Star Trek: Discovery (Part 4)

Previous thread.

I *AM* big. It's the Enterprise that got small.

Romijn is probably so thankful for the bit role in Discovery. As I mentioned in the other thread, having Star Trek on her resume increases her ability to book conventions/fan expos. I suspect those events will be a major source of income for her as career continues to decline.

Okay, you've all convinced me; I'm coming around on Romijn being this huge star. But do you honestly believe she'd be shameless enough to benefit from cons for the rest of her life, after having only been in two (three?) episodes? I mean, I've seen extras from TNG do that, sure, but it seems like something that would be beneath a bigger name like Romijn.

I don't mind her appearing at cons because she's a part of the family now, but benefiting financially from them seems icky to me somehow.

But can we stop this Black-assed Baby Girl crap?

Every time I hear Baby Girl I cringe.

Hundreds of years in the future, I picture Dr. Burnham saying My Daughter.

[quote]I don't mind her appearing at cons because she's a part of the family now, but benefiting financially from them seems icky to me somehow.

Why? Have you ever been to a con, or seen clips on YouTube? Trekkies are an incredibly welcoming bunch, and the best con guests (Marina Sirtis is my absolute favorite) seem to really love doing it as well. Romjin gives off kind of a cool (not as in cold) vibe to me, and I could see her enjoying herself.

Or, another way, she appeared in two seasons of a 15-minute Adult Swim parody show called NTSF:SD:SUV (with Kate Mulgrew, actually). She didn't consider herself above that.

[quote]Why?

I explained why above - because she's only in two (maybe three) episodes of Trek in total. She just ordered a fucking hamberder with hot sauce and briefed Pike so far, that's it! I'm very much open to changing my mind, depending on what she does in these last two episodes.

[quote]Or, another way, she appeared in two seasons of a 15-minute Adult Swim parody show called NTSF:SD:SUV (with Kate Mulgrew, actually). She didn't consider herself above that.

I love that show! Makes me laugh just thinking about Mulgrew with that eyepatch. But those niche comedy shows are a separate thing. People don't consider celebs losing cred when they do those; quite the opposite, in fact.

R4 In terms of earnings potential, it’s not just Star Trek conventions that Romijn can book. There are a lot of general fan conventions happening all over the world (example MegaCon) where celebrities make appearances and take pictures with fans. Even “relevant” actors do them from time to time. Star Trek adds to Romijn’s appeal when it comes to these cons, even if she only appears in two episodes.

OK DL'ers ...

Honest opinion (as much as be gotten on the site).

I subscribe to multiple streaming servies. Is CBS worth it? I'm a giant Star Trek nerd. The Twilight Zone series looks good. The Good Fight also looks good.

I'm just hesitant to add CBS to ....

Netflix Hulu Amazon Prime

$200 cable bill (which includes HBO, Showtime, and Cinemax).

I'll probably be "forced" to subscribe to Disney+ as well as DC Universe in the near future.

Is it worth it?

[quote]I subscribe to multiple streaming servies. Is CBS worth it? I'm a giant Star Trek nerd. The Twilight Zone series looks good. The Good Fight also looks good.

I would honestly say that it depends. Disco by itself is worth it to me. Disco plus all of the programing that's coming down the pike, worth it.

But I can also see how one show wouldn't be for a lot of people.

If you have good antivirus coverage and a strong firewall and know how to deal with screamware, then

Everything you want to watch that is episodic is there to be watched.

I wish this Star Trek wasn't successful. I care far more for the new ST show with the return of Patrick 'Captain Picard' Stewart than this Discovery shit, mainly because we're FINALLY getting back to the Next Gen/DS9/Voyager timeline/continuity rather than this "prequel" crap without an explanation of why Starfleet had this Apple technology crap before Kirk and his crew.

I'm kinda with r12. The show's production value is excellent, and yet it doesn't feel like a Star Trek show I need to have. - so far. I get it that I am not the target audience anymore, being way over forty. And a modern show shouldn't be "your dad's Star Trek". I also understand that Star Trek shows shouldn't just be continuations pf older shows.

But this show is missing the mark in one very important aspect, imho. The former approach to take on contemporary issues, in lots of different playful ways, does just not happen in this show. And unrelated to this: It's too ADD to seriously handle any topic. Its reliance on plot over story will also hurt the show long term. It won't be doing too well in reruns if the big reveal at the end of the season explains everything. Not sure if this matters for shows on streaming services. I would think though that shows still need to stay attractive for viewers even after the first couple months of publication. For a first time run it's enjoyable, but not more. I'll just apply my long term Star Trek experience and assume that the show really hits its stride in season 3 or 4.

[quote]I wish this Star Trek wasn't successful.

I honestly don't understand how anyone beyond the age of twelve can type out a sentence like that. If you don't enjoy the show, simply tune out. Why must only those things that align with your particular tastes be allowed to thrive? How much more solipsistic can one get? By the way, wishing for the first Trek show featuring a gay couple to bomb is not a good look on anyone, but especially not on someone posting on a homosexual message board.

Also, this is the second most streamed foreign show in Germany (behind the Big Bang Theory) and the most streamed foreign show in Spain. It's doing marvelously and (I assume) picking up new [italic]and younger[/italic] fans all the time. Having said that, I do hope the third season calms down a bit and we get some classic exploring for a change. In these two seasons, we got the Klingons, Mirror Universe, time travel, Section 31/AI. That was all fun and different and now I could do with just one season of them discovering shit on a weekly basis.

Oh, and if anyone is expecting the Picard show to not have "the Apple aesthetic" and default back to the TNG hotel lobby / Cadillac interior of the '90s... you better get a new pair of panties ready right now because honey, come the first episode, they gonna be twistin' like nobody's business.

Since Picard’s show will be set in the far future from Discovery, and a post TNG/DS9/Voy timeline, I think the “Apple” aesthetic will make far more sense. You play yourself there r14.

You know what, you don't like the show, you don't like the show.

That episode was fantastic.

And I can already hear the Tilly/Po fanfic being written.

This has been discussed before, but the Mary Sue is simply out of control on this show. Must Burnham be and do EVERYTHING? I mean, Spock's job is apparently to stand there. They even gave her the "Fascinating." line. ARGH!

Also, the use of Sarek and Amanda purely to show up and cry was criminal writiing malpractice. Make it stop.

r15 It's supposed to be roughly the same aesthetic as the TNG era, so the Apple aesthetic makes about as much sense as in the DISCO era. Of course, I never much cared for in-universe explanations as Trek shows are scripted shows that are constantly changing in all aspects to reflect the times they're being produced in. Your old ass might be nostalgic for those cardboard TOS sets (which I love!), but this is 2019 and people expect a different look now.

Here's a nice demonstration of how the Enterprise bridge has changed from the original show, to the movies, to yesterday's episode.

My gripe with the DISCO look is that all of the spaces seem WAY too large. The bridge is huge, it should be a more intimate space. The hallways are too wide, the crew cabins are vast and empty, everything is just scaled up too much. Nothing looks solid or 'lived-in.'

That WTF WITH ALL THE LENS FLARE?!

I disagree; I love how cavernous and monumental that bridge looks. When Pike took leave of it yesterday, he looked like Zeus departing Mount Olympus in all his glory. And may I say again what a ridiculously flattering edit he got. This is a character who required no rehabilitation whatsoever, but was treated with dignity and respect by the writers all the way through, and came out as one of the best captains in all of Trek for some fans.

The lens flare is a matter of personal preference. I can't get it enough, personally, as it gives the proceedings an added fantastical quality. I do notice those who don't like it tend to [italic]really[/italic] dislike it.

I would agree with the personal quarters not looking lived-in, but I can't recall those looking lived-in in any Trek show before. They always tend to look like a tastefully arranged furniture store display. I guess having military standards factors into that as well.

*I can't get enough of it

Anyone else glad Stamets and Culber didn't get back together in some romantic cliché of a moment? I mean, it could still happen next episode, but I hope it doesn't. Relationships sometimes don't work out in real life and that's fine to show on TV as well.

Picard's show starts filming next week under the fake title "Crosby Street".

I know DL is divided on pitbulls but just look at his darling doggo and her bed full of toys!

The redesigned Enterprise bridge was beautiful. It puts the Discovery bridge to shame. That should have been the aesthetic for the entire show: it references the past but also feels fresh.

It looked too cluttered to me to the point that my eyes didn't know where to look. I prefer the spartan monochromatic design of Voyager and Discovery myself.

r17 So I wasn't the only one who got that vibe from those couple of pregnant pauses. I doubt they'll go there, though. Also, the queen isn't going with them to the future, is she?

so predictions for the finale bitches?

So if they're sticking with the original timeline then we know Spock will not be going with Discovery and Michael (indeed, next week's trailer seems to suggest that). I think Reno will sacrifice herself somehow in order to prevent everyone's deaths given that she had the same visions Michael had. There is a shot of the Discovery exploding in the trailer which could suggest that only Michael makes it to the future, but the short Trek episode Calypso shows that discovery is abandoned for a 1000 years which then suggests the ship survives.

r27 Agree with all that. The vision Reno and Michael had is the real unknown here that will fuck everything up. Reno is definitely not going to make it out alive, which will piss off many fans.

Calypso needs to make sense. But where will the others go in the meantime? And where will Michael go? The goodbyes they had her do in the last episode had a real sense of finality to them so might SMG be out of this show for good? The showrunners also keep saying canonical inconsistencies will be resolved by the end of this season - will Discovery be shifted into a parallel timeline or erased from time altogether?

I just hope we get another Hell yeah! moment at the very end, like last season.

WTF's SMG?

Sonequa Martin-Green.

Thank you!

R28 L'Rell said that anyone who takes a time crystal does so at great personal sacrifice. We know what PIke's fate is, so the question is what are MIchael's and Reno's scarifies going to be? My hunch is Reno is a goner, she will do something to save Discovery and its crew from death so that leaves Michael.

I have three possible conclusions running in my head:

1) Michael and Discovery make it to the future minus Spock and Georgiou and the show moves on from this point. Discovery and everything about her will be classified which is why we never hear about the ship again. The sad part is this true we will likely never see Sarek, Amanda, Cornwall, Spock, Pike, and Georgiou on Discovery again.

2) Michael makes it to the future without Discovery (or an abandoned discovery) and restores the timeline and is basically deleted from the timeline (or dies as a child) and the show moves forward without her as if the first two seasons didn't take place...this seems less likely because I can't see the producers writing SMG out.

3) In a huge twist Discovery makes it to the future but every dies and the show rebooted for season 3. The only reason why I give this credit is that in an interview on Thursday night she refered to the season finale as the series finale three times "by mistake"

Well fuck me, I was not ready for a two part ending.

The Queen and the Emperor were hysterical.

The wink from Pike on the transport was amazeballs.

Is Burnham the boring center of the wheel?

r32 Your second option is very ballsy but would necessarily mean all of Pike's arc is erased as well, which the fans wouldn't stand for. The third option sounds a bit like Fuller's original plan, although he wanted every season to be standalone.

The first one is the most plausible, though I'll miss seeing the characters you've mentioned as well.

R34 I agree the first one is most likely as it makes the most sense. Funny though, I'm not all that keen on the jump forward to the future. I get why the producers decided to that because for much of the first season fans were bitching and moaning about how the show doesn't match up to continuity. At the start of Discovery, while I wasn't hyper reactive like some fans were, I was a but annoyed at some of the more clear canon questions, but this season really sold Discovery to me and now I think moving the show to the future is actually a bad move. The easiest thing producers could have done was have the season conclude with it turning out the by Michael being saved as a child, we're now in an alternate timeline from the original show.

r35 Alternate timelines are a marketing nightmare, so I doubt the execs would allow introducing yet another separate timeline into this franchise, as with the Kelvin movies. Especially with all these new shows lined up. Plus, it would give the detractors even more ammunition for their claims that this isn't "real Trek."

I really hope this is all clearly resolved or at least clearly established by the end of the last episode. I'll be royally pissed if the cliffhanger is open-ended and open to interpretation.

R36 I actually think they should have just made Discovery a part of the Kelvin timeline - I know, I know the rights issues between Paramount & CBS would likely have prevented this but the show is Executive Produced by one of the Kelvin timeline writers and it's made under Bad Robot's Star Trek license (that's why they did the huge visual overhaul of the show).

I actually would have no issue with the show being in a 3rd separate timeline. First it allows writers and producers to do their own thing without having to always try and please the fans by keeping canon. Second, it would not invalidate what has come before it so CBS can keep merchandising the shit out of all the other Star Trek shows.

I thought there were no bad ideas

I would miss Admiral Cornwall. She didn't get much screen time this season, but she is an interesting character, played by a great actress. This season she was a wasted opportunity. Maybe she is on lay away for the Section 31 show.

Possible spoilers:

So I just re-watched the Short Trek Calypso and it appears Discovery doesn't actually makes it to the future. Calypso takes place in the 33rd century and according to Zora, Discovery had been ordered to hold position within a nebula 1000 years ago. This would mean Discovery is left abandoned in the 23rd century. In the trailer for next week, we see the Red Angel suit (supposedly with Michael in it) enter the wormhole though the question is does she actually go to the future? And who sent the red signals? My theory control learns of Michael's plan, so they create a decoy to make Control think Discovery is now in the future but in reality it's hidden somewhere in the 23rd. Finally, I believe the signals are not from Michael but from Zora.

r40 Crap, you're right; it was just parked there for a thousand years! In other words, Discovery must [italic]not [/italic] make it to the future in order for Calypso to make sense...

R40 is actually stated on screen that Calypso takes place in the 33rd century?

R39 Yeah, I hope Cornwell appears on the Section 31 show. I was actually surprised they brought her back so many times this season — even though she didn’t really have anything to do.

She got to say "I'm cringing already", so her appearance was worth it for that line alone.

But she was also instrumental in alerting Pike to Control, being one of the few who was allowed to consult it.

R40, you might be right. I know I sound very negative when I day this but your post, not you, exemplifies what I find wrong with the show:

At the beginning of the season there are some bright writers trying to figure out the most clever plots, up to the point to WTF-contrived plots for the season ending. Then they lay out the plot with mini WTF-contrived minor mile stones scattered throughout the season - always having in mind with what sensation they can surprise the fans week after week.

The result is fans' brains going into overdrive trying to figure out what every little bit of detail may mean. It's like a sugar rush. And you can be sure among hundreds of fans, somebody will post the right solution online. Among a hundred theories one will get it right for sure, even without spoiling knowledge. It's just how it works now. So for those who read online forums the surprise will be minimized.

What's left then for watching the show? And in terms of longevity, what keeps the show alive after its first run? From my experience it's character driven stories that makes people come back and re-watch episodes. I cannot see myself doing it with Discovery currently. Once this arc is resolved there is hardly a reason for me to watch this season again. The character driven pieces are so far and between scattered in convoluted plots that I feel it's not worth to go back.

So the concept of time beyond the 33rd century is impossible??????

The TARDIS has gone much further.

Sarek and Amanda have been around for two seasons now, so of course they'd need to have some closure with their daughter. Yes, they turned up just to say their farewells, but they also kept popping up previously to advance the narrative, so it's not like that was their only appearance or anything. I thought that first shot of them when Michael saw them in the corridor was very effective and warm. I enjoy seeing people have a nice relationship both with their actual and their other family, composed of coworkers and friends.

Amanda is my favorite DISCO character, so I'm going to really miss her going forward.

