is spliced together in editing. They did this to great effect on DS9 beginning in their fifth season but for some reason it only lasted a few episodes to my recollection, and it was also used in Star Trek: Nemesis.

  • Jamie Thomas

    Harberts quote
    “The only thing that’s felt limiting is the era and time that we are telling our story, because you’ve got ‘Enterprise’…”

    The show’s producers decided to set the series in a very limited window of the Trek universe, don’t be disrespectful and put some of that blame on ‘Enterprise’.
    I feel the same way about the JJ films, with the huge budget and so many corners of the Trek universe to explore, they unnecessarily remade The Original Series.

    Hollywood PLEASE stop with the reboots and remakes.

    • TUP

      Thats a really interesting quote. And its good to hear they consider the totality of the franchise to be canon and trying to fit within that. And of course, the acknowledgement that Enterprise really did suck even when it was “interesting” and retconning stuff, it was hamstringing future efforts.

    • pittrek

      Oh if only I could give you 100 likes for the last sentence….

    • Pedro Ferreira

      Hollywood currently has a weird fascination with prequels and reboots. Audiences like some users here seem to love that crap.

      • JoyceOMattera

        Google pays now $99 to each worker for working on computer.You can also avail this.
        on sunday I got a great new Ford Mustang from having made $9388 this – 5 weeks past . it’s certainly my favourite-job Ive ever done . I actually started 6 months ago and almost immediately started bringin in more than $99 per-hour . look at here
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleMarkProfitJobJoinCareer/find/jobs ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!su97..,….

        • Pedro Ferreira

          Oh cool, I get to report spam!

    • nmclean

      I disagree that it’s a limited window. In the beginning, Kirk’s Enterprise was just one of many exploratory ships. TOS followed their adventures while they made plenty of fascinating discoveries, but didn’t show much that would have necessarily had far-reaching impacts. We knew hardly anything about the upper dealings of Starfleet and the Federation. When TNG came around, the Enterprise wasn’t just another ship anymore, it was the flagship. Picard and Worf were personally involved with powerful Klingon houses. Then DS9 was on the front lines of war and politics that affected the whole Federation. TNG also established a lot of history spanning between TOS and TNG, whereas TOS didn’t talk much about what happened before.

      So really, pre-TOS does give a lot of freedom. And setting it closer to TOS instead of 100 years earlier like Enterprise helps too, because they can freely use standard Trek stuff instead of dancing around it like “oh no, we’re scared of the transporter because it’s brand new technology”.

      Though it’s interesting that they found Enterprise limiting, because there should still be plenty of room to work with the 90 or so undocumented years between Enterprise and TOS. The only thing that comes to mind is that, without ENT, the details of first contact between the Klingons and the Federation would still be mostly unknown (except that it occurred at some point in ENT’s time frame). That could have given Discovery more backstory freedom.

      • Karl

        Your assumption is based upon having some kind of like or desire for TOS nostalgia. It’s simply not the case, and many are now absolutely sick to the back teeth with it.
        Tarting it up with huge budgets doesn’t change that fact for most people.

        • nmclean

          “Your assumption is based upon having some kind of like or desire for TOS nostalgia.”

          …What on earth are you talking about? What assumption?

          My opinion above is based around these “assumptions”:

          – TOS did not expound on many of the details of Federation politics, Starfleet operations, or recent history.
          – By contrast, later series did fill in post-TOS history as well as their own settings much more.

          These are the facts of what came out of the scripts for these series. The point is that the TOS time period does not limit storytelling as much as some of these people think it does, and is actually much better than some alternatives (TNG era) in that respect.

          I have no idea where you got the idea that my point was based on “like or nostalgia”. For all you know, I could hate ENT and TOS and make the same point. As a matter of fact, I think you’ll find my nostalgia for TNG is stronger, like most people. If Discovery’s creators were trying to capitalize on nostalgia, TNG would be the way to go. People who have true nostalgia for TOS are people at least over 50, which is a minority of the population.