R47, I get your point, but the whole katra link is so idiotic it just makes the setup worse. If Sarek were to sense the possibility Michael might go away, why didn't the katra link bring them when she was about to die?

My theory on what happens in the season finale - John de Lancie pops in and says to Sonequa Martin-Green, "Don't you see, Burnham? It was a test all along!"

r49, Q vs the Red Angel vs Control...BRILLIANT!!!

Another thing that makes me think Discovery won't travel to the future. Last month CBS Television Studios president David Stapf confirmed that Michelle Yeoh's Section 31 spin-off won't start production until next year but that Yeoh will be in season 3 of Discovery. I guess it's possible she travels to the future with Discovery but it feels like their setting Section 31 up to go classified after the finale and Yeoh being set up to take the division over.

Calypso's time frame of the 33rd Century was confirmed by Discovery's producers after the episode aired. So we know that Discovery is indeed abandoned in the 23rd century. The V'draysh (the species that Craft's people from Alcor IV are at war with) appear to the be the Federation.

There's now a petition for a Pike/Spock spin-off (Though wouldn't a show about Pike and Spock on the Enterprise, NOT be a spin-off, and just be Star Trek come full circle??)

Mount said CBS is going to look at that petition if it gets enough signatures. Of course he wants the work!

DISCO season 3 is filming 8th July to 31st December, and next set of live-action Short Treks are filming 14th May to 30th May.

Season finale tonight!

All hands on deck! Damn, I will miss him. I readily admit that as a die-hard TOS fundie, I fell prey to Discovery's blatant attempt to manipulate old fans by bringing Pike and Spock aboard. I checked in for this one season and will check right back out now. Anson and Ethan were gifts!

Oh, just you wait until they wheel Shatner out at the very end of tonight's episode. You'll be right back next season!

I was so cringed out by the empress. She's seventeen, a genius AND royalty, she appears out of nowhere with world changing tech mentioned nowhere else in Star Trek, and she likes ice cream lol. I have a high tolerance for cringe and even enjoy Giorgiou in her more cheeseball moments but this is pure tumblr dreck.

She da QUEEN!

Giorgiou is the Emperor.

[quote]she appears out of nowhere with world changing tech mentioned nowhere else in Star Trek

Except in the Short Trek titled "Runaway", which was released before this season started. Though I can see how someone who hasn't seen that might find her confusing.

To me, there's nothing more Star Trek than seeing a bunch of different people working together to solve a problem.

This was that in spades.

Unpopular opinion, but Spock looked better with the beard.

That was a damn movie. Very disappointed that we didn't get a coda with Discovery in the future but I guess the writers need time to come up with some new shit. Always wanted to see gravity malfunction on a ship and now I got to see it! Just a spectacular sequence.

Georgiou in the future? What about her Section 31 spinoff?

r62 Yup, that beard was very flattering to his face, especially when paired with the Spock wig.

R62 I thought the same thing way better with the beard, and actually blue is not Ethan Peck's color!

Funny enough the ending of the episode makes me want a Pike/Enterprise spin-off more than ever!

The final scene of the episode makes me want a Pike spin-off so bad!

SPOILERS: I'm so glad Reno made it, but fuck Admiral Cornwall :( My question why couldn't she have been beamed out of there after she closed the blast doors? The transporters were still working.

Number One's name is not Number One.

[quote]why couldn't she have been beamed out of there after she closed the blast doors? The transporters were still working.

Oh, that's just the beginning. How, if the torpedo going off would blast open 4 decks and kill the entire bridge crew would one blast door within feet of the blast not be blown to smithereens. Yet, Pike felt safe just standing there. Blast doors are magical.

I saw someone joking that they should make an entire ship out of blast doors, if they're so impervious to damage. Yet another one suggested she could have tied a rope to the lever and yanked it from the other side. Or, you know, scooted under the door while there was still time.

But situations like these are a staple in Trek so I'm not that bothered. She went out like a boss.

Agree that blue washes Ethan out. On the other hand, Nimoy always looked like a ghost on TOS, so...

Doesn't his face have a phallic quality to it? It just screams juicy veiny COCK to me.

At least they're not trying to achieve a faintly green skin tone on Spock anymore.

Interesting article about the future of the show. Kurtzman confirms season 3 will take place in the 33rd Century - problem with this is based on Voyager and Enterprise canon, by the 29th century time travel is common place which means it shouldn't be hard for the Discovery crew to get home. Then again, they could just explain it that given Discovery must remain classified the crew can never return. He says the decision to move the show's time period was done to show Discovery's place in canon and to free the writers from the restraints of being a prequel. He also said that the Michelle Yeoh's Section 31 series will show us how it became the shadow organization we saw on DS9 which suggests that Georgiou will make it back to the 23rd century.

Here's the thing, I agree with Kurtzman that moving the show to the future frees the writers a great deal (always said the show should have been like TNG and took place decades after Nemesis) but I feel like they wrote this whole season just to appease a small (but vocal) group of fans who hate the show and will still hate the show regardless. I feel like this huge leap forward devalues the show, and while I'm glad they didn't reboot the show by basically deleting the first two seasons, I feel like the easiest solution would just say that Burnham's mother created a new alternate timeline by saving Michael from death and as such, we're in a new timeline. This would have allowed writers to make winks to canon but set a new course and I also think it might have been a more popular ending given that we could have kept Pike and Spock.

[quote]I feel like they wrote this whole season just to appease a small (but vocal) group of fans who hate the show and will still hate the show regardless. I feel like this huge leap forward devalues the show,

I agree. While I don't think all of the criticism about canon was due to this, for at least a large subset of the people griping, this was just a convenient excuse to complain about the show being led by women, people of color, and gay people without actually appearing overtly racist.

I'm not opposed to the setting change, but I still feel like there's a lot of storytelling possibility in the pre-TOS era. I'm also not ruling out seeing Pike et al again in some way, even as like a movie or miniseries. Those parts seemed to have been universally liked.

I wonder if Tig Notaro's schedule will allow Reno to be a bigger part of the season. I gathered that part of the reason we didn't see her more was due to availability issues. I'm also really glad Nhan survived, because she kept having near-misses throughout the season, and I figured they were lulling us into a false sense of security.

I'm really bummed about losing Cornwell and L'Rell. I mean, Cornwell got to go out like a badass, and it was delightful seeing L'Rell so pumped to be able to be in a battle, but I really liked both characters.

[quote]I feel like they wrote this whole season just to appease a small (but vocal) group of fans who hate the show and will still hate the show regardless. I feel like this huge leap forward devalues the show,

r71 I also agree with the first part of that but I still prefer this over creating a new timeline which that vocal minority can simply dismiss as an "SJW bubble of Trek" that they can fully pretend never happened. So now we're getting a sequel because some fans want rainbow-coloured phasers and stunning ship designs and gods know what else. Meanwhile, the human stories and the themes being explored will remain much the same they were during TOS, which is what Trek is to me.

I was shocked that Reno didn't die and that Georgiou made it to the future. Reno is fully a Commander so on the same rank as Michael and Saru. Wonde rho that'll play out.

r72 Cornwell did start to feel like the last relic of the Lorca era this season, but I was sad to see her go nonetheless. I'm sure L'Rell will stick around for the Section 31 show. I liked her a lot in this episode and just in general as well. And of course, Nhan evading her redshirt fate and surviving was great to see.

Just finished e14

Well THAT was intense.

Watching the Emperor Kill Control was SOOOOOO satisfying and then the attack ended.

Watching the genesis of the TOS was kinda nice with the clean shaven Spock.

I could have sworn that I heard Shatner's voice for one sentence.

And now we know that Burnham is the unspeakable.

R72 I agree that a lot of people's contempt for the show is thinly veiled racism, sexism and homophobia. Also a lot of purists who can stand the fact that they updated the visuals and styles of the show and what it completely stuck with the 60s theme that just doesn't work any more.

That being said, I'm still mixed about moving the show forward 1000 years. I think it had more to do with the writers wanting to be free of the canon of the previous shows but it's funny because this season really sold me on Discovery being a prequel.

R73 I actually think the decision to kill Cornwell was mostly to alleviate any questions about where she was in TOS. She one basically one of the most important admirals in Starfleet so this explains why we never saw her in the Kirk era. Her death was my biggest issue with the episode. They could have beamed her out of the room or made a pully system to close the door when they were both in the turbolift.

I'm hoping Reno has a larger part next season. I think the whole reason why she was in so few episodes was originally Tig Notaro was only going to be in one episode - she is a personal friend of Alex Kurtzman and he asked her to make an appearance. She was so well recieved that they told her to come back whenever she could. Notaro was in the middle of a stand-up tour and could only do a few episodes. Hopefully she signed on to a larger part next year.

I'm cautiously optimistic with the new showrunner, Michelle Paradise. Granted, given how cursed the production have been, she may already have been fired, but she got the job on the strength of her first episode, the one about Airiam. They additionally asked her to contribute to both parts of the finale after being so pleased with the first one.

She seems to really get the emotional, human beats, and that, to me, is exactly what the show needs.

One thing I forgot to mention last week was how disturbed I was by that sequence of Detmer getting shot in the head and immediately after that Owo getting killed and her corpse sliding off the console with the eyes open. Last time I was so upset in Trek was when Tasha was killed by Armus on TNG.

Going back to the finale, Calypso still doesn't make sense to me. Also, how are they going to repair the ship that is badly damaged? Why didn't they just remain in the present after Georgiou killed Leland? The Starfleet Command apparently had no problem purging the rest of Control on their own. WIll Michael's mom's arc going to be resolved? I don't understand the Terralysium connection either. Why did her mother save those people? What did they get from that colony that they got from the other places where the red signals were seen? Is that where Discovery has landed in the future?

r76 Yup, I have full faith in Paradise. Those emotional, human beats you mentioned are my favourite thing about DISCO. Ffs, I was sobbing during the finale because I totally believed that a white Vulcan and a black human were brother and sister. That's how much the writing sold me on their relationship.

I am a HUGE Star Trek fan and I hated season one for its complete disregard of canon. They won me back some in season 2 and the ending completely got me on board for season 3. I completely reject that people's criticisms of Discovery was because of sexism or racism. Do people forget that we have had Star Treks starring a woman (Voyager) and a black man (DS9), which are beloved by the very people accused of sexism and racism? The problem was that the behind the scenes people made poor decisions. Sending the ship to the 23 century is where it should have been all along because of the look of the ship. The ship just did not fit in a pre-TOS time line. I loved how with the Enterprise they melded an updated look with the aesthetics of TOS, that should have been the look for the entire show from the beginning. I still maintain that there was NO reason to redesign the look of the Klingons, whose look had become iconic.

[quote]Do people forget that we have had Star Treks starring a woman (Voyager) and a black man (DS9), which are beloved by the very people accused of sexism and racism?

Kate Mulgrew got death threats in the first season of VOY.

R79 But then the show went on to be beloved and she was accepted by the fan base. Star Trek fans have accepted that the show universe includes strong female and black characters for almost thirty years now.

And now DISCO has gone on to be beloved as well. I'm sorry, but the SJW freakout happened during TNG and DS9 and VOY as well, before people got used to it (I think ENT largely escaped unharmed as people were so starved for new Trek). And they were even nastier back then because some of that rhetoric isn't acceptable anymore today, even with their chief enabler in the White House.

I was on Reddit when DISCO was announced and there was [italic]horrific[/italic] homophobia and racism on display there. So much so that it made me ill and I had to take a break from it all for a while. I can't tell you how many times [italic]per day[/italic] I saw a new thread titled "Why are they shoving these gay characters down our throats? They're just tokens! Why can't they just tell a Trek story without this liberal agenda?!"

And now people are fine with the gay characters even though their romantic arc had probably the most screen time. Because it takes a while for people to get used to these new elements that were previously seen as threatening only because they have never been included before. That's exactly how any sort of stigma is dealt with in general, by the way.

R81 I would say that those people weren't true Trekkies, but people who will attach themselves to anything they think they can use to push their position. Most fans, like me, who have had major problems with Discovery, love The Orville, which doesn't shy away from strong female or homosexual characters.

[quote]I would say that those people weren't true Trekkies

I happen to agree but that's a slippery slope that in the end needs a committee to determine who is, in fact, a true Trekkie. I guess it's better to just patiently engage with those people or ignore them completely, and hope they come around eventually. Social change is slow - that interracial kiss on TOS certainly didn't end racism among Trek fandom overnight either.

He's totally getting his own series, isn't he?

I cannot get over how different Ethan Peck looks without the beard!

The reception of Discovery reminds me of the reception of TNG (I'm dating myself hahaha). Many fans loathed it - Star Trek couldn't be Trek without Kirk/Spock/McCoy. However, by the third season the show had overcome its turbulent beginnings became beloved and I would argue the only spin-off to crossover into mainstream television. Because TNG was syndicated it was not included in the Nielson ratings, but it's estimated that at its peak TNG would have likely been in the top 10 most watched shows on TV. Discovery had a rocky start in its first season (as all Trek spin-offs do) but I think this season has proven Discovery's worth and place in the franchise.

R78 I have to disagree with you that prejudice doesn't play a role in people's dislike of the show. I do think the majority of the fandom's issues with the show stems from concerns about continuity and some of the mistakes the show has made, but there is a vocal minority, particularly on youtube (dave cullen, midnight's edge, overlord dvd, etc.) that constantly bitch about the show's "pc culture" .

A pre-Kirk Pike/Spock/Enterprise show would be awesome. And they didn’t exactly shy away from pimping the possibility at the end of the Discovery season finale, including lingering shots of all of the Enterprise bridge crew. I’m just afraid that there are already too many Trek shows in the CBSAllAccess pipeline to make room for it.

Discovery barely survived to have a season 2, there were lots of reports that CBS was ready to scrap the show and replace it with a different Trek for various reasons, including the fan response. Replacing the show runner and changing the story focus saved the show, although I'm still a bit surprised they got renewed for season 3.

[quote]Do people forget that we have had Star Treks starring a woman (Voyager) and a black man (DS9), which are beloved by the very people accused of sexism and racism?

But they weren't at first. They weren't at first at all! I'd say those people who had an issue with Janeway or Sisko fell by the wayside as new fans replaced them.

"There were lots of reports" makes me think of that "many people say she's a slut" high school bullshit. A couple of alt-right conspiracy loons on YouTube made weekly (daily?) videos about its inevitable demise that was always just around the corner and that's what people started calling "reports". But that's not how this works; that's not how [italic]any[/italic] of this works.

Hardly, R89. The show was late and overbudget, had the original showrunner (Fuller) quit early on, the whole Mooves brouhaha was boiling behind the scenes. Hardly loons making things up.

^^Moonves

I got so emotional with Hugh and Stamets at sickbay.

AMEN r78!!!

So this is amusing. I was among those who assumed Pike said "Una" at one point, which is Number One's name in the (non-canon) books, during this bit of dialogue:

[quote]Report back to the bridge, I'm giving you the conn, Una. Admiral, do everything you can to buy Burnham more time.

However, closed captions reveal that he actually said:

[quote]Report back to the bridge, I'm giving you the conn. And, uh, Admiral, do everything you can to buy Burnham more time.

The slight hesitation makes more sense because he was basically issuing an order to his superior officer by telling the admiral to buy Burnham more time. Also, Number One would have repeated her name in the interrogation scene later were it mentioned earlier already, and she did not.