          Seems like you’re the one making assumptions, namely that TOS and Enterprise were “canceled” as a direct result of being set in the wrong fictional time period, which is utterly laughable.

          In truth, it is really only “a particular kind of Star Trek fan” who rails against a series based solely on its time period in the first place.

          • Karl is trolling. He has no point and makes cliams he can not back. He just shows up to bash

  • Newdivide1701

    To quote someone whom by chance had pointed ears, and an unerring capacity for getting his shipmates into trouble — fascinating.

  • NikolaiG

    The “anti-diversity” issue is being used as a diversion by Discovery, to deflect attention away from the much more overwhelming, and quite legitimate, deluge of complaints that this show looks completely and utterly wrong. It takes place only 10 years before Kirk’s command of the USS Enterprise, but it DOES NOT take place before the USS Enterprise. At this time, Pike (or possibly still April) commanded the USS Enterprise NCC-1701 and SPOCK was its first officer. Yet, the appearance of everything (but the phaser) in Discovery is a complete mismatch with everything from TOS and from the USS Enterprise in operation at the same time as Discovery. The powers that be (Moonves) made the boneheaded decision to model the look of Discovery after the recent movies in the Kelvin timeline, a totally different universe than the prime universe, which is a complete conflict in terms of look and feel. Why anyone would want to violate visual canon of such a beloved franchise, and make it look like the most recent movie which BOMBED, is beyond comprehension and – ironically – is most illogical.

    • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

      Spot on, well said

    • TUP

      Its going to be funny to still have people whine about the visuals not looking like the 1960’s during season 6 and beyond. Like yeah, if you dont get it by now, please, the rest of us DO.

    • Pedro Ferreira

      I get that impression a lot. They’re using the anti-diversity as an excuse to hide the real criticism the show is getting.

    • Its not 1966 any more. Its not gonna look old and cheap.

      Also beyound did not do fantastic numbers, but it out sold many past trek movies, its in 8th place out of 12 movies. So not the worse by a long shot.

      Edit: number 1 of the 12 is star trek 2009, by the way.

      • TUP

        In that regard, fans wanting TOS might like Orville more. Because even though they clearly looked at TNG as an aesthetic, their cheap sets are more in line with TOS.

        • The bridge from the rear shots came off super cheap.

          • TUP

            Yup, exactly. Im okay with the sterile look but not nearly enough depth or detail. I liked the wide window and overhead window too. But then the viewer was a small square? Im not sure if that was meant to be a joke. or if they had to do that just to serve the later joke where Seth tells the Krill to move over because him standing off-centre was bothering him.

          • True, there are great parts here. I just do not think they are well handled.

      • Abaddon1125

        Nobody said it had to look old or cheap. You can have a retro future aesthetic with modern effects, but they decided to go with the style of the JJ movies, even though they claim it’s set in the Prime timeline.

        • If it looks like TOS thst is old and cheap. They also did not use the Kelvin style at all. The uniforms, ships, klingons, or props are not in the kelvin style.

          They have nothing in common, other than modern filming style.

          • Tuskin38

            And windows for view screens.

          • Kinda been thought to be a thing for decades. The models have that area, most fans assumed was a window.

          • Tuskin38

            The only Prime Timeline ship before Discovery and Star Trek 09/Beyond to appear to have a viewscreen window on the exterior was the Pilot episode TOS Enterprise.

            No other ships have that on the exterior.

          • And that was a 2240 design. The walker is older and the Discovery class might be. As they have windows everywhere else, this is not an issue at all.

          • Tuskin38

            Well we know the Discovery is newer then the Shenzhou, but by how much is not known.

            But the TOS Constitution is also at least from the 2240s, because of Captain April.

          • Very true. My point was in this era ships had windows, this is the cage era. As you pointed out constitution ships of this era had them.

          • Tuskin38

            The Constitution didn’t.

          • You said the pilot had one.

          • Tuskin38

            I said ‘appears to be’, there was no clear evidence. There was just a white square on the front of the bridge. It wasn’t used as a window.