"I feel like they wrote this whole season just to appease a small (but vocal) group of fans who hate the show and will still hate the show regardless. I feel like this huge leap forward devalues the show"

I feel this too. And you can see by the fact that a lot of people are petitioning for a Pike spin-off that the issue is not the prequel aspect of the show. A lot of those whining about inconsistencies with canon are very eager to jump on board another prequel all of a sudden.

I won't lie, I actually liked the prequel aspect of the show (I guess I'm in the minority) and all the pre-TOS crossovers and easter eggs. I'm attached to the characters now so I will enjoy them in the 23rd century too but I will miss the era. And yes, I would also love a Pike spin-off and to see more Spock. In fact, I wouldn't even mind if they eventually rebooted the TOS. Again, I'm in the minority, so... Plus there are already enough ST shows in development.

Did anyone else catch that Kirk reference? Michael basically advised Spock to go looking for someone like Kirk and then hold onto him. I looked it up and Alex Kurtzman confirmed that that bit was indeed about Kirk. That's a beginning of a love story if I ever saw one.

[quote]A lot of those whining about inconsistencies with canon are very eager to jump on board another prequel all of a sudden.

Hadn't even thought of it that way, but you're right, that's very peculiar. No protestations about canon and prequels there!

I love prequels as well and I never once thought less of ENT for taking place in the past. I'm not quite sure what people who want a post-Nemesis show actually want. Is it just the new, shinier technology or what, exactly? The drama remains the same, prequel or sequel. And I always remind those people that TNG's technology looked conspicuously the same during those seven years it was on air, even though technological advancement during that time is supposed to be happening at breakneck speed. They went to the centre of the galaxy in like the first season and their ship stayed largely the same for six years after that!

I know some want to know what happens to the Federation and Starfleet post-Nemesis, but that's such a small part of Trek shows, it's not really worth investing millions just to explore some dry side lore.

It's so crazy to me how Tyler's hair looked more and more amazing with each passing episode. And doesn't he look positively Napoleonic in this shot?

I also love the Golden Gate Bridge in the background and the fact that it's covered in solar panels. Though someone elsewhere mentioned that those panels must be historical elements as well, seeing how they have vastly more powerful antimatter reactors at that time.

Another gorgeous money shot. I think I'm looking forward to further evolution of his hairstyle in that Section 31 spinoff the most.

Enterprise was pretty fucked up at the end

I kinda lost it; can somebody fill my blanks, please? Why is nobody supposed to talk about Discovery again? To shield it from Section 31 or Control - just in case?

I think it's to prevent the galaxy-wide sphere data of the A.I. from the past 100k years from falling into the wrong hands. I'd imagine someone - even within Starfleet - who'd really want that knowledge would even travelling through time to get it.

I've also answered my own question from earlier - why did they proceed to the future even once Leland was destroyed. It's because they still have the sphere data on board and no way of getting rid of it.

R94 Michelle Paradise (producer on Discovery) confirmed that Pike called her Una. Different services had different subtitles for that line.

R87 by “lots of reports” I hope you’re not talking about shitty youtube rumor mongers like Midnight’s Edge. Those youtube channels have no credibility. I question the critical thinking skills of anyone who believes that bullshit.

[quote]So this is amusing. I was among those who assumed Pike said "Una" at one point, which is Number One's name in the (non-canon) books, during this bit of dialogue:

They've been taking more stuff from the books. Control came from there as well.

r103 That's crazy to me. I can't hear it [italic]at all[/italic] now that I see those two versions at r94 before me and having rewatched the scene a couple of times. Literally I cannot hear the word Una anymore, even after hearing it perfectly the first time around. It's like The Dress situation from a couple of years ago all over again.

And they really should synchronize the captioning services. Also, I was kinda pissed they didn't bother to put Spock's Vulcan in the captions in the finale.

That Klingon imperial cleaver took my breath away, although it did look a bit like a caterpillar. I suppose the cleaving part of that ship is made entirely out of blast doors. (Too soon?) Also loved the D7 cruisers dropping out of warp and immediately starting to blast phasers and photon torpedoes all over the place.

The finale was a mixed bag for me. How many times does Trek use time travel to get out of an exposition corner. The death of Admiral Cornwall was pointless and stupid. Either beam her out, rewire the door panel, or employ one of the worker droids. All shown earlier in the same episode. If you don't think too hard, it's watchable.

I just want to share this story because it really tickled me.

I have a new guy in my life. Somehow, he's gotten through life never really having seen Trek, so we were having some "cuddle on the couch" time between playing around, and I showed him "Best of Both Worlds." Afterward, he looked at me and asked "Can we watch another one?"

Jayne Brook is a classy broad. Still, they could have beamed her character out. Though it occurs to me... perhaps those torpedoes emit some energy that interferes with the transportation beam in its vicinity? Otherwise, they could have just beamed the whole torpedo out, right?

r109 Ah, that's nice. I'm not a judgmental person but I admit my heart would sink a little if my (currently non-existent) partner would trash my favourite episode of Trek. I mean, I trash those all the time myself, but always in a loving way.

[quote]How many times does Trek use time travel to get out of an exposition corner.

Except time travel in this case wasn't a deus ex machina, but a season-long arc, introduced in the Trek short Calypso already before the second season started. And it's not like a magic wand; they had to leave almost a thousand years into the future and can never return! It's not even like Voyager where there was constant hope and expectation of the eventual return home. Discovery's crew is gone for good. Although Georgiou has to find a way back before her spinoff starts, obviously.

He wasn’t trashing it. He was asking for another because he’d liked it.

r112 Yes, I realize that. Most of that paragraph refers to a hypothetical situation. What more beyond "that's nice" should I have said? This isn't r109's current partner's appreciation thread, as perfect as he is for liking Trek.

Calypso makes no sense if Discovery jumped to the future.

R114 It was explained in a hurry in the finale but basically Burnham and the Discovery have been stuck in a time-loop. The loop they're in during season two represent the final one in which Burnham manages to get all the pieces together correctly. Although this doesn't entirely make sense because it doesn't explain how Burnham knew to take the Discovery to the 5 points they travel to throughout the season, it's likely Calypso took place in one of the incomplete loops and therefore no longer happens.

R115, more proof that time travel stories are act the core, idiotic. BTW, I much prefer Trek that doesn't have season-long arcs. It's part of what doomed Enterprise. It serious limits the creativity of the storyteling by trying to make it a single novel rather than a collection of interesting short stories.

Proof of this is the Harry Mudd Short Trek was more enjoyable and memorable than any main episode this season.

I loved ENT precisely because of that season-long Xindi arc. I don't recall ever being that excited about a season of Trek before. Besides, episodic storytelling often leaves you with a situation where the characters in TNG's antepenultimate episode "Emergence" behave almost exactly the same as in the first or the second season. Weekly resets and zero growth have no place in Peak TV era.

r115 Thanks, (failed) time loops would explain Calypso in a satisfying way for me. Though I'm kinda sad the events in that short didn't happen now as it was such a sweet little story.

Anson Mount And Other Departing Actors Say Their Goodbyes To ‘Star Trek: Discovery’

I adore him.

Speaking of Anson Mount, at a convention last week he was asked about doing a Pike spin-off and while he said he was interested, his body language didn't look excited!

r121 I read somewhere that while he would like to do the spinoff, he [italic]really[/italic] dislikes the fact that it takes eight months to film fourteen episodes. I don't know why, exactly. I mean, not to be a bitch, but it's not like he has kids to look after or lucrative film gigs going on on the side...

I haven't read all the threads and only saw season one so far. Are there any lesbians on the show yet?

Yes, Jet Reno. She lost her wife in a war. She has some appearances in season 2 and might be seen in season 3, too.

r123 Tig Notaro's character mentions having a dead wife in the second season. But I think I also read somewhere she's the first Trek character to be referred to using the "they/them" pronouns, so she might be pan/queer, not a lesbian.

She'll be in the third season as well and is a bit of a fan favourite at this point.

Why was it fine for Tyler to be on L'Rell's ship? I thought she told the empire he was dead (fake severed head and all + bonus baby head). Wasn't anyone wondering why he was on the bridge yelling at people!?

r126 I googled that question just now and found NYT's review of the finale, which raised the same issue. (I won't link it here because the title is "Virtue Signalling". And no, the irony of that title being written by an Indian-American guy during Trump's presidency most certainly doesn't escape me.)

One explanation might be that that was L'Rell's personal ship (unlikely) and only her closest warriors were on that bridge. Perhaps we'll get the definitive explanation in the Section 31 show, though I doubt it. It's a pretty glaring plot inconsistency if it doesn't get resolved in some way. I'll post the answer here should I come across it.

I thought the same, R127. I doubt that she quickly pulled together that many she could trust (and to remain silent). I'll overlook it though, as they felt more like the fun DS9/TNG era Klingons. Plus the visuals were great.

Yeah, the Klingon visuals were great. And I admit as someone who's been rolling his eyes over people complaining about the (nth) Klingon redesign all this time, the shot of this almost TNG-looking Klingon did make me smile. I guess I do like seeing familiar stuff even on newer reimagined Trek shows after all.

So the only "lesbian" character so far is actually a T and they've preemptively killed off the other lesbian with one sentence? They/them as singular pronouns makes brain cells die.

Tig's character might be gender non-conforming, but they aren't transgendered. They might hook up with another female crewmember now that they're in the future, who knows. Though they were still wearing the wedding band so it doesn't seem likely.

I thought featuring a widowed person who is obviously still grieving was a nice touch. Lots of those watch Trek as well, I'm sure.

How do two people wear a wedding band? They is plural in every language in the world.

Not really. In my language, the plural "they" is a very old way of formally addressing a singular person. It's used that way in German on a daily basis as well.

[quote]Tig's character might be gender non-conforming, but they aren't transgendered. They might hook up with another female crewmember now that they're in the future, who knows. Though they were still wearing the wedding band so it doesn't seem likely.

This reads as if written by someone who doesn't understand English grammar. They is plural in modern English usage. Another pronoun should be chosen if necessary.

Thanks for stooping to that level but I understand the English grammar and the grammar of several other languages just fine, and have the certificates to prove it.

I don't intend to engage you further, in this thread or elsewhere. I don't really know why I respond to these anti-trans loons in the first place.

I wasn't referring to your native language. I was talking about it not sounding like English to English speakers at all. It sounds like a sentence written by a child who hasn't figured out the difference between singular and plural. You were doing it purposefully but it is not standard English and sounds completely wrong across the board.

Gay man on the show? Yes. Every racial minority on the show? Yes. T on the show? Yes. Lesbian on the show? No. That's my problem with this, along with the abuse of the English language that must take place to play make believe while erasing women in general.

So, is the dude with the giant beard in R137 also a woman?

Huh?

R139, it was a joke about the transing of Trek characters in the prior posts.

R122 There are number of reasons why Anson was likely unhappy with the eight month shoot for 14 episodes.

First of all, that is an excessively long time time to film 14 episodes of television. The industry standard is that a 1 hour drama takes 8 business days to film (all previous Star Trek shows followed this model). This means if an episode stars shooting on a Monday, primary production would conclude the following Wednesday. For 14 hours of TV, a typical show would take just under 5 months to film (minus breaks for any holidays). When an actor is under contract, they cannot look or audition for other gigs. This likely annoyed Mount given he knew he would only going to be on the show for one year.

Second, and this is the reason I suspect Anson wasn't happy, actors get paid per episode not per week. So basically you can look it like basically after the 8 days were up, he was working for free. Granted actors get paid very well (bare minimum if you're a main character under contract you're making $50,000 an episode) but I would be annoyed too!

r141 Thanks for that breakdown, very helpful. I guess not even the 50k per episode (ermahgerd!) and Trek conventions he can do for the rest of his life should his career falter is not enough for him. I'm not judging, especially as - like you said - he knew this was a one-season gig only. But still, he has got to have noticed by now how much this little stint has raised his profile, right? He's universally beloved and how many times does that happen with guest appearances?

Do we think he got paid more for Inhumans? Even without saying a single line? I'd feel bad taking big money as an actor for that role, honestly.

Why does DISCO take so long to film, anyway? I know it's a post-intensive show, what with all the CG, but that doesn't really involve the actors, does it? Is it because of the sets that need to be set up and dismantled and then redressed into other sets?

Has anyone here watched "Hell on Wheels"? It looks pretty silly, but is it worth sitting through for more Anson?

r143 Haven't watched it but people kept bringing it up left and right and raving about it when Mount was cast. He was apparently the best part about it so you can't go wrong if you start watching the show just for him.

Colm Meaney was on it as well, so you get Chief O'Brien with your Captain Pike.

r142, not an expert, but I'd imagine the reason you state being one reason. Then I could see them doing lots of green screen filming which might be time consuming to stage and coordinate. Then they also may have lots of choreography to get through when people swing their bat'leths. And finally, wasn't there a production stop during filming of season 2 after they fired the showrunners and adjusted the writing? Maybe that was the main reason for a long filming season.

R142 & R146 One of the reasons the showrunners were fired (beyond the allegations of abuse) was that the first few episodes of the season were vastly over budget and over schedule. I've read the first episode of season 2 alone went 2 weeks over the original shooting schedule. Believe it or not, Discovery is one of the most expensive TV shows ever produced and so I'm guessing as you point out R146 the vast CH elements and intense choreography are one reason. Perhaps because it's a streaming show that is hugely important to CBS' streaming plans that they allow for a longer film schedule?

One issue for season two as well was that there were heavy rewrites when Michelle Paradise joined the show. I think she wanted to infuse the scripts with more character and that probably delayed production.

[quote]One issue for season two as well was that there were heavy rewrites when Michelle Paradise joined the show. I think she wanted to infuse the scripts with more character and that probably delayed production.

I'm glad they did. Seriously, as much as I liked S1, I think this balanced plot and character so much better. A few episodes got me teary.

Okay, but seriously, Michelle Paradise is going to kill it in season 3. She has all the elements for it: a ship lost in time, Michael's and Saru's backstory being finished, no canonical restrictions, an intimate setting with the relatively small crew (possible Terralysium settlers notwithstanding)... You have to try [italic]really[/italic] hard to fuck up a blank slate like that. I think it'll be everything we wanted Voyager to be, which hopefully means more like BSG. And how great is it for a queer woman to be running a Trek show?

[quote]Kurtzman said of the promotion, “Michelle joined us midway through season two and energized the room with her ferocious knowledge of Trek, her grasp of character and story detail, her drive and her focus have already become essential in ensuring the Trek legacy, and her fresh perspective always keeps us looking forward. I’m proud to say Michelle and I are officially running Star Trek: Discovery together.”

I only hope she isn't just someone for Kurtzman to push around. I'm fine with him setting the season-long arc and the battle scenes and making sure they're on budget and on schedule, but leave the drama to her. Though I have to say, despite their abusive behaviour, I quite liked what the fired showrunners had been doing at the start of the second season. Of course, we'll never know how much of the writing contribution was actually theirs.

Didn't the last episode feel more like a series finale than a season finale?

It also reminded me of the biggest criticism of the final episode of Enterprise where the wrapped the action around Riker's dilemma about the Pegasus cloaking device, making it about him and not them.