          • No biggy either way. We see only two classes of ship in TOS. So saying the view screen is a deal breaker or a can killer is not true, unless we had seen every known class of the era on screen

          • Nowhereman10

            Not exactly…. there was the scene in “Requiem for Methuselah” where the Enterprise is shrunk down and Kirk looks in at everyone on the bridge through the viewscreen:



    • Walter Kovacs

      don’t worry about any of that. STAR TREK is a multiverse. DISCOVERY can be set in any one of billions of parallel universes.

      • M33

        At this point, unless the series does some serious honoring of the era it is set in, DSC is just a close kin to Prime Trek universe.

        AlternaTrek 2.0!

        • Walter Kovacs

          it doesn’t really matter to me if it honors the Prime Universe or not. i care about the stories and the socially relevant issues it talks about.

          • Karl

            You’re in a very, very thin slither of people holding the same opinion. You’re going to need millions of other people to be of your way of thinking to support the show. Respectfully, you’re an idiot.

          • Walter Kovacs

            whatever you say, CORAL 😀

  • TUP

    Good news. Now that Orville has aired and we’ve all seen it, CBS has nothing to worry about. Orville is BAD.

    • Your Worst Nightmare

      I don’t know if I’d say it’s bad. I think it’s okay at best.

      I think it has some potential, but the gags for the most part were just not funny and some of the modern dialogue injected into a futuristic setting was a little much for me personally. I did like the solution to the problem at the end and the conversation after. That was kinda clever. But that was the only laugh the episode got from me.

      • TUP

        I think its really really bad. Where are the people complaining about Discovery using “Cool”? lol

        But yeah, its really a late 90’s dude bro comedy style dialogue transported to the 2400’s. And thats fine…its a comedy. The humor is meant to come from putting “us” in an unusual setting. Like taking “us” and putting us in the old west.

        But the humor just wasnt funny out of maybe three lines. So make it 30 minutes.

        There is nothing to look at either. Seeing futuristic New York, briefly, ok. But those background shots and whatever, not rich enough or interesting enough. The sets were really stark and sterile.

        Has it been said anywhere what the budget is? Cause it sure isnt the same as Discovery just based off the sets and CGI we’ve seen.

        • Your Worst Nightmare

          All absolutely fair criticisms.

          I think my biggest problem (other than the viewscreen shot with the scientist and the dog licking himself in the background… what?!?) was that it was a workplace comedy a la The Office, Parks & Recreation and Brooklyn Nine-Nine. I adore The Office and Parks & Rec. And Brooklyn Nine-Nine, while starting to wear on me, is okay. But I just don’t know that we NEED a workplace comedy set aboard a spaceship in the 25th century. Or at the very least, we need one without Seth McFarlane at the helm.

          Having said that, I will give them ONE more episode.

          • TUP

            Thats a good way to describe it.

    • Pedro Ferreira

      I haven’t seen it and so far it looks better than Discovery. At least I can see what’s going on.

      • TUP

        You havent seen it but it looks better than Discovery? hahahahahahahahaha

        Please dont troll me. You’ve been warned already. Lets not go down this road, pal.

        • I have stopped responding to him. All he does is troll. I pity anyone who has watched the Orville and thinks that is good CGI

          • TUP

            Yup. The mods here were clearly annoyed last week and asked us to stop responding to each other. I assume we can reply reasonably. But his replies are all attempts to argue irrationally.

            Like…”I havent seen it and its way better than Discovery”. really? lol

            My feeling is basically the same as STID in that, if YOU like it, great. But with STID, the responses were always people trying to convince ME that I was wrong for a variety of reasons. To me, STID was enjoyable if you didnt think about it.

            Orville isnt even there because its supposed to be a comedy but isnt very funny. Its too long. If it was 30 minutes, I might like it a lot more. I found it boring and it was hard to stay focused.

            Ill give it another episode though.

            But really, its not comparable to Star Trek. Its not the same genre. So Im not even sure why its getting such comparisons (well I DO know why but its really not reasonable).