The episode turned the first two seasons into a very long backstory about how Spock became the Spock we know by telling the story of his relationship to his adopted sister. While I like Anson Mount and thought he was a great addition to Trek as Pike, ending the episode/season with Pike, Spock, and the Enterprise and not Burnham and Discovery had the same impact as Riker turning off the hologram program.

r150 Yeah, that was my first reaction as well. Of course I understand they needed to tie up the Enterprise bit because this is possibly the last time ever we're seeing Pike and his crew, but still I kept waiting for at least a short post-credits scene with Discovery. But then I thought to myself - we know when and where and in what shape they are (Terralysium 950 years into the future with a badly damaged ship), so what would that credit sequence have revealed that we don't already know?

It would just have forced Paradise to come up with some conceit on the spot months in advance, and one that would have then restricted her creatively for the entire season. I prefer the writers rest and reflect a bit, and then come up with something spectacular.

[quote]Terralysium 950 years into the future

The empty Terralysium of 950 years in the future was based on Control destroying all sentient life in the galaxy. Given how far the Federation (and other galactic powers) had expanded their reach within only 100-ish years to TNG and then VOY, the ending seems problematic. They would be outclassed and have outdated technology.

The Enterprise and bridge looked fantastic - much better than the JJprise.

[quote]It would just have forced Paradise to come up with some conceit on the spot months in advance, and one that would have then restricted her creatively for the entire season. I prefer the writers rest and reflect a bit, and then come up with something spectacular.

My biggest concern is that a Disco trapped out of time is essentially a temporal version of VOY and really doesn't add anything to the overall Trek mythos, and ultimately leaves them nowhere to go.

I am relieved that they didn't turn Control into a Borg origin story...for now, at least.

[quote] My biggest concern is that a Disco trapped out of time is essentially a temporal version of VOY and really doesn't add anything to the overall Trek mythos

I was wondering about this too. A hundred years after VOY would have been nicer, imo. But who knows what they are planning. Given that we have seen nothing for now, Discovery could be anywhere at any point in time really. We don't really know if they made it to the point where they planned to be.

R143, Hell on Wheels is really far from silly. It's brutal. It's more in the Deadwood tradition of gritty, dirty westerns. Mount was really good in it but the show stands on its own.

I’m with Anson on the annoying long filming schedule. They already have sets built and all that, I hope season 3 comes earlier this time because 2 years between seasons is no good, it ain’t BBC Sherlock.

‘Star Trek: Discovery’: How Tig Notaro Best Embodied Starfleet’s Values in Season 2

[quote]In the long run, the promise of “Discovery” from the beginning has always been the opportunity to introduce characters like these — folks who fit slightly out of the mold, but still represent the message of “Star Trek.”

The Picard series has started shooting on this gorgeous location. Retired on a vineyard - of course!

[quote]Given how far the Federation (and other galactic powers) had expanded their reach within only 100-ish years to TNG and then VOY, the ending seems problematic. They would be outclassed and have outdated technology.

Wouldn't Discovery 950 years into the future look to those people a bit like William the Conqueror would look like to us if he transported 950 years into our current year, with his horse and armour? Most technology should look like magic at that point, to say nothing of temporal ships and temporal agents on those ships. I'm worried how they'll pull this off as well.

I don't usually like Tig Notaro, but like her character a lot.

[bold]The Incredible, Intoxicating Potential of Star Trek: Discovery's Third Season[/bold]

[quote]The time jump invites us to ask incredibly exciting questions of both Discovery and the franchise at large: What does Star Trek so far removed from its familiar trappings even look like? And, most importantly, what is it about Star Trek that is so enduring, so fundamentally defining about the series, that even the most subversive versions still include it no matter what?

[quote]Given how far the Federation (and other galactic powers) had expanded their reach within only 100-ish years to TNG and then VOY, the ending seems problematic. They would be outclassed and have outdated technology.

[quote]Wouldn't Discovery 950 years into the future look to those people a bit like William the Conqueror would look like to us if he transported 950 years into our current year, with his horse and armour? Most technology should look like magic at that point, to say nothing of temporal ships and temporal agents on those ships. I'm worried how they'll pull this off as well.

There's just a tiny piece of me that thinks the reason they're jumping that far into the future is a form of canon vengeance. The biggest criticisms from diehard fans have been the woeful disregard to canon - a lot of it driven by the fact that so much of what Disco could do was constrained by five series and 9 movies of timeline.

By jumping into the future, they would be able to take some revenge by establishing events toward which all future Trek's would have to adhere or be labeled as not "prime timeline."

It also helps avoid any conflicts with the Picard series.

[bold]Animated ‘Star Trek’ Series Greenlit at Nickelodeon[/bold]

[quote]The new CG-animated series will follow a group of lawless teens who discover a derelict Starfleet ship and use it to search for adventure, meaning and salvation.

[quote]The series hails from Kevin and Dan Hageman, the pair behind “Trollhunters” and “Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu,” as well as Eye Animation Productions (CBS’ new animation arm), Secret Hideout, and Roddenberry Entertainment. Alex Kurtzman, Heather Kadin, Katie Krentz, Rod Roddenberry and Trevor Roth will serve as executive producers on the project alongside the Hagemans.

Did any other CBS All-Access subscribers get a survey from CBS asking about Discovery and whether you'd still subscribe without it?

[quote]Did any other CBS All-Access subscribers get a survey from CBS asking about Discovery and whether you'd still subscribe without it?

No.

The show is extremely expensive to produce. It sounds like they're already trying to figure out how long they're going to have to keep it.

r164 I saw a thread about this on Reddit yesterday. Most are saying they'd want more Trek content in order to stay subscribed and that they'll say that in the survey. A suggestion that CBS finally remaster DS9 and Voyager has been thrown around as well.

r165 The purpose of the survey is clearly to gauge how likely people are to cancel their subscription now that there isn't any current Trek shows airing on the platform. It's the exact same response that made CBS scramble last year and announced a slew of new Trek shows.

*announce

Isn't it possible, due to the spore drive network in the first season, that the show is already in an entirely different universe?

[quote]A suggestion that CBS finally remaster DS9 and Voyager has been thrown around as well.

Finally? Is this something that is being clamored for? What exactly is involved in remastering shows that are only a decade old? There are literally multiple universes of stories available due to the nature of Trek. Why would they "remaster" anything, especially when all it will do is lead to shit from fans of the original shows? That suggestion makes no sense at all.

TOS and TNG have both been remastered. Enterprise was shot in high-def and didn't require it.

One of the things that has been talked about with the DS9 documentary that's going to be streamed for backers tomorrow and released to everyone in May is the twenty minutes of footage that the producers (who made the film with crowdfunded money) paid to redo themselves. It looks phenomenal.

Yes, those two remasters (especially the DS9, although I'm more for the Voyager one) have been desired by the fans ever since the remastered TNG came out on Blu-ray because that one looks amazing! But it would be insanely expensive to carry them out. Fans of these two shows are fully aware of those circumstances but still we hold out hope.

Here's a very nice but also a very depressing article on why these remasters are such a bitch. And they both ended twenty years ago, not ten.

Oh, I thought when they said remaster in that post they were talking about resetting the shows like they did with TOS in the movies. So, never mind.

I have my ticket for the DS9 documentary. It's titled "What You Leave Behind". It's my favorite of all the ST shows.

Ah, gotcha. I thought it was weird that someone would protest remastering one of the Trek shows!

I used to like DS9 but have grown to see it as pretentious bullshit that hasn't held up at all over the years and am almost to the point where I hate it. Every time Avery Brooks shows up with his overacting crap, I cringe.

I am excited about the third season, because as a fan who has watched TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, and all the movies multiple times, this is exactly where I wanted Discovery to take place, from the time it was announced. Well outside of the established canon, and involving time as well as space travel. Also, by going 950 years into the future they are going further than any Star Trek series has ever ventured, even the time travel episodes of VOY and ENT, I don't think managed to jump that far, which is great, I'd love to watch the show and not have my mind saying, "that can't happen."

Confession time: I have never seen any of the Trek movies apart from the JJ ones. But I've been bingeing the Treks and the City podcast (TNG rewatch) and one of the guests, Jay Baruchel, gushed over those damn movies so much and said they represented the best of Trek. So I finally decided to plunge into them. There's only like, twenty of them, right? And most of them suck but the ones that are good are supposed to be REALLY good?

r174 I think the exact same of DS9 but I've just learned to stop mentioning that because I see how many do genuinely love the show, so I'm obviously in the minority in that opinion.

Six TOS movies: The Motion Picture, Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, Voyage Home, Final Frontier, and Undiscovered Country

Four TNG movies: Generations, First Contact, Insurrection, and Nemesis.

Three Kelvin-verse: Star Trek, Into Darkness, and Beyond.

Of them, Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country, First Contact, and Beyond are great. Search for Spock, Voyage Home, Generations, and Star Trek are pretty good. Even the worst of the rest of them have their moments.

r177 THANK YOU! Much appreciated.

Voyage Home is practically a comedy...and has whales!

The best thing about Voyage Home, which Nimoy co-wrote and directed, was that he purposefully gave all of the characters something fun to do, figuring (correctly) that if the actors were having fun, so would the audience.

Imagine letting this bridge go to waste...

Scorching hot Pike alert!

[quote][R165] The purpose of the survey is clearly to gauge how likely people are to cancel their subscription now that there isn't any current Trek shows airing on the platform. It's the exact same response that made CBS scramble last year and announced a slew of new Trek shows

I binged watched the entire season over 2 days - all within the 7 day free trial. I'll probably cancel soon, but will probably pay for 1-month, just because it feels unethical.

R183 I don't know if they still do it, but I thought about canceling after watching the first series during the trial, but when I tried to cancel they gave me a month extra for free, and then I got back hooked on Y&R so I've kept it.

You're doing the Lord's work, R182.

[quote] The show is extremely expensive to produce.

By all means, produce it cheaper, and I'll be just as happy. There seems to be a Star Trek rule, that the product gets better when the budget gets tighter. TNG is not still popular for the special effects. It's popular for geeky sci-fi ideas and Picard. ENT - in my humble opinion - was best in its last season, when the studio slashed the budget in half.

Discovery has a large cast. But I'm sure it's that expensive because of all the SFX. But for me, SFX doesn't necessarily stand for high quality. I appreciate a nice looking production. But DSC is overdoing the SFX. It's often so busy that you cannot really follow what's going on. And do we need a space battle in every episode? It feels to me like they're screaming at you: Look how much money they gave us to spend. People are rooting for characters, not effects. They talk about Michael and her relationships to her friends, brother, patents etc. That's what matters. Write me some Shakespearean drama in space and I'm just as happy.

Amen. The last episode was so visually cluttered, it looked like a Star Wars prequel. Begone with that garbage!

Someone should start a Jeffery Hunter thread.

[bold]How Queer Is Star Trek? The History of Queer Representation in Star Trek[/bold]

[quote]Star Trek is not just one of the longest-running sci-fi franchises ever, it is also the most hopeful. The Federation represents the pinnacle of humanity: the idea that we can and will make a better life for each other. Yet, despite Trek’s message of a better future for all, LGBTQ+ characters are few and far between, and this exclusion has led to more than a few clashes between Star Trek creators and fans in the past. As Star Trek: Discovery heads into its next chapter, let’s look back at the franchise’s history of LGBTQ+ representation. Does Discovery fulfill the promise of a more harmonious, progressive future? Or does it, too, fall prey to the pitfalls that have plagued Star Trek’s past?

Not a single lesbian in the entirety of Star Trek's history.

Until now.

Did anyone get a chance to watch the advance screeners for the DS9 documentary? The online reaction is good, apparently the HD clips look fantastic.

R191, who's the lesbian now? Tig Nataro's character isn't a lesbian if that's who you are talking about. Is there another character who is supposed to be a lesbian?

Reno is the widow of a woman who died.

Not a lesbian?

Go ask Rose.

What I viewed it was said that Netflix paid for the season 1 production and Werent happy so CBS had to pay for season 2 so I guess that's probably why the survey. I think if they stick to what they are doing and offer more trek series to their stream service I would think people will keep their subscription. And another thing, like me before I bet there's a lot of star trek fans who are still saying "I am not paying for another stream service". I tried that for a few weeks, downloading episodes from torrents but only getting headaches so I decided to subscribe and never looked backed. I did cancelled after season 1. Sup back on for season 2 but probably might keep it for a little longer since I also like the twilight zone and the good fight. Maybe it might help them if they show some of season 1 on regular tv or on domestic Netflix. I bet they will get more subscribers to see season 2 when they finish see the last episode of season 1 when they answer the enterprise's distress hail.

Discovery Season 2 had 14 episodes, correct?

Last night was the first Thursday without a new episode., correct?

When is S3 expected?

Also, Fuck CBS

[quote]What I viewed it was said that Netflix paid for the season 1 production and Werent happy so CBS had to pay for season 2 so I guess that's probably why the survey.

The (more generic) survey was there last year as well and there was an organised campaign on Reddit to cancel the All Access subscription immediately after DISCO ended and write "Lack of Trek content" under Reasons. The CBS of course realised this is their main cash cow o this platform, so they announced a new all-year Trek strategy with more Trek shows, and offered a more Trek-oriented survey this year.

Netflix did cover the entire cost of the first season with their non-US distribution deal going forward, but the show is HUGE overseas for them, so they're more than happy with carrying this show internationally.

r196 Yes, 14 episodes and last week's was the last one. Season 3 filming lasts from beginning of July to end of December, so we might get it in the first half of 2020?

[quote] Someone should start a Jeffery Hunter thread

Make it so.

[quote]“Having Riker engaged in passionate kisses with a male actor might have been a little unpalatable to viewers.”

r189 Rick fucking Berman, the gift that keeps on giving. That's totally his own personal disgust coming through in that statement.

I don't watch this show; who is the guy in OP's gif?

r201 British actor Shazad Latif.

He and his hair and his beard better be in that Section 31 spinoff. Or else.

Thanks, r202. He's pretty.

Very pretty, yes.

I watched the DS9 documentary this morning, and I have mixed feelings. First off, the show looks amazing in HD and I really hope this pushes CBS to finally remaster it. But overall the documentary felt really disjointed. I swear they spent more time talking about Vic Fontaine than they did the main cast. For a two hour documentary it felt kind of rushed. There was some great stuff, the breakdown of the first episode of a theoretical season 8 was pretty cool. I just wish they would have talked more about specific episodes and how they came up with stuff, they even kind of rushed over Terry Farrell's departure from the show.

[quote]they even kind of rushed over Terry Farrell's departure from the show.

They show took a ridiculous left turn when Dax and Worf got together.

It always felt a bit vindictive for them to kill Jadzia, rather than give her a recurring role for the 7th seventh season. It wasn't a GoT-type thing where they wanted to create real suspense because main characters could die.

R194, there's been discussion about her being bi, trans, or queer. I don't buy that she's going to be just a lesbian. They'll trans or queer her character. There's a reason the wife is dead. Just watch.

R207 Jadzia's death at the end of season six was terrible because it was rushed. From what was said in the documentary, writers were led to beleive by the producers (aka Rick Berman) that Terry Farrell was bluffing and would come back. She was serious and her contract was not renewed. In the documentary she was told by a producer (strongly hinted to be Berman) that she was offered a take it or leave it deal with no raise and she was told take this or go work at K-Mart.

[quote]. She was serious and her contract was not renewed. In the documentary she was told by a producer (strongly hinted to be Berman) that she was offered a take it or leave it deal with no raise and she was told take this or go work at K-Mart.

So, it killing her was a petty vindictive act by the showrunners.

Interestingly, she rolled straight from DS9 to the Ted Danson show Becker which started in 1998. The only thing that makes me wonder whether we have the full story is that she left that show after four years also before it ended. She clearly had to have that lined up and ready to go.

R210 according to Farrell over the years, she auditioned for Becker while filming the second last episode of season six "the sound of her voice" in which Dax was only in one scene.

It made me think too, r210. Leaving both shows early made me believe that she had a greedy agent who didn't know how to negotiate or when to stop.

R210 & R212 this was not talked about in the documentary at all just bits and pieces I've collected from interviews/convention appearances over the years from Berman, Ira Behr and Terry Farrell. Basically, Farrell had grown unhappy on the show by season 6. She felt that her story lines following her character's marriage to Worf had dried up and she expressed annoyance of long days on the set only just to deliver a handful of lines. Allegedly, Farrell wanted to return in season 7 but at a reduced episode commitment but with a significant salary increase which basically would have allowed her to collect a full time pay check for less work. Farrell has stated over the years she was annoyed that Berman allowed Colm Meany to take numerous breaks during the show's run to go and do other roles but wouldn't extend the same liberty to any other member of the cast (except Dorn but only because he was doing TNG movies). This was the source of the issue. Berman and Paramount said there was only one season so you're either in all the way or your out. I think there was an element of both sides thinking the other was bluffing but Farrell walked.

Here's the other gossip. Farrell was not particularly well liked on the set. Allegedly she had the reputation for being high strung and kind of a diva. Over the years, Armin Shimmerman has done a somewhat poor job at hiding his contempt for her. I attended a convention once and Armin was on stage with Alexander Siddig, and Siddig made a comment about Farrell complaining about something during filming and Shimmerman said "when didn't she bitch about something."

I think she had attempted to do some kind of sick-out on Becker during contract renegotiations.

While I know how scuzzy producers are, the fact that she hasn't really worked in fifteen years says a lot.

I think it's really only the TNG cast that really got along well. They really seem to adore each other after all these years.

The VOY crew seemed the unhappiest, but seem to have kind of made peace in the years since.

The VOY crew these days is like a group of pensioners who are completely at peace with all the crap that's happened in the past. This might be my favourite panel of theirs; just hysterical. And in the grand tradition of ST panels, Manu is there to make the actually interesting people pop out more and bring the mood down now and then.

The TNG cast is the Are You Being Served cast of SciFi.

Tea. Earl Grey. Hot. I'm. Free!

Of all the casts (I don't know enough about to discovery to comment) TNG got along the best. They are all still really close to this day, and they have amazing chemistry. I saw them all on stage in 2012 when they were doing conventions for the 25th anniversary of the show. The TOS cast all had issues with Shatner.

DS9 - the cast got along fairly well, but it was a much more serious set. Avery Brooks is a very serious kind of "out there" person and that reflected in the cast. There wasn't the deep friendships like between the TNG cast (though Nana Visitor and Alexander Sidding had a child together). I also think that unlike the TNG cast, the cast of DS9 were a mix of ages and most were married with children by the time the did the show.

VOY - Lots of great gossip on this show. Cast got along well for the first couple of years. Kate Mulgrew fucked both director Winrich Kolbe and co-star Robert Beltran (aka Chakotay) sometime before the third season. Mulgrew/Beltran's fuck session ended somewhat badly and that began a bit of tense relationship between the two. Then Jennifer Lien was fired and Jeri Ryan was brought onboard and Mulgrew went ballistic and the feud between Mulgrew and Ryan is the stuff of legends.

ENT - don't know much about this show. Cast got along well but allegedly everyone hated Linda Park.

Jeri Ryan was fucking Brannon Braga, who was writing on the show at the time. So that's smarter than fucking a director as those keep rotating. Sure, they can put some vaseline on the lenses to make you look younger, but they have no say when it comes to the script and that's where the real meat of the show is. I literally know nothing about the ENT cast so the bit about Park intrigues me.

It's so interesting watching the new DISCO crew excitedly gushing about Star Trek and how important this show is - because they're currently making money off of it. Fast forward twenty, thirty years and you have the likes of Brent Spiner saying he only watched two episodes of TNG and saw it's all the same garbage, and other actors bitching about the bad writing on their respective shows with complete irreverence. I love that contrast, personally.

[quote]Mulgrew/Beltran's fuck session ended somewhat badly

How does a heterosexual fuck session end badly, I wonder?

R220, because is was make believe in R218's mind.

R221 actually it isn't a figment of R218's imagination. It has been gossiped about within the Voyager fandom for years. If you google it you'll find gossip it about it all over the internet. The rumor is the affair started at some point during either the second or third season. Indeed, Beltran and Mulgrew's relationship soured to such a degree that he was openly trashing her in interviews during the final seasons of the show.

I would think Beltran being gay soured the fuck session. By the end of the show and beyond, Beltran never missed an opportunity to bitch about the show, mostly the writing. That probably prevented him from getting new gigs. Who wants a cast member shitting on your brain child? Being an extremely wooden actor probably didn't help either.

The Linda Park animosity seems to have some truth. I keep reading about it. It's too bad though. Of the supporting cast I thought she was the best actor with the most potential. But she must have been really difficult to work with. How- I don't know.

With DSC it's so hard to tell right now. All that jolly cast experience is so well documented on Instagram that it's hard to tell what's real and what's manufactured.

[quote]With DSC it's so hard to tell right now. All that jolly cast experience is so well documented on Instagram that it's hard to tell what's real and what's manufactured.

Seeing how many of them were at Mary Wiseman's wedding, I err on the side of it being fairly genuine.

Good point! That's indeed a pretty good indicator.

Beltran has an adorable (and clearly biological) daughter with a German frau, so I don't know about the gay part.

DISCO's crew might be tight at the moment, but you just know there are going to be juicy stories trickling out at conventions decades from now. You can't have the show change so many hands for so many different reasons and not have some tea to spill.

I was listening to the podcast I mentioned earlier upthread and one of the hosts casually mentioned Michael Dorn was gay. I didn't know he was out? I do know there's a DLer who really enjoys retelling his story of blowing him in a stall at a Trek convention once.

Yup, the Mulgrew/Beltran rumors are nothing new. Just google it and you'll see Trekboards have been talking about it for ages. Robert Picardo, Ethan Philips, Garrett Wang and even Marina Sirtis have dropped hints about it. Allegedly one of the reasons Beltran wanted Chatkotay to end up with Seven was just to piss Kate off.

R226 The Dorn rumors have been around for years, but he's not out and I'm not sure he is actually gay. I know at convention once, a fan made the assumption Dorn was gay and Marina Sirtis laughed it off saying the only thing he's interested in is planes.

r227 I mean, that podcast co-host (an actress herself) had just met him at a Trek convention and stated matter-of-factly that he's gay. The gay guy who was the guest on that episode kinda sailed past it quickly, so I think there might be a glass closet kind of situation at play here. I wouldn't take Sirtis' word on this as she's his family so of course she'd never out him publicly like that.

I know Beltran told Ryan in makeup once that Brannon would be too jealous to write a kissing scene for the two and she laughed it off. He then received a script with a kissing scene later in the season with Brannon's note attached, saying something like "You were saying I'm jealous?" Mulgrew didn't seem to enjoy that anecdote though, so there might be some truth to the rumour that Beltran did that to piss her off.

Whatever the case, there doesn't seem to be any animosity left between any of the VOY crew these days. Most of those little feuds tend to run out of steam eventually when you're not working on the same project anymore.

[quote] I know at convention once, a fan made the assumption Dorn was gay and Marina Sirtis laughed it off saying the only thing he's interested in is planes.

For what it's worth, I was at a convention many years ago with Dorn on the panel and a twenty-something woman in the audience talking about him dating her sister back in the days.

Do you know which podcast of Treks and the City they talk about Dorn? I've always suspected he might be gay and not to be racist but it's possible he was on the down low for years.

r230 Hunting for it right now but I've been on a binge so it might take a while. The guest was a gay guy, of that I'm certain. My bet would be the one covering the episode "Family" with Ira because that episode is about Worf's parents so it makes the most sense she'd mention Michael Dorn more than usual. It would also make sense why Ira didn't comment on it because he's another black gay man working in showbiz and might know what's up with Dorn.

Well, here's an intersection of DL goodness.

B'Elanna directed the Chrissy Metz movie currently out that is the subject of another DL thread.

r232 Damn, I had no idea. Small world. I was just watching VOY 20th anniversary reunion earlier today and wondered about Dawson's career these days.

Okay, it wasn't the one with Ira. So it has to be an episode with either Guy Branum, Jon Lovett, or Doug Jones. I'm going to hunt this bitch down if it's the last thing I do...

Yup, found it. It's the episode "Skin of Evil" with Jon Lovett. Starts at 28:00, when Jon talks about the on-screen chemistry between Denise Crosby and Michael Dorn. I think Alice caught herself saying something she shouldn't and quickly made a joke about it to try and course correct.

Judge for yourselves.

R232 & R233 Roxanne Dawson has since the end of Voyager largely just directed. Dawson sadly is a Trump supporter and a fundamentalist christian.

[quote]Dawson sadly is a Trump supporter and a fundamentalist christian.

Fuuuuuck. Well, that's ruined one of my favourite Trek characters for me retroactively. Just like that. Self-hating deplorable Latinas are the worst.

[quote]Dawson sadly is a Trump supporter and a fundamentalist christian.

Well, that sucks. I wondered why she would direct something like that schlockfest.

Fun fact #2: the "Biggs" hyphen that she used to use in her last name was from being married to Damar.

Can we agree that DSC is the shortened form for Discovery, not DISCO? Ugh.

[quote]Can we agree that DSC is the shortened form for Discovery, not DISCO? Ugh.

Hey, just be grateful we're not calling it the much more common "STD"

We most certainly don't agree on that. Reddit uses DISCO the most, followed by DSC and DIS. They even have the shirts on the show that say "DISCO" so it's basically canon. The world doesn't revolve around your frustrations, fortunately.

[quote]much more common "STD"

Definitely not much more common; not by any stretch. Except on The Orville subreddit, naturally.

Every other Trek show is identified with its three letter nickname.

ST: TOS

ST: TNG

ST: DS9

ST: VOY

ST: ENT

ST: DSC

Not rocket science.

Also, always good to avoid doing anything Reddit does on a regular basis.

I thought the DS9 doc was great. The candor with which they talked about their successes and failures at being not-completely-straight was refreshing, particularly when they admitted that they should have at least tried to have Garak come out. Also, Rick Berman has really mellowed out over the years.

One gets the impression that, as much as Dorn loves his TNG castmates, he was more proud of his work on DS9. And it was interesting to hear them all talking about, despite how weird he is, that they all seemed to really respect Brooks

R244 it's not an impression, Dorn has long stated that he felt the writing on DS9 was superior to TNG and the better show. One of the reasons I love DS9 is that it really takes some of the building blocks from TNG but goes to a whole new level, which is what I think a spin-off should do - take the franchise to the next level. For example, TOS was about Kirk/Spock/McCoy then TNG started as Picard/Riker/Data but became more of an ensemble show as it progressed (though characters like Dr. Crusher, Troi and even LaForge remained underused), DS9 took TNG's ensemble style and made the show far more character oriented. VOY and the first 2 seasons ENT really tried to hard to emulate TNG. Indeed, I often call VOY just TNG 2.0 with lamer writing.

I had actually dreaded them adding Worf to the show, except that instead of him ruining DS9, DS9 made Worf awesome.

Apparently, he was always a DS9 character and nobody knew it.

[quote]particularly when they admitted that they should have at least tried to have Garak come out

I kept waiting for that penny to drop watching it as a teenager, and it never did. Like, what's the big deal, I thought to myself. Crazy how society was stuck up in this regard not that long ago. And it was a self-fulfilling prophecy, with the execs thinking the advertisers would pull out because the audience would protest and so the producers like Berman didn't want to rock the boat. Whatever you might think about the current era of super-woke TV, at least I get to see people like myself on the screen left and right.

Yeah, instead they paired Garak with Ziyal who appeared to be underage at her first appearance. A year later she had matured a lot and that old ass was after her right there. She wasn't underage anymore, but the age discrepancy was still quite delicate.

Kiazi's children, their faces wet , r237, r238.

R248 I totally forgot about Garak and Ziyal. I'm glad Ira acknowledged that Trek could have done more for the LGBTQ community, however, out of all the Trek's DS9 pushed the furthest into address the topic of gay rights. And I believe there is no way Paramount would have allowed them to make Garak openly gay, not in 1990s on a show were men 18 to 40 were the largest demographic.

They could have outed him in his last-ever episode, to minimise the outrage. It would have been gross but still better than nothing.

R251, I wouldn't be so sure about that.

I was only a freshman in high school when DS9 ended, so I was in elementary school when it started, and I remember thinking the show would be better if Garak was gay and Bashir bisexual. To me Garak being paired with Ziyal, was just creepy as fuck.

[quote]and Bashir bisexual

Yup, that was the second penny for me right there. Bashir totally exuded a bisexual vibe from the first time I saw him.

"Someone will buy it." - DS9 writers, probably

I also liked that seemingly everyone involved, cast and crew, was pissed that the Paramount suits wouldn't let Brooks shave his head for three seasons.

r256 That's crazy. What was the reasoning behind it? So he wouldn't look too much like Picard?

I love these little Trek gossip dumps during the off-season. More, please!

Oh, the stories she'll tell at conventions twenty years from now...

And by "she" I of course mean Mount who you just know is a tremendous bitch backstage.

[quote][R256] That's crazy. What was the reasoning behind it? So he wouldn't look too much like Picard?

I think that was part of it, but a lot of them implied there was a racial component as well.

I loved hearing Penny Johnson Jerald say how sexy she thought it was and that she loved touching it.

[quote]a lot of them implied there was a racial component as well

Yeah... I was about to also ask in my post if they thought he might look too jailbird or too ghetto, but then thought the suits surely wouldn't have been brazenly racist like that. Of course I was wrong. Such different times.

Seeing the Enterprise triad makes me realize how much I actually enjoyed Rebecca Romijn as Number One. She must have had only five lines in the entire second season, but she gave that character instantaneously lots of character. Would like to see more of her in that role.

About Brook's bald head: I once read they wanted Sisko to look distinctly different from Hawk, the role Brooks played in the Spenser spin-off. This by itself made perfect sense to me until they added more explanation. Allegedly, Hawk looked too demon like and that's they didn't want to replicate the look for Sisko.

I wore my Che Kira t-shirt that I got as a backer to the gym today. Probably confused everyone, but I was repping the doc.

Re: Avery Brook's hair. In the documentary it was basically confirmed that the reason Paramount didn't let him shave his head until later in the show's run was for racial reasons. Basically they thought it would look "too street" to have black guy with a bald head.

So, most of the TNG cast appeared at Awesome Con this weekend at DC and they were asked if they knew anything about the Picard series. Frakes confirmed they are currently filming the first episode and that's all he's allowed to say. Gates McFadden and Marina Sirtis both stated that none of the TNG cast have been asked to appear and that they know absolutely nothing about what the show is about. Stewart and Frakes won't spill any details to them. Then Marina said something that made my heart sink, she said "maybe all the old Enterprise-D crew is dead" and I'm actually starting to wonder.

I think it did like online that they're doing a location shoot in a vineyard (I assume in Sonoma), so I guess Picard did retire to his grapes.