          • To me he is trolling as well. I stopped over a color match comment. He made a cliam, I provided an image backing mine up, photoshopped color matched. He cliamed it was not a match and no need to do a color check.

            Just mindless baiting.

            I agree on the orville. I wanted this to be good, but its bad pacing, cheap looking sets, low jokes, and sub par CGI.

          • TUP

            There is a real opportunity for something like The Orville. or there WAS. I dont think anyone will try again after this. Seth was just the wrong guy. Im surprised he has so much stroke now…FOX must see he’s a one trick pony and as awesome as that trick might have been, the pony is ready to be sent to the glue factory.

            But a Star Trek parody has merit. Good natured humor. An attempt to sort of poke fun at the over-seriousness of Trek. But this isnt it. Unfortunately.

            I figured the humor would suck but I was looking forward to fond memories of TNG and I didnt get that either.

            Im also very disappointed in Jon Favreau who directed this mess. Because there are good actors involved (The Admiral) who also came across as flat.

            I DID like the security officer a lot. Maybe being a man, I found her youthful enthusiasm attractive (she’s an attractive actress) but the character might have the most promise. If you took that character and dropped her into real Star Trek, I’d be intrigued.

          • The “worf” characters deadpan worked for me as well.

          • TUP

            Yes, I also liked him. The one thing it made me think of though was, how many people “get” that character? Dont you sort of have to be a TNG fan to understand the parody or homage?

          • You really do. Otherwise he is just too woodern.

    • October_1985

      Yep, awful. Tonally uneven (some of the actor think they are in a comedy, some think they are in a drama, the writers don’t know where they are). Same thing with the look of the show. Some things look like they could be on a perfectly serious sci-fi show (ie, the bad guys, that all looked like an albino Krall an where pretty well executed), and other look like a joke on old sci-fi (Orville’s terrible design and interiors, and that terrible robot that looks out of 60’s Doctor Who.
      Also, I know this is a vanity proyect for him, but somebody should tell MacFarlane that he is not likeable lead. Nope. Seriously, is a pretty bad actor who only plays himself over and over, and frankly seeing him pairing himself with gorgeous women like Palicki (or Theron in that awful far west movie), is pretty ridiculous.
      Shame about Palicki, she is a fine actress and pretty easy on the eyes, I would love to see her in Star Trek for real and not this awful knockoff.

      • Karl

        Of course the TOS fanboys will reject it. They’re idiots who can’t understand why STD is being universally rejected.

        • October_1985

          Whatever, man

  • bearbutt

    The writing is everything. The writing on The Orville was not smart. NBC’s complaint of Trek in 1966 “too cerebral” should be a goal.

    All of the continuity concerns could have been eliminated by placing this in the post-Voyager time period.

    • TUP

      Not really. You’d still have continuity concerns. The Klingons looking different post Voyager isnt suddenly canon-accurate. Sure, you could say there must have been some event that happened that we never saw that made the change.

      But making those sorts of excuses post Voy is the same as making them any time.

      As for the Orville, the writing was not meant to be smart. Its like watching Family Guy and lamenting its not The Sopranos. Its not the same genre. Its not the same target audience. Its not even trying to be that kind of show.

      • bearbutt

        If you’ve read/seen interviews with Seth, you’d see that he really wanted to make a better Trek in the vein of Cosmos/TNG. Even brought Brannon Braga along.

        • Then he failed and failed hard

        • TUP

          I cannot believe at all that Seth believed that. He said it. And he wants Trek fans to believe it (he’s marketing his show to the broadest possible audience and I wont fault him for that) but Orville is not, at all TNG. Its not sci fi. Its not dramatic. Its not serious.

          Its a 30 minute sitcom in the vein of The Office, stretched far too thin at 60 minutes without any of the heart, warmth, humor or chemistry of The Office.

          • Armand Laroche

            It’s funny you mention that because I just read a review from a writer that said it wasn’t funny and it was too serious. I actually enjoyed it I can see the Trek Cues, and what they’re trying to go for. I’m willing to give it a shot.