R267 Yes read that too. It feels a bit odd and sad that Picard and his former shipmates from the Enterprise apparently are no longer in contact. I had hoped he and Beverly would have gotten together.

r266 I know fans were very vocal about wanting to see at least cameos from the former crew, but I can also understand how Stewart would like this to be his project alone. Also, there's always younger actors who need to be given a chance and also to attract new younger fans. Replenishing the fanbase is a real thing. Established TNG fans are going to watch this no matter what.

r267 Yes, I posted the photo of the location at r157 the day after they started shooting there.

I do wonder how they're going to get around the knowledge that Picard is going to develop Space Alzheimers. I know they can just say they found a cure, but that's just going to trigger whining that it violates the future we saw in the TNG finale.

R270 The future as depicted in the TNG finale was an alternate timeline. Data even stated so right at the end of the episode. Indeed, the destruction of the Enterprise-D in Generations assured that future wouldn't happen. Also, in his final log on the series, Picard states something about Beverly having found no trace of his "space Alzheimer." I think they may wait until later in the first season or possibly second season (If there is one) before they bring in a TNG face in order to establish the show as its own entity. However Marina's comment this weekend makes me fear they are going to pull a shock by stating the crew of the Enterprise with the exception of Picard are all dead.

Stewart said there's enough story there for two seasons and that it should be a limited series. In other words, two seasons tops.

The Enterprise crew is probably scattered throughout the galaxy anyway. So it's unlikely to find them all at the same place. And after 20 years it's not too unlikely that people lost sight of each other. On the flip side, I am sure they have a narrative ready that explains the new situation without his beloved crew. And also: I would be surprised if they didn't sprinkle in a cameo every now and then. Some long distance video conversation on view screen can be filmed in an hour outside the usual filming schedule.

Personally, I was hoping for a cross-over sequel. Instead of a TNG character, Picard would interact with Seven of Nine or Kira Nerys, something like that.

I'm going with a never say never to that.

[quote]Some long distance video conversation on view screen can be filmed in an hour outside the usual filming schedule.

Sure, but you can only do that once or maybe twice at most as it's really gimmicky. I doubt we'll see any of them and I'm fine with that. I'd rather see a Janeway cameo, personally.

Watching the VOY panel at the 2017 Las Vegas convention and I can't believe Beltran taught acting and Shakespeare at the UCLA one semester that year. He was also about to do Hamlet in York Theatre Royal later that year. I know Brooks still teaches acting as well.

Was Trek just not a good fit for these two actors and that's why they came across as so wooden? I guess I just can't wrap my head around these (in my opinion) terrible actors teaching anyone how to act. Brooks got better later on but Beltran... hoo, boy.

R276 Some actors on Trek have complained the Berman constantly told them to scale their acting back and be more low key on screen and I think this why some of the actors on all the spin-offs came off wooden frequently. If you look at some of the actors with really strong theater backgrounds like Marina Sirtis, Gates McFadden, Avery Brooks they were fairly wooden on screen except in episodes where they were "allowed to play it up" for example Sirtis in "Power Play" or "Face of the Enemy," McFadden in "Remember Me" and even "Sub Rosa" (terrible episode but Gates actually was probably at her best in this episode" or Avery Books in "Far Beyond the Stars."

The DS9 doc very strongly hints that Avery was forced to tone down the character because TPTB were worried white viewers would be intimidated by a black captain. One other thing the doc talks about was Sisko's rank. Basically Sisko was originally supposed to a lot younger like early 30s which is why he wasn't a Captain yet. However they cast Brooks who was already in his mid-40s by the time he was cast and Ira Behr felt they should have made him a captain given his age from day one. He said it seemed unbelievable that a man Brooks' age would still only be a commander.

r277 Thanks, that explains a lot. I watched that panel to the end and Picardo does say he was basically the only one of the cast who was allowed to overact because the others had to act like proper Starfleet officers and so were pretty constrained by that direction. I've always loved Chakotay and thought he had crazy suave presence coming off him in waves but the acting in his case just wasn't my cup of tea. The scoop about Brooks having to tone it down because of racist reasons is just awful and makes me feel bad for thinking the wooden acting was his fault.

[quote]and even "Sub Rosa" (terrible episode but Gates actually was probably at her best in this episode)

My favorite episode of Star Trek ever. And I agree that Gates was marvelous in it.

R278 It's also fairly well-known that Avery Brooks was never overly happy on the show. I think he calmed down in the later years a bit, but certainly he's on record as saying he tried to leave the show early in its run. Brooks isn't interviewed for the new documentary, they use archived interviews. He stopped making appearances at Trek conventions around 2012 or so and told producers that he had no more to say about the show. He also didn't appear in Entertainment Weekly's DS9 reunion in 2018.

Despite that, everyone seemed to really respect him, and especially seemed to admire his insistence that one of Sisko's defining traits be that he was a really good father.

[quote] Some actors on Trek have complained the Berman constantly told them to scale their acting back and be more low key on screen

I read about that in a slightly different context. According that book or article that I had read, every actor playing a human had to tone it down so there would be more room to find different tones for those playing aliens.

R280 Yup clearly he's admired by the cast. Brooks was very serious when he was doing DS9 and that's one of the reasons it was a far more subdued set than TNG or Voyager. The tradition in Trek (up until DSC) was that the actor playing the Captain set the tone for the rest of the cast. If you've heard him talk over the years, it was clear to Brook this was just a job.

DISCO has had no fixed captain and yet both Isaacs and Mount killed it off the set with an amazing Twitter game. Still, it could be said that Isaacs was the one who set the tone for normal to warm relations among the crew with his little picnics during the first season. He and Mount are both such charmers. I wonder what'll happen next season - are they going to make Saru and Michael duke it out for the big chair? Or will the shared captaincy become the source of drama?

r281 That makes sense on the paper but I went down the VOY convention panels rabbit hole today and Ethan Phillips said something similar to Picardo - that most everyone playing a Starfleet (military) character was constrained in their acting choices because they had to play them with a degree of rigidity. So he tried to do some "alien" stuff with Neelix once and the showrunner told him "No, don't do that, you're just a guy". And he wondered why all the prosthetics then if he's just a guy. So from then on he decided to play the character pretty much as himself in real life.

As an aside, from 1 to 5, how much do we think the other actors are dying inside when one of them recounts the exact same anecdote at these panels for the nth time? I swear I saw Tim Russ' spirit leave his body when Wang started his matress spiel. It's nice for the fans but the actors have to get tired of answering pretty much the same questions over and over again, right?

I would think every theater actor has those very same feelings. As long as you're getting paid for entertaining the audience they should feel OK and be a good sport.

[quote]I've always loved Chakotay...

I think that's the first time those words have ever been written.

Doubt it - he had crazy sex energy coming off him that my (highly-intuitive) gayling ass could not ignore. And he was kind and soft-spoken and took orders from a woman without losing anything in the process or getting bitter about it. The complete opposite of toxic masculinity, which was refreshing to see on TV at the time. And of course that's all still admirable in 2019 when the US is yet to elect a female president.

A character ahead of its time. Shame about that scamming "Native American" consultant, though. Puts a stink on everything.

Honestly, R287, I've never seen anyone else like Chakotay.

R288 Even in that episode that featured other Native Americans, they all seemed annoyed by him. While I'm down with a strong male taking orders from a female captain, shouldn't there have been more friction between them, especially early on, considering he was a rebel and she was the Starfleet Captain sent to hunt him down.

r289 Yes, but that has little to do with the character. The writers just botched that whole rebel storyline completely because it would mean too much conflict on a Trek show. Huge missed opportunity, though admittedly the show makes for a cosier rewatch as a result. It's pure comfort food, just like TNG.

R289 But to me it had a lot to do with his character, because it made him appear weak and like he didn't have strong convictions, yet he was always walking around smugly acting like he had strong moral integrity. Also, I never liked him, because in the Star Trek universe all the other humans are shown as leaving behind religion, but for some reason it was ok for him to have his spirituality be a major part of who he is because he was Native American, which really just made the Natives look like backward and I found it to be patronizing.

Plus, his face tattoo kept moving around. And, the final nail in his coffin...the forced as hell Seven of Nine romance that was vomit-inducing.

r291 They had the best intentions in mind representation-wise and the trope of the magical indigenous person wasn't yet that big on TV back then. Coupled with the huckster consultant, I let them slide when it comes to Chakotay's spiritual stuff. But you're right, that aspect sticks out more and more and has aged horribly.

Though the things they've had the Vulcans do with their katras in ENT bothers me just as much, if not more. They went from logical species to... I don't know what exactly, but it sure is close to magic.

R293 But, it was ok, because for some reason any non-Human species is able to be religious/spiritual in Star Trek.

I didn't notice the tattoo moving on his face, though a New Zealand guy asked Beltran at one of the panels I binged yesterday if the face art was inspired by the Maori people and he said yes. So that's another major cringe to add to the collection - apparently they were just piling on indigenous elements from all over the world! Again, best intentions but it really was a different time for minority portrayal. I'm just grateful we've managed to go from Chakotay to Akecheta on Westworld in a relatively short amount of time. Though season four of Outlander happened just this year and... yeah, that one was pretty rough for the Cherokee and the Mohawk representation. But that's for another thread.

[quote]...any non-Human species is able to be religious/spiritual in Star Trek.

That's something else DS9 handled better than other Treks. They treated the Bajoran religion as mostly a PITA, and sometimes as outright hucksterism.

Really, R296? Kira was very religious the whole time, no?

OK, can someone do a status check on the end of ST:DIS season 2?

Where are the ships?

Where are the people.

What about Naomi?

R296 But, they also showed that the Bajorians were worshiping truly supernatural beings that lived in the wormhole, therefore validating their worship.

Following up on a previous discussion.

r300 Uncomfortable question. Gates looks like Famke Janssen in that shot.

There's no question there, R301. What do you mean? (THAT is a question, btw).

I meant the question from the audience that prompted Marina's reply. Would be extra awkward if Stewart were there as well.

CBS CEO says Picard show will have "strong international appeal". The Netflix deal might come to an end soon:

[quote]We launched All Access in Canada a year ago and followed it up with 10 All Access in Australia last fall. Next up, we will launch our direct-to-consumer services in Latin America and Western Europe, two regions where we see high growth potential and strong interest in our premium content.

Or maybe not:

[quote]It’s country by country and franchise by franchise. I don’t think we are saying anything now or in the future that we are not going to license content to third parties. Sometimes if they can pay you more money because they have the better infrastructure to monetize it, we will take that money and reinvest it into our businesses.

So there is serious buzz on Twitter that the reason that the TNG cast has not been asked is we'll discover they are all dead that Picard was one of the few survivors of the attempt to stop the Romulan star from going nova.

r305 Love that! Never liked any of them apart from Lwaxana. Can already hear the wailing from the TNG fans.

That would be a really stupid move. Of course, Trek will just create a new timeline to cover all their bases.

On a related note, do all of these companies think people have unlimited money to sign up for unlimited streaming services? They need to figure out a better business model because we're already to the point where there are too many streaming services. Now each channel and studio is going to make their own? Not going to work for long.

It's going to suck for the authors of the expanded universe novels. They've built out an incredibly rich canvas since the shows ended. And a few things from the books have bled over into the shows, the most significant of which was Control.

They'll be annoyed, although I'm sure they knew this would be a risk from the start.

I'm giving the show the benefit of the doubt, because it's the baby of Kirsten Beyer, who is the author of the fantastic Voyager novels. If nothing else, I can't believe she'd let herself hang out to dry.

So sad to read about Roxann/B'elanna being a Trump supporter (confirmed by her twitter follows). She follows the "WalkAway" organizer, Candace Owens, Roseanne, Diamond & Silk, and I'm sure many more.

I find it hard to believe they would kill off every TNG character other than Picard -- unless they plan on using time travel to correct it. A mass kill off of characters from a beloved show just doesn't seem like a PR move CBS All Access would make.

I think they should at least have cameos from a couple of them. Picard would still be in touch with Beverly and a couple others. I could see him dropping Troi and La Forge; those two would be his email buddies at most.

The more I think about it, the more I feel the Picard series is a bad idea and I fear it will damage TNG's legacy. I love Picard but I love him as part of that whole crew and I think it's disappointing that we [at least at this moment] will not be seeing any of them.

This article has an interesting theory about what the show might be about, but I'm not sold we really need this story. I doubt they will kill the other TNG characters off. They might try and somewhat connect some of the events of the alternate future of All Good Things into this. E.g. Riker is a now an Admiral. Beverly and Picard married and divorced. LaForge is retired.

Anything on Linda Cardellini from Freaks and Geeks, ER, and that new show with Christina Applegate? She's always pinged a bit to me but supposedly dated Jason Segal during Freaks and Geeks and has been engaged to some ugly guido-looking guy for years but she's 40-something and never married. She just had a small lesbian role in A Simple Favor. Does she ping for anyone else or is it just a holdover from the Lindsay crush during Freaks and Geeks?

[quote]A mass kill off of characters from a beloved show just doesn't seem like a PR move CBS All Access would make.

He'll just mention it in a throwaway line, it's not like they're going to show each of them dying in a graphic way. I agree that it would be easier to just not address any of them. They were coworkers and they moved on, that's it.

What would be the purpose of even killing them off in a throwaway line? It's stupid unless the show's focus is to fix the timeline to bring them back but that's been done to death. This show is sounding like a worse and worse idea as it goes along. They always overdo stuff until they fuck it up and lose the base of support then they have to take a break for a few years to clear everyone's palate.

They won't appear on the show either way so does it really matter if Picard says they're all dead? I'd prefer that or not mentioning them at all over those stupid cameos where they call in and are seen on the little monitor.

I am actually ok with a mere throw away line where Picard mentions that everybody is alive and well and all are sailing the seven seas. And then we can all move on to new stories. What I can do without is the constant questions of How do things fit into canon? Or did they just retcon the long beep of the right console? Just use the TNG canvas with its universe and technology and get us new, fresh stories.

[bold]Star Trek's Ira Steven Behr Looks Back on the Complex Legacy of Deep Space Nine[/bold]

[quote]Twenty-six years after it first debuted, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine is now seen as one of the franchise’s finest entries. The series was a dark examination of the moral push and pull on Starfleet’s finest ideals in a time of war, that examined the, at times, bitter cost of maintaining Star Trek’s grand utopia. But it wasn’t always seen that way.

26 years already, that's crazy.

They're not going to kill off the rest of the crew with a throwaway line. That's just ridiculous. This is all based off Marina Sirtis making a joke about them all being dead. There's no way she would reveal such a massive spoiler if it was true.

[quote]That's just ridiculous.

Not really, That would be my ideal scenario, actually. Certainly better than ignoring them completely throughout.

From the rumored character breakdown it appears that whatever Picard is doing it doesn't appear to be an official Starfleet sanctioned mission. My guess is the absence of TNG cast will be attributed to Picard involved in something that has to be kept under the radar which means he basically goes AWOL. I have faith that they're will be if not full on explanations as to where the old Enterprise gang is now, there will be hints and easter eggs throughout the show. For example, Picard could refer to an ex-wife whose now a captain in Starfleet, this would be seen by fans as a wink to Dr. Crusher and All Good Things.

[bold]Star Trek: Discovery Became The Most Popular Streaming Show In The World[/bold]

[quote]According to Parrot Analytics, a data analytics firm who measure demand for TV shows across the globe, Star Trek: Discovery season 2 was a measurable hit. Between April 6 and May 5 - the season 2 finale, "Such Sweet Sorrow", released on April 18 - Star Trek: Discovery was the most in-demand digital original series worldwide.

[quote]While this period covers the Star Trek: Discovery season 2 finale, it also includes two weeks afterward, suggesting audiences kept discussing the show online and even rewatching episodes.

Today marks 30 years since the Borg first appeared in Trek! On this day in 1989, "Q Who" premiered.

Biggest dicks in the galaxy.

Special shoutout to my favourite gay Borg, the gorgeous Hugh.

I always thought One was rather handsome.

Damn, r311, really? If it’s any consolation Anson Mount is solidly anti-Trump. He doesn’t post much politics but the few Twitter and Instagram tidbits make it clear.

r326 Very handsome, especially as a Nazi in VOY's The Killing Game. But young Jonathan Del Arco was a SNACK to end all snacks.

r327 Jason Isaacs constantly posts anti-Trump stuff on Twitter and he's funny as shit. So that's two for two for DISCO's captains. Now all we need is Saru becoming the captain and Doug Jones coming out as a Trump supporter during the election. Wouldn't that spice things up?

But seriously, fuck Roxann Dawson. And stay away from Trek.

[quote]But young Jonathan Del Arco was a SNACK to end all snacks.

Old Jonathan Del Arco isn't chopped liver.

r329 I wanted to post that one at first but then I saw his age has caught up with him, so I opted for the former glory instead.

The other famous Borg remains as radiant as ever.

Damn she looks amazing!

[bold]‘Star Trek’ was canceled 50 years ago. Now, the franchise is flying warp speed ahead[/bold]

[quote]It was 50 years ago that “Star Trek” died. The William Shatner-led, at-times kitschy sci-fi series that launched in 1966 stayed on the air only until 1969.

[quote]“The fact that the streaming world has eliminated the lines between movies and television allows for big universes like ‘Star Trek’ to thrive in a way they really couldn’t have before,” says franchise honcho Alex Kurtzman, an executive producer of “Star Trek: Discovery.”

[quote]He declined to provide plot details of either new show, but confirmed the [bold]Picard series[/bold] will bow later this year. “The mandate was to make it a more psychological show, a character study about this man in his emeritus years,” he says. “There are so few shows that allow a significantly older protagonist to be the driver.”

[quote]Not that it would be “Matlock in Space.” “What happens when circumstances have conspired to not give him the happiest of endings? Hopefully, it’s a reinforcement of [‘Trek’ creator Gene] Roddenberry’s vision of optimism. He’s going to have to go through deep valleys to get back to the light. It’ll be very different than ‘Discovery.’ It’ll be slower, more meditative. It speaks to the rainbow of colors we’re playing with in all these different shows. ”

R328, I forgot that about Isaacs. Thanks! I hope he comes back in some form. (Was it established that Prime Lorca died? Can’t remember.)

I know that Doug Jones identifies as Christian as does Martin-Green. But he seems “progressive” if that means anything. Anything is possible, I suppose!

r334 Oh my God, you just rocked my world to the core when I went to google Doug Jones. He's straight and married to a woman?! I always just assumed he was a big ol' theatre homo for some reason (him constantly singing showtunes probably had something to do with it). And the jokes he had at a Trek convention were like those of a DLer. WTF?!

I guess... I guess you just never know about a person and shouldn't assume. Having said that, him being of an older generation and a "dyed-in-the-wool Christian from the Midwest" (his words) does make one wonder if all is at it seems.

But seriously, I can't recall the last time I was this shook.

[bold]Deep Space Nine's New Documentary Is an Earnest Love Letter to Star Trek's Most Rebellious Era[/bold]

I'm still shaking but here's the review of the DS9 doc.

[quote]It’s a little less “In the Pale Moonlight” and a little more “Badda-Bing, Badda-Bang”, sure. But that’s okay. It’s a pat on the back, 26 years in the making—and one that’s not just deserved, but more than justifies a nostalgic look back at what indeed was left behind after seven seasons: one of Star Trek’s most subversive and challenging chapters. A chapter that in exploring the shadows it cast, made the light of the franchise’s greatest ideals ultimately shine that much brighter. But What We Left Behind clearly reveals that even that light perhaps can’t shine quite as brightly as the candle the cast and crew behind Deep Space Nine so clearly still hold for the series, all these years later.

The doc really reminded me just how much I love DS9. I really, really like Disco, and I thought for a while that BSG might have eclipsed DS9 in my heart as well, but I'd forgotten just how much the cast sparked together.

R337 I feel like DS9 is just finally getting the recognition it deserves. IMO it is the best of the Trek series as it is the most fully realized show. In someways, I get why DS9 didn't take off ratings wise back in the early 90s when it first came out. It was tonally a lot different than either the original and TNG because of its setting, but it paid off in spades if you stuck with it for its entire run. I think the documentary finally sheds just how big DS9's legacy is not just for Trek but for modern sci-fi. While TNG showed sci-fi could succeed on TV, I think DS9 has actually had the longer last impact in that it has shaped many of sci-fi shows that followed it. Indeed, when I watch DSC, you feel DS9's legacy far more than the other shows.

Kurtzman talks again about the still-untitled Picard series.

[quote]The mandate was to make it a more psychological show, a character study about this man in his emeritus years. There are so few shows that allow a significantly older protagonist to be the driver...It’ll be very different than Discovery. It’ll be slower, more meditative. It speaks to the rainbow of colors we’re playing with in all these different shows.

I already posted that quote at r333 but I'm glad the interest in the Picard show remains high. I just want to watch the whole thing already!

Sorry, R340. I'm dumb.

[quote]The mandate was to make it a more psychological show, a character study about this man in his emeritus years. There are so few shows that allow a significantly older protagonist to be the driver...It’ll be very different than Discovery. It’ll be slower, more meditative. It speaks to the rainbow of colors we’re playing with in all these different shows.

From many people other than Kurtzman, this would be interesting. From him, it's a clarion call for exhausting, self-congratulatory virtue signalling.

Picard is older. He wouldn't be racing around the galaxy. The show should be more West Wing in space, than Westword.

Although it would be too on the nose in today's political environment, I'd love to see a show where the Federation is on the verge of complete collapse as member worlds start breaking away. The speech by Tony Todd's Admiral Ramirez in Prelude to Axanar captures the moment in Federation history I'd love them to do with Picard:

[quote]But I say to you our greatest challenge is not the might of a Klingon fleet...The greatest challenge laying before us, is to do what must be done without undoing the dream of the Federation.

Oh, here we go again. Michael Chabon is also writing on this show so I guess he and the other writers are virtue-signallers as well? And what exactly are they signalling in this case? That it's not bad for an old man to want to go on one final space adventure? I don't get the Westworld comparison either.

[quote]I don't get the Westworld comparison either.

No, I suppose you wouldn't.

[quote]That it's not bad for an old man to want to go on one final space adventure?

The fact that you read what I wrote to mean this pretty much sums it up.

Given what must be a willful intention to read and hear what you want to confirm your own biases about what other people MUST be saying, you're right about one thing...here we go again. Just not in the way you probably think.

Nothing of substance to say then, just throwing random alt-right slogans around that you can't elaborate when pressed. Sounds exactly like some YouTubers declaring DISCO and the Picard series to be cancelled at any moment now.

Good talk.

[quote]Nothing of substance to say then, just throwing random alt-right slogans around that you can't elaborate when pressed.

Yes, because everyone who disagrees with you must be alt-right, as opposed to your fundamental lack of reading comprehension and understanding.

Okay:

Kurtzman: "The mandate was to make it a more psychological show, a character study about this man in his emeritus years...It’ll be very different than Discovery. It’ll be slower, more meditative.

Me: "Picard is older. He wouldn't be racing around the galaxy. The show should be more West Wing in space, than Westword."

West Wing - a character-driven political drama. Westworld, - a sci fi action thriller.

You: "And what exactly are they signalling in this case? That it's not bad for an old man to want to go on one final space adventure?"

"An old man to want to go on one final space adventure" is hardly a psychological more meditative show. You do recognize that your statement is asks for the show that isn't envisioned while I supported the Kurtzmann's statement regarding what the show ought to be.

Finally, the fact that you don't recognize the substance of my actual criticism of you in r344, but declaring it an alt-right slogan is the pot calling the jingoism kettle black.

You are an illustration of the Dunning–Kruger effect - enjoy living like that.

We mock what we do not understand.

You are both idiots if you think you can convince another poster in an online forum to accept your differing point of view. You should both know that's not going to happen. Now drop it and let's get back to the fun that is Star Trek.

Who is convincing whom? I (foolishly) asked what he meant by "virtue-signalling" and the Westworld comparison in this case as I was honestly intrigued, he offered no clear response, and I dropped the matter. Even if the back-and-forth had continued, that's sort of the function of message boards and it would be nothing new on DL.

Also, there's no reason to call people idiots, even on an anonymous message board. Manners, dear.

[quote]Now drop it and let's get back to the fun that is Star Trek.

LOL - I DEMAND that this message board operate as I WANT, not as DL and ALL other message board actually do.

Who is convincing whom? I (foolishly) responded to a direct criticism of throwing "alt-right slogans" around without any substance.

I didn't understand what R342 was trying to say either. And as of his R346, I'm quite sure that's a good thing.

"What happens when circumstances have conspired to not give him the happiest of endings?" So, basically they're going to Luke Skywalker Picard to a degree.

[quote]I didn't understand what [R342] was trying to say either. And as of his [R346], I'm quite sure that's a good thing.

And frankly, I'm good with that, given some of the gems you've posted in this thread.

[bold]Amazon Beams Up Global Rights To CBS All Access’ Jean-Luc Picard ‘Star Trek’ Series[/bold]

[quote]The SVOD will air the Sir Patrick Stewart-fronted series in more than 200 countries and territories outside of the U.S. and Canada. The show will air on Amazon globally within 24 hours of its U.S. premiere.

R353 I was just going to post that! This is surprising as I thought Netflix had made an international deal with CBS.

r354 Just for Discovery; it's not an overall distribution deal. I guess Amazon offered more money for the Picard series. Note the quote I posted at r304:

[quote]It’s country by country and franchise by franchise. I don’t think we are saying anything now or in the future that we are not going to license content to third parties. Sometimes if they can pay you more money because they have the better infrastructure to monetize it, we will take that money and reinvest it into our businesses.

Ugh! Putting Trek series on different streaming platforms in an odd and stupid strategy.

R338 Are you fucking serious? Most of the time DS9 came across as James Reilly's Days Of Our Lives in space.

You had Dukat that wanted to fuck Kira, but had already secretly fucked Kira's mother during the occupation when she prostituted herself out to Cardassians and abondoned her family.

Ezri fucking Worf because she still had residual feelings left over from being Jadzia.

Quark pretending and dressing up to be a woman to get his hands on more latinum.

Odo pining for Kira, who was really fucking Bareil, then Shakaar, then getting impregnated by Miles O'Brien's baby, who Keiko then asked to live with them.

Bashir wanting to fuck that aspie girl in that weird retarded, sorry, mentally handicapped, group.

Kai Winn fucking that Bajoran, which turned out to by none other than Dukat disguised as a Bajoran, thus she has fucked someone that she eternally hates.

Then it was that pathetic religious shit involving the wormhole aliens and pah wraiths.

Dukat going on a mission to find his half caste love child from the occupation.

Garak fucking Dukat's daughter, only for Dukat's loyal employee to shoot her dead.

Keiko having to fuck some man who was possessed inside O'Bren's body.

Jadzia dropping her panties over some weird and ugly alien regularly, then it was her shacking up with Worf. Well it was really Curzon as Jadzia was barely a fleshed out character and had no personality of her own.

Rom fucking the reformed prostitute Leeta only to marry her and get jealous over her other johns.

Sisko dumping his family to run off with wormhole aliens.

Bashir falls in love with an angry cripple.

DS9 always gets touted as some classic by a small, vocal, hardcore section of the fanbase but it really doesn't hold up well. Also it's bullshit that payoffs occured the more you stuck with it. You had that total character rewrite where Bashir was genetically enhanced that even Siddig hated and season 7 was a dumpster fire of awfulness. Kai Winn was a fantastic and interesting character but was reduced to a screaming harridan over the heinous pah wraith story. She lost all her complexities and became a cartoon villain. Speaking of becoming a cartoon villain, Dukat suffered the worst character assassination of all. Nothing he did made sense, his motivations were ridiculous and like Kai Winn became a generic baddie. Quark was always getting shat on. Odo getting with Kira was pathetic and unrealistic.

Introducing so many annoying recurring characters that detracted from the overarching theme and story was probably one of its worse sins. Moogie, Vic Fontaine (pretending to be some knock off Frank Sintra), Rom, Leeta, Brunt, Zek etc.

Also you have a war going on, of which you are on the front line of, yet they waste episodes on trying to find a baseball card, playing a game of baseball with a bunch of racist Vulcans, doing a holodeck heist in the 60s where Sisko can preach his black life matters movement when racism has been eradicated from the federation to characters who aren't real, playing Honey I Shrunk The Kids, Jake getting stuck with a bunch of asshole federation cadets, Dukat getting involved in a cult, Vic Fontaine crooning sixties crap and helping depressed Ferengis, Moogie fucking Zek, Ferengi feminists, Jake getting raped by an alien cougar, pointless episodes of the mirror universe where their evil counterparts are usually gay (sends a great message there).

The writing was always inconsistent. Some times it was good, even great, but for every good moment you had more than enough horrible moments that made you question why you continued to bother with it. I loved it as a kid, but it doesn't hold up very well. It didn't take off because it was routinely shit.

So are you going to completely ignore Babylon 5 being serialized as well. DS9 didn't create a legacy, viewer habits changed and the viewers wanted more serialized stoylines and shows. If you want to credit a show that really put serialized tv on the map with mass appeal, thank 24.

I liked DS9 but W&W for R357, that made me laugh reading it laid out like that

R357 For someone who claims to not to like the show, you certainly know a hell of a lot about it! LOL I don't think R338 was asserting that all serialized television rests with DS9. However DS9 writers (and other TNG writers too) have gone on to work on some of big and influential shows (not just sci-fi shows). Babylon 5 of course played a role, but I can't remember one thing J. Michael Straczynski has done since.

[quote]I can't remember one thing J. Michael Straczynski has done since.

Got nominated for an Oscar.

You are linear, r357.

I was at the Star Trek convention in SF, at the Masonic Hall, where Straczynski spent most of the time trashing Star Trek. Babylon 5 was nothing but a soap opera, and a bad one at that.

Oh, he's a complete prick.

B5 had some very affecting parts, but it's whole is not greater than the sum. It's a great two and a half years of story spread across five seasons.

[quote]For someone who claims to not to like the show, you certainly know a hell of a lot about it! LOL I don't think [R338] was asserting that all serialized television rests with DS9. However DS9 writers (and other TNG writers too) have gone on to work on some of big and influential shows (not just sci-fi shows). Babylon 5 of course played a role, but I can't remember one thing J. Michael Straczynski has done since.

You clearly didn't read my post. I said I loved it as a kid, but the more times I watch it the more the obvious flaws and poor writing stand out. Also if I said I hated it and not backed it up by watching it I'd get accused of being a troll. Damned if you do and damned if don't.