          • TUP

            Not funny I can agree with. Too serious??? lol

            I suppose one perspective to take would be to cut the half-assed attempt at being “Star Trek” and just go full Family Guy. In that regard, yes I suppose it could be less serious.

  • Pedro Ferreira

    “In addition, several of the cast speak in yet another new interview video focusing on some of the more negative ‘anti-diversity’ feedback some people have expressed towards the show.” I mean seriously that’s all you got?! What about the actual plot to this show? Who cares if this show has diversity, every Star Trek show has had diversity. I mean stuff like this really is getting on my nerves. Who are these people causing a backlash. I’d love to meet them because I see very few complaints about the show having to do with a black female in the role.

    Come on guys, we get the show is diverse. Give us some better effects, better set design, an actual plot synopsis!!! Don’t just keep peddling you’re diversity cards while Wilson Cruz complains his character name is ‘too white’.

  • Quonk

    “trying to kind of make sure that that’s taken into consideration” – that’s a very roundabout way of saying “Screw Enterprise! – Wish that series had never been made in the first place.”

    …instead of saying “doing another pre-TOS series might not have been the best idea”

    • Pretty sure they are talking anout the klingon forhead retcon. That really messed up the background over a joke.

      • TUP

        I find it really interesting that they are saying they want to respect Enterprise canon as well. They SHOULD but its nice to hear it. Its even nice, in a certain way, to hear them express frustration, because it means they are really looking at it and thinking about it.

        If they said they had zero issues with canon, then I’d be concerned. Trek is 50 years old so there is basically an opportunity to screw up canon every minute of every episode. Its important to try not to.

        And even as a canon junkie, I know they will have to take some liberties. But the fact they are annoyed at Enterprise taking liberties, it stands to reason Discovery intends NOT to just make changes for the sake of changes.

        I still dont think the augment virus factors in, but clearly they have examined Enterprise…so that does raise the potential that they had a specific reason to examine Enterprise.

        • I like that as well. It means they are thinking about canon and treks legacy.

    • Armand Laroche

      Think we will ever get something Post Undiscovered Country?

      • TUP

        I actually had hoped the era they went with would be the Enterprise B.

      • Karl

        Hope not. General audience is sick of TOS garbage

  • David Lund

    Can’t wait! Every new bit of info just makes it sound better and better. Really looking forward to seeing the show. First trek on TV in 12 years, and I can’t wait to get hooked by the stories, characters, ships, graphics, everything! Add in new books, comics, toys…it’s like a return to peak-trek 20 years ago. No troll or hater is going to dent my excitement one little bit. Looking forward to pouring over all the little details once it’s aired. Thanks for all the coverage so far Trek Core!

  • Tuskin38

    I hope we get some nice close ups of that map in the show.

    According to the article over on TV Guide there are eastern eggs on it for those who have watched the other series.

    I can already seen one reference, there are triangles along the border, in TOS and I believe TNG, triangles were used to represent outposts

  • Fiery Little One


  • October_1985

    If I forget that the show happens almost in the same timeframe than TOS, it looks great. I really think they painted themselves into a corner by making it so close to TOS, there are some things that are going to clash strongly with canon. Also, using Sarek is the kind of thing that I’ve criticised about the Star Wars prequels. Too much coincidences like that only make the universe smaller. Why Sarek? They could have used any other vulcan. Also, if they are going to use Sarek, why no use Ben Cross? It was a pretty good Sarek, and looked the part way more than James Frain.

    I’m gonna watch the hell out of Discovery, but I already know that there are some things that are going to bother me, and its a bummer to go into the series this way.

    • I do not see them having any issue with canon. I do agree with the “why sarek” thing.

      • October_1985

        Maybe they can avoid them, some people would say that the whole Spock “step-sister” thing, the look, uniforms, ships, etc, are already clashing with canon, but I don’t think that is the case. They are tiptoing around it. What I say is by making it so close to TOS, the chances of having any issue with canon are greater. Maybe I’m nitpicking, but one thing that bothers me its the use of holograms for communicating. I dunno, thats Star Wars! Star Trek is all about people talking to each other in screens!! XD

        • 1: Looks are not canon, events are canon. They can change the looks with zero impact on canon.