So just because some writers that worked on DS9 went onto bigger and better things somehow makes their poor performance on DS9 better? I think you missed the point. Though don't forget some like Robert Hewitt Wolfe, also went on to work on some abominations like the Kevin Sorbo Pussy Posing Hour aka Andromeda.

Interesting take on the documentary and DS9 as a whole.

R365 Yawn. So sick of these ridiculous myths that continually get perpetuated. DS9 has always had many fans, right from the get go, that have always appreciated what DS9 was about. It has always had recognition and always annoying rabid fans that insist DS9 was treated unfairly or misjudged and not 'loved' enough. Go to any fan forum for over twenty years and you'll see fans gushing about the series, usually putting another Trek show down to elevate the series even higher.

I see the writers also have poor memories too. [quote]the writers began to focus on stories they could only tell on Deep Space Nine.

Most of the stories could have been on any trek, except for the awful Bajoran religious stories or ridiculous soap opera love crap. Most of the episodes were still standalone so no difference really to the other shows. All the other Trek shows have covered wars and violence and gun battles, so not really too dark and gritty, and you can't call a show too gritty when one minute Jadzia recounts banging a guy with a clear skull where you can see his brains to Quark and a group of Ferengis go on a mission together squealing like pigs, fighting over tube grubs and demanding Oo-max.

The Rejoined kiss was pure sensationalism and titillation. One of Jadzia's former hosts wants the slug in another woman back. Cue two hot woman kissing. Ooohhh scandalous. Jadzia's a full blown dyke. Oh wait, no she's not and it's never mentioned again. How progressive!

Umm Voyager continually dealt with repercussions. You know they were stranded in the Delta Quadrant because of Janeway, which was pretty much mentioned every three episodes and Janeway routinely felt guilt and depression over her stupid actions. She couldn't just warp her troubles away, though she did bang that Irish peasant in Fair Haven to no avail.

Shows prior to DS9 rarely had follow up episodes? Come on Daryl Bruce you hack. Fuck Khan was resurrected from fifteen years ago for the movie reboot launch, Sarek had been in two damn shows and a movie, the Borg were recurring villains, Picard still struggled with being assimilated, Troi was still being a prick tease to Riker, Yar's death was routinely revisited, Lore & Q were always lurking around, the Klingon civil war was a notable recurring story, Ro's story was nothing but one whole story progression and Data learning to be human or Worf feeling his Klingon oats dominated the show.

As for pessimism, I think Kirk losing a son and his hatred for Klingons was dark and realistic, Enterprise willing to let a whole planet die because it would violate the Prime Directive including Data's long fingered freak friend, O'brien dealing with that deranged captain hell bent on retribution against Cardassians, Uhura almost getting raped and Kirk's only family getting killed weren't all sunshine and rainbows.

As for ratings DS9 was syndicated and Voyager was on UPN. UPN was a clusterfuck from go to woe. Many stations didn't carry the signal and Voyager was routinely preempted so touting DS9 had better ratings than Voyager's shit ratings isn't much to write home about.

Of course DS9 gets overlooked compared TOS or TNG Armin because they were better shows for the majority of people. Someone better not tell him that Voyager is even more popular than DS9 too, he might really sulk.

More waffle. Discovery has not been shaped by DS9. I doubt any of the writers or producers even know that DS9 exists. Discovery is the product of the Abrams movies and hackneyed eye writers that have no idea about Trek, just general sci fi. Discovery is also following and copying trends from other 21st century shows.

Not shocked Avery Brooks still hasn't removed that stick out of his ass and is a no show. I doubt they would have asked him about his multiple DUI's or arrests.

I didn't know that DS9 episodes had actually higher numbers of viewers than VOY. Very interesting. I love that show. Did so back then and still do. But I couldn't care less about what show is most or least successful. I have my favorite. And if others feel stronger about another Star Trek show - why not? Isn't that the charme of a good franchise, that it's capable to do so many vastly different shows that serve many different people? I just talked to a colleague who claims that ENT is his favorite Star Trek show. Good for him.

[quote] I liked DS9 but W&W for [R357], that made me laugh reading it laid out like that.

I agree, r358. That was epic.

Confirmed Star Trek: Picard and first image from CBS press conference

R366 For someone who doesn't like the show you're sure spending a lot of time on it.

r369 Is that a confirmation that the show will be called Star Trek: Picard or not?

Notice the VOY yellow uniform in the back.

Nevermind, it is in fact ST: Picard. Reddit is already deciding on the acronym.

R371 it does look like a DS9/VOY era uniform except builtin collar, but something about the construction of it made me think of the TNG/DS9 era Academy Cadet's uniform.

There are conflicting reports circling around right now so I'll create a pretty new thread once the title has been confirmed definitively and some nice promo shots come out.

Gosh, I'm so terribly excited! The Star Trek renaissance is well and truly here!

Also of note, Picard is not wearing a uniform so the rumors of him being retired seem true.

People are now complaining about the title.

Never change, Trekkies, never change.

r376 Euphoria has died down and now it's time to BITCH, I love it!

But why the Voyager uniforms? I mean, out of all the options, they're probably my least favorite.

There's my bitching.

They're my absolute favourite (DISCO Enterprise uniforms coming close second) and that's why I'm saving my bitching for another day.

[quote]But why the Voyager uniforms? I mean, out of all the options, they're probably my least favorite.

Yeah, this doesn't seem right since the uniforms had evolved by the time of Nemesis.

I didn't like those Nemesis uniforms and the actors hated them as well. Using two-colour uniforms just looks confusing.

R381 the First Contact uniforms used through season 5 of DS9 until Nemesis I think reflected the somewhat darker tone the franchise took in the late 90s. The new uniforms closely resemble the ones in the Star Trek countdown graphic novels.

R381 no the cast was ok with the Nemesis ones, it was the DS9/Voyager ones they hated. In Generations, both Marina and Gates McFadden were suppose to wear the DS9 outfit. Marina tells the story that Gates called her at home after a costume fitting and said to Marina, can you believe how ugly that unfirom is, and Marina said well I'm not wearing it. Gates was like what do you mean? Marina said that she called Rick and said point blank I'm not wearing it....Gates said I call you right back.....that's why Bev and Deanna wear the TV uniform in Generations.

I specifically recall a DVD commentary of some TNG movie by Marina and Frakes, throwing shade towards the Nemesis uniforms. Hot as hell, apparently.

R384 I believe the Nemesis uniforms were made of wool which probably explains why they were so hot.

So were the revamped TNG uniforms, but the cast mightily preferred them because it was a vast improvement over the previous Spandex ones.

Oh it looks the the naysayers have started

Although I do agree with the agrument that the new Picard show will divide fans but anything with the title Star Trek seems to do that these days.

Nothing makes them happy. They are dedicated to being unhappy and spreading that unhappiness wherever they go. They are the AMBASSADORS of Unhappy!

The first quick clip from the Picard show, starts 0:28

The dude who wrote the article at R387’s link looks like a card-carrying nerd. He’ll be eating it up (or some of the shows at least) like the rest of us. So he really should shut his flapping Tellarite gums. (Psst! He specializes in “ . . . career development and self-improvement.”)

r389 The black gay receptionist is so handsome. But he's not in the main cast, is he?

[quote]Although I do agree with the argument that the new Picard show will divide fans but anything with the title Star Trek seems to do that [bold]these days.[/bold]

These days? Must I really bring out that awful article and the petition before TNG started? This shit is constant; it's only more pronounced now because of the social media and the instant hot-take culture around it.

Sorry, forgot to link to the screenshot of this lil' ray of sunshine.

I think the rank pips look better on the collar than on the front.

Don't most military organizations put rank insignia on the collar of shirts and put "decorations" and awards on the left breast? Of course, the comm badge makes putting anything on the left breast difficult since they need easy access.

R390 Isn't anyone posting on this board really a card carrying nerd? He's entitled to his opinion and while I disagree good for him for having the balls to put his face to comments unlike every snarky queen on DL.

On closer looker, I'm not a fan of these new uniforms. They've got an Orville feel to them e.g. cheap looking.

I prefer the pips on the collar as well. I can't think of a reason why they changed that, although I'm sure the costume designer will explain why eventually and it will make perfect sense, just like with the stripes on the boots of DISCO's uniforms.

r394 Agreed with the Orville comparison. I prefer a tighter fit even if it means the actor can't move. The bunching of the fabric on my bae at r392 annoys me. He's literally just standing and it's already bunched up - how does that happen?

R395 The new uniforms appeared to be modelled after the Star Trek Countdown Comic series which I believe Alex Kurtzman co-wrote. The only difference is they kept the division color on the collar rather than making the collar black. I think a black collar would have looked better.

r396 Thanks, the pip placement makes sense now. Although why take the middle road and use the old pips without the backing bars, as in the comics?

Black collar in this particular case would look busier and not as clean, I think, as it would visually separate the head from the chest too aggressively. There's a nice continuation going on right now that flatters pretty much anyone's neck.

From what we know, Picard has no family left and he was not a natural extrovert and his only real friendships appear to have been with the Enterprise crew. The only person he was ever close to in a personal sense was Beverly. My assumption is Picard is unhappy in retirement with virtually no social life. He may be in contact with the old Enterprise gang but they all have their own lives now. Now I suspect we will see some of the TNG crew eventually. I think if the first season doesn't meet expectations, they'll do what Discovery did and start bringing in popular characters (e.g. Spock, Pike) in order to drum up viewers.

R398 He had friendships, did you watch Tapestry. He was best friends with Jack Crusher, romanced Nella Darren and was friends with other Captains seen in Conspirary. Picard made many friends prior to Enterprise. Cunt Picard in season 1 was as a result of guilt and repressed sexual tension with Bev. It was also probably the responsibility of being captain of the flagship too.

He was also close, well that his guard down, with Deanna.

If there are no TNG cameos in season 1, then that's going to piss off or seriously alienate a massive chunk of fanbase. Considering the plot has been met with mixed to negative receptions that probably isn't the best way to go. Picard rarely if ever tops favourite TNG character polls so bringing on some others is an easy way to drum up viewers.

The rank pips on the front looks messy, especially in the mustard colour.

[bold]Set a course for Bloomington: Residents hope to memorialize first female Star Trek captain[/bold]

Happy birthday, Captain Janeway!

[quote]“When we get to Earth, I’ll take you there.”

[quote]These words are spoken by Kathryn Janeway, captain of the USS Voyager, in Season 7, Episode 2 of “Star Trek: Voyager.” She’s speaking to Seven of Nine on the ship, which is stranded in the Delta Quadrant, and referring to her hometown on Earth: Bloomington, Indiana.

[quote]A group of residents hopes to honor the first female captain to be featured in the Star Trek franchise by creating a memorial in downtown Bloomington. A real-life Bloomington native and Indiana University graduate, Jeri Taylor, was a writer for the TV show, which will celebrate its 25th anniversary next year. “Voyager” aired from 1995 to 2001.

Today marks a quarter of a century since the TNG finale! Feel old, bitches?

Yes, but the sky's the limit.

PICARD TEASER!

Removed from the CBS YouTube page within minutes of uploading. The fuck is going on with their marketing department? This happens all the time with them.

Creating a new thread as I cry, so we can have this one for DISCO and general Trek discussion.

Hopefully the official thread won't descend into bitching about the casting of non-white folk like the previous two...

Picard thread!

DISCO's Prop Master... [italic]dayum.[/italic]

Let's make sure history never forgets the name ... Enterprise.

Prop master of Star Trek. Sounds like a dream job.

Well, shit.

Where was this guy before DISCO, anyway?

The boys at Fedcon in Bonn.

Wilson and Peck embracing on stage. Eurgh, give me that new season and the spinoff already!

Here's video of same. God, Peck's voice is sexy.

So sexy. His shirt says "One part logic, one part emotion" in German.

This likely won't mean much to a lot of people, but Keith Birdsong, who painted a bunch of covers for the Trek novels as well as a few postage stamps, has passed away.

Those covers and the dimestore novels contained within were a big part of my adolescence.

Mine too, R415. He was remarkable.

Spock and Number One are returning for Short Treks.

r417 YES!

I like that.

R410 damn I love the chest hair

r420 It was such a missed opportunity that they didn't show him shirtless even once. With a chest like that, it's a no-brainer...

Peck just got cast in the new Penny Dreadful reboot. There's no fucking way John Logan won't use that chest to its maximum effect.

Can somebody get me up to speed on Calypso? How does that fit into the timeline as we now know it?

I don't think there's any consensus around Calypso yet. They might write an episode incorporating those events in the third season. However, some are saying it depicted one of possible (parallel?) futures, where the crew hid Discovery from Control and left it there, without ever returning to it like they ultimately decided to do in the second season. I think that in that future, Control wins and the Federation eventually morphs into the Borg-like V'draysh.

[quote]Here's video of same. God, Peck's voice is sexy.

The queen in r413 couldn't keep his hands off Peck. He kept rubbing and fondling the poor guy while he was talking.

It was just encouragement. I'm sure they have the same rapport outside of conventions.

Apparently, in addition to being the big boss on Picard, Michael Chabon has now written the first two of the new batch of Short Treks.

The Spock/Number One joint is first, and is titled "Chaos Theory."

There are no details about the second one beyond the title, "Q&A." Now, I think it's unlikely that it actually goes to the same place we all immediately jumped, but I confess to not being sure about how I would feel if it actually does.

Discovery gets a new cast member for season 3: David Ajala joins the cast as Cleveland "Book" Booke. Kurtzman has also confirmed Season 3 is already filing in ICELAND.

Also Number One and Spock will return for a short Trek (already known) in which Spock and Number One become trapped inside an Enterprise turbolift. During the course of the events, Spock asks number one "do you enjoy eggplant?"

CONFIRMED BY KURTZMAN: There will be 6 new short treks, three of which will deal with Pike's Enterprise. Spock, Number One, and Pike will return!

Kurtzman also asked the audience if they wanted to see a Pike series and the audience screamed their approval. Kurtzman said "duly noted" Really sounds like the short Treks are going to be a backdoor pilot for a Pike series.

I think the real reason there's no firm plan for a Pike series is Anson Mount not wanting to commit.

They can only do that show with him. Gets him good negotiating power. Good for him.

R432, according to yesterday's panel, Anson is appearing in three short Treks so clearly he's interested. According to a few things he's said, Anson's "beef" rests with Discovery's production schedule and pay. While most TV shows take 7 to 10 days to film one episode, Discovery usually takes 14 to 21 days. The issue is actors are only paid per episode not per week which means Discovery actors are getting paid less money for more work. On an average TV show a 13 episode season would be about four months of work, while Discovery it takes 6 months or longer but they're receiving the same salary as actors working on a 4 months shoot.

Wilson Cruz has confirmed on twitter that Season 3 is starting shooting in Toronto today.

They've already shot some location stuff.

For anyone interested, the most recent Disco novel came out just prior to Christmas. After books focused on Michael, Prime Georgiou and Lorca, Saru, Tilly, and Pike, we get one about Stamets and Culber....kinda.

They try (unsuccessfully) to be cagey at first, but it takes place aboard an alternate universe Discovery where, after Michael made some different choices at the Binary Stars, she was promoted to captain. Stamets and Culber had never gotten together in that universe, and when the ship gets stuck in the mycelial network and they find our Culber, things get...complicated.

Not a bad beach read.

Anyone watching the new season?