          2: Spock did not even mention his mother and father were coming on board the ship until they were there. Nor who they where. He also did not mention they guy they were hunting was his brother until ordered to shoot.

          3: Nothing we have seen really looks like it will effect canon. From what we have seen, they have picked a canon event and are simply explaining it.

          • Armand Laroche

            Well sir the holographic communications was invented by Miles O’Brien during the DS9 era… there’s your canon for the day that is in clash… important perhaps not, nit picky probably. this is one of those issues of lets forget it for the purpose of story telling.

            I do have a question based upon the cast interview, does anyone really care that this focuses on a promising first officer who happens to be a woman of color, and not the other way around I feel if the intent is the other way around then that’s just bad story telling, because the last time I looked race/gender/sexuality really have no impact on the ability to perform a job. …. I mean seriously, we’ve had a wonderful actor Avery Brooks play Benjamin Sisko an African American Captain and probably my favorite in all of Trek. If there’s anyone out there that is concerned over this series for that kind of reason please get a life and do something with yourself.. go out help someone because if you’re thinking about that for a TV show you obviously have too much time on your hands. … I know this coming from a guy who thinks the bridge is too large and hope they use a standard phaser instead of a blaster. transparent screens looks cool but not a TOS era kind of asthetic IMO, so at least i’m worrying about the right kind of stuff.

            You know to heck with it all, just make it some damn good story telling please… At the end of the day if it doesn’t feel like trek I may wish you slapped a different name on it, but whatever at this point.

          • 1: As Holodecks were around at this time, holograms would have been as well. Just because you never saw them, does not mean they were not around.

            2: People in this political climate do indeed care two non-white women seemed to have been the focus. People where up in arms that not enough of the cast was white or male and started screaming about SJW and forced “ethnic” casting. At lest one poster told me it was a pure out white genocide they they were trying to erase the white race from star trek.

            3: Yeah if the story sucks, looks will not matter one way or the other. I feel many trek fans can get over a lot if the story is good.

          • TUP

            It makes me feel really sad that so many people are having the “diversity” issue go over their head. I choose to believe that some people just dont get it because the aletrnative is *really* sad (especially in todays political climate).

            People also have to understand that there was a decision to be made about visuals and technology. They could respect the vision of a 60’s TV show or try to be more realistic. Not even Gene’s Star Trek truly respected the 60’s because the second he had more money, bigger budget and bigger screen, he had everything advance beyond “ten years”. So if its okay for Gene, why is it not okay for people today?

            The genie is out of the bottle. Franklin, Enterprise NX, Kelvin. They are all canon Prime ships showing us a look and technology that is canon. Discovery seems, from what we’ve seen, to fit in that. To ignore all that just to respect the “look” and limited budget of the 60’s would be ridiculously silly. Not to mention ignoring tech that exists TODAY because they didnt foresee it in the 60’s.

            if Discovery is really good, tells good stories etc…basically, if Discovery is great and the only thing people have to complain about is it doesnt look like TOS, then really, that’s a commentary on the state of a few Trek fans.

          • Totally agree. Also TMP was at most 4 years,after TOS.

          • TUP

            Oh I thought they went on another “5 year mission”. I guess thats still not ten years. Yikes. Yeah, so either the Enterprise was VERY old on their first 5 year mission and was never upgraded. Or we accept that TMP had a bigger budget, and real world tech had advanced significantly to where they could make the Star Trek Universe look the way Gene intended it to.

          • The Enterprise was 20 years old in TOS. Built in 2244. The fact is, the ship in TMP is not the same ship on TOS. You do not rebuild every single part of a ship as a refit.

            The navy msy do sometging like this as a one off build, for a tiny number of specilzed ships, but not a whole class. And sure as heck not if your only getting another decade or two max put of the ship.

          • TUP

            I agree. But we accepted that reasoning to explain why they changed everything in what amounted to a visual reboot.

            And we can do the same today. Well, most of us.

          • The ones who do not accept ot cliam up and down TMO was not a visual reboot 🙄

          • Looked it up. TOS five year ended in 2270. TMP was in 2273. The 2nd five year was after the events of TMP.

            And ince more retiring the ship in 2279 makes no sense after such a major rebuild just 6 years before hand

          • TUP

            There was a lot of weirdness with the TOS films. They made creative decisions for ease of story telling. And people werent as strict about logic.

            For example, it made sense in TMP that Kirk was promoted and the rest of the crew stayed together on the Enterprise. In fact, you had Kirk promoted, Spock quitting and Bones in private practice. So that all made sense. The idea the three leads would go off and do other things if they werent all together makes sense, emotionally.

            But in WoK, the Enterprise as a training vessel made little sense. Practically a brand new ship. The idea Spock was a training officer was fine. It sort of fit. Kirk is still an Admiral. but the rest of this legendary crew is playing bit actor in training simulations? Weird. Well except for Chekov who actually seems to care about his career…for a short time.

            But it was a lazy way of keeping the crew together on the Enterprise.

            In TSFS, the line about the ship being only 20 years old and ready for retirement was simply wrong. And not needed. Okay, the crew gets re-assigned. That makes sense.

            And in TUC, the fact they’d all retire together…hmmmm I guess if they were all best pals, sure maybe symbolically they would do so. Except Sulu. So thats odd.

            But we suspend our logic to enjoy the films.

          • Yeah those films caused all kinds of issues as people try to create head canon to make sense of them.

          • Morgan Smith

            Just wanted to point out that O’Brien didn’t invent the holographic display in DS9, he was just installing it. There is no reason that Starfleet couldn’t have been experimenting with holodisplays in the 2250s, but didn’t continue their use for some reason. They also dropped them again after only a short use in the 2370s.

          • TUP

            They’ve also said that there will be a reason why we never heard about Burnham or Discovery. So, we shall see.

            People are complaining about things that havent happened yet.

    • TUP

      Its only a coincidence if everyone starts showing up. Its not a coincidence to pick a character and choose to show their life. In that regard, choosing Burnham/Sarek is not a coincidence. THAT’S the story. Now, if everyone shows up…yes, I agree, it becomes a bit too much.

  • Walter Kovacs

    as “cool” as those transparent displays are… can someone explain to me why anyone would want to work on a transparent display? when you’re supposed to focus on the information on the screen, the last thing you want is to see other displays behind it, people walking by, and so on. this really seems like a design choice that makes no practical sense whatsoever.

    • M33

      I was thinking about that when watching Orville.
      For the pornographically-inclined they would be terrible!

      Wait… maybe THAT’S why they have them at WORK!

      • Walter Kovacs

        haha, well, that’s one working theory 😀

    • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

      looks kewl

    • Karl

      Transparent OLED displays are mainly used for digital marketing and signage.

  • Robbins

    they are using diversty crtism to shut down legitmate critism.

    they can claim all they want this is prime show but so far nothing about show adds up to that.this looks like kelvin show.if you want to do star trek show show it some respect.

    it like film abrams showed no respect there but with star wars stayed close to designs of original trilogy.

    them moaning about enterprise lol having recently watched entire series since i bought it on dvd let me say enterprise wasn’t as advanced as some like to think it was to defend discovery.

    enterprise finally addressed the klingon issue and now it it being thrown out window for klingons who look closer to into darkness versions than any from prime universe.

    spock suddenly having a foster sister is as bad a retcon as when spock had half brother in star trek v.and vulcan suddenly had royalty and sarek was married before amanda.

    worse thing is cbs thinks trekkers are so stupid they can’t catch on and after kelvin films tried to turn trek into star wars will pay for discovery.

    and there being a federation-Klingon war prior to errand of mercy is massive retcon.

    • TUP

      Who is using diversity criticism?

      Also none of what you said are retcons.

    • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

      Spot on, very well said

      • Robbins

        thanks.they forget trekkers are more obsessed and smart than fans of other franchises and can see though things.

        trekkers don’t even love everything prime trek.some don’t like enterprise.others don’t like voyager.even Ds9 has detractors.many critized star trek v.others call first contact only good ng film.

        at time many trekkers kind of liked trek 2009 but into darkness clearly turned off many trekkers.beyond’s perforamce when it was only kelven film that is close in spirit to original trek did poorly was ga lost intrest will real star wars and many trekkers don’t care anymore about kelen films.

        another maor canon gaffe for discovery is captain’s ready room is a ng invention not original series thing.kelvin films also made mistake if you want to pretend kelven universe was same as prime universe before neo arrived,i can point out many things in all three films which conterdict that notion,and had away team which was never a term till ng as well as regulation of captian staying on ship which again was something not in exsistance till ng

        after DS9 and voyager a non white and female lead isn’t even new.ds9 and enterprise did the serialazation first.

        voyager was always my least favorate trek show but it is made to look even better by discovery

        trek has had plenty of retcons in past apart from klingons the borg in first contact and Voyager is prime case but those are othing like what discovery is trying to pull.some critzed the kelvin bridge of looking like itunes store and discovery is headed same way.

    • 1: Nothing except the modern filming style looks like Kelvin at all. The design is not the same in any way.

      2: They call it prime , because it is prime. Just like TMP , which was just a big a visual change, was prime.

      3: ENT was about 60 or more years more advanced then the 1960’s TOS and it shows. DSC looks 100 years more advanced then ENT

      4: Klingons do not look like the STID version. They do not even look very close to them. You guys just know the same guy designed them.

      5: Spock suddenly had a mother and father, famous ones. Then suddenly had a brother, its a long running trope.

      6: No, a Klingon /federation conflict has been hinted at in the TV shows at lest 3 times. TNG put it about 100 years or so before TNG.

  • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

    Discovery…Trek for people that thought Beyond was too slow and boring lulz

    • Morgan Smith

      So how are the episodes? Good? Since you have seen them and all…

      • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

        Ha considering how much you already like the show, I do hope the episodes are good.

  • Martin Spence

    I am going to watch this series and regardless of what anyone else says. To me, Star Trek is still Star Trek. Will Captain Lorca and his merry band of men and women measure up?, we’ll find out.

    I want them to. I want this series… because frankly. the wait has been over ten years and we’ve waited long enough. We asked for Trek to come back to the small screen, where is has ALWAYS BEEN BEST!.

    I got what I wanted… Did you?. Any of you…?. What say you!”

    • Karl

      You’ll gobble up anything with a star trek label.

  • Franmon

    I’ve been around for Treks entire life. There is one absolute truth that repeats itself it’s that when a new movie or series is announced, everybody’s certain it will be the end. Every new character will be wrong. The look will be wrong. The scripts will be abominations that destroy all we know and love.
    All of this hand-wringing is usually created when a 2 minute trailer is released and nitpicking interviews to “read between the lines”.
    Then the horrid thing gets released and surprise! It’s not as bad as the panic indicated.
    Well OK, the first movie was the reverse of that. It’s the anomaly.
    I learned after my own bout with “they’re playing with my toy!” before TNG premiered to wait until the new toy was released before blowing any blood vessels.
    I also found it takes less time and bother to watch the new entries before eating my own face off with disgust. So far I’ve only lost my upper lip (movie#5), left cheek(Generations) and some small bits from the few horrible episodes in each series.
    The new films though, damn, they are great! The timeline thing keeps the old stuff in place while fixing some of it. The change to Vulcans was awesome.
    I mean how many ways can you make a Vulcan go into heat so a romance can be written( or get Jolene naked).

    • Karl

      It was never behind a paywall before. Enterprise was cancelled. Beyond flopped costing paramount $50 and ending the reboot trillogy.
      What more evidence do you need that TOS is so inherently uninteresting and tired to the vast majority of viewers?

      • Yeah know, beyound made almost double what it cost. Not a blockbuster, but not a fail. It is in 8th of 12 places in star trek movies. The 09 reboot sets in 1st