9th episode now filming.

Repeat previous queries about last January here.

The link also reiterates the first half/second half explanation. Eight episodes from September 24th to November 5th, the rest starting in January.

Why Discovery is so important

Starfleet officers wearing armor is not a new idea.

Apparently someone thought that it was.

"While its unclear if Discovery will reboot or retcon a ton of Trek canon..."

I'll just let that idiotic statement sit where everyone can see it.

More details about Burnham's character arc.

Okay, great. Now how about those dozens of other characters who have been announced? Or are they just going to be living props? Have we honestly regressed to the TOS era of "if you're not in the trinity you don't matter"?

Kurtzman talks Discovery:

Two quotes presented as written, you can all guess what my commentary would be:

"If you are a fan of Trek you are going to see a lot of things which hearken back to the original series and elements of the original series. I am not just talking plot, but the spirit of what that show was. We are going to be revisiting a couple of things on Star Trek: Discovery that I think people are going to find familiar. Without spoiling anything we are adhering to a timeline and sticking to the rules, but also I think finding some new areas and avenues that have only been alluded to, but never fully explored."

"You have to respect canon as it’s being written. You cannot say, “That never happened.” No, no no, you can’t do that, they would kill you. Star Trek fans would kill you. No, you have to respect canon. You have to understand the timelines and what the different timelines were and what the different universes were and how they all worked together. You have to keep very meticulous track of who, what, where, when and why. And we have people in the writer’s room whose sole job is to say, “Nope, can’t do that!”"

A CBS executive talks about Discovery

Salient points:

* All Access currently has a million subscribers, hopes to hit 4 million by 2020 (insert smirk here)
* CBS has 350 million social followers (how this equates to people willing to pay for Access or people who will be fans of Discovery is beyond me)
* Once again focus is on Martin-Green (to the detriment of the other actors, it seems)
* All Access will have value because older shows won't expire. (you have to get subscribers before the library means you keep them, FYI)

Another article from someone who thinks that Discovery must be its own continuity/another reboot.

As an acknowledgement to your loads and loads of characters complaint, they plan on killing a lot of them.

I'm not sure how to feel on this.

Another recap of known information.

Again they claim Prime Universe status. Again I laugh at the absurdity.

The new trailer which dropped at SDCC (lasts up until 2:33, then plays the first one; this was the only international copy I could find).

Ugh. No me gusta.

To paraphrase Picard in Insurrection, "Does anyone remember when we were explorers?"

And I'm back. Sorry, computer problems have prevented me from making detailed posts for awhile (my previous post was via iPad, you'll note the lack of links or anything fancy). Time for another news roundup.

An interview with several Trek actors regarding Discovery and Orville.

* Robert Duncan McNeill has already directed an episode of Orville and remarks that the crew over there is careful NOT to be too similar to Star Trek.
* Garrett Wang would rather guest star on Orville.

There will be 24 Klingon houses in Discovery, each with its own agenda, and the new makeup is only for members of one house.

Um, okay? I'd rather have these new Klingons be more like the Remans, a distinct offshoot in the same culture.

The Nicholas Meyer not-Discovery Star Trek project is a Khan-on-Ceti-Alpha-V miniseries.

I'll wait for more details, especially where it conflicts with the To Reign in Hell book that covered this material.

Someone on Twitter altered a screenshot from TAS to include Sybok and Birnbaum.

"With each new announcement surrounding Star Trek: Discovery, it’s become increasingly clear how intertwined it’s going to be with the original Star Trek."

Insert sarcastic barking laugh here. Does this mean we can expect a reference to Captain Pike? Yeah, I doubt it.

Birnbaum isn't Spock's half sister, she's just his adopted sister.

Cue the hecklers in the crowd shouting "why wasn't she namedropped in 'Amok Time' or 'Journey to Babel' or 'The Search for Spock' or 'The Voyage Home' or 'Unification' or..."

She's also the first human to attend the Vulcan Science Academy. Putting aside the novels saying otherwise (and there are some good examples of humans choosing to live among Vulcans among them), I find the notion ridiculous. Either the Vulcan Science Academy teaches things concerning the unique mental powers and spiritualism of Vulcans, in which case they would never let humans in since they couldn't participate fully, or else it's just a college on another planet, in which case humans would be asking to attend way before now.

Why Sarek adopted her.

So the Klingons killed her parents when they were Sarek's guests on Vulcan. The words "bad fanfic plot" keep appearing in my head, I wonder why...

Each season will have its own plot (i.e. the Klingon War won't continue in Season 2).

Huh? I thought the Klingon clans would be fighting each other and the Discovery was going to be a team ship to prevent a war.

Plus there's the whole thing where "Errand of Mercy" should've had a line like "this war could be even worse than the one ten years ago" if such a conflict existed.

Prime Universe, my foot.

Kurtzman teases spinoffs.

Um, dude? You were hired to make DISCOVERY a good show, and it hasn't even premiered yet. Focus on DISCOVERY, remember that show? Spinoffs aren't your job, unless you want to announce that someone else is taking over your job on DISCOVERY!

Discovery has been rated TV-MA.

I'm saving my lecture for a few days to see if the production responds by reediting the pilot for re-submission to the MPAA.

Showrunner Aaron Harberts:

“[W]hat’s important to the creative team is the legacy of the show which is passed down from mother to daughter, from father to son, from brother to brother. We want to make sure we’re not creating a show that fans can’t share with their families. You have to honor what the franchise is. I would say we’re not going much beyond hard PG-13.”

Star Trek shouldn't even approach a "hard" PG-13. A "hard" PG-13 shouldn't have been the goal at any point. In situations like this where different groups have different standards you don't aim for "what we get away with", you draw another line to give yourself a buffer zone!

Does anyone else wonder how many All Access subscriptions they just lost with this fiasco?

You guys know I try to avoid politics at the forums... but man, with them both going on concurrently, it is impossible to look at the ST:<a></a>D production process and not wonder if it's being run by the Trump administration. Both of them are making every unforced error they possibly can.

I'm still gonna hope this is good, of course. It always could be, despite everything. But I'm preparing for the worst. Every franchise that goes on long enough will eventually lose its unity, even for the most dedicated fan. There's a personal breaking point where the "real" franchise ends and what comes afterwards is more like fanfic with a license. I'm not sure if I hit that point with the reboot movies, but this show may make it official.

What has me worried is that the studio hasn't come out with a statement yet along the lines of "we're going to reedit and resubmit the pilot to reduce the rating". I wanted to give them a day to do damage control. They failed me. Not even a "please stand by while we consider our options", just a "we're surprised, we weren't aiming for that."

Quoth a fan comment:

I quote now from CBS and Paramount's own guidelines for Star Trek fan films:

7. The fan production must be family friendly and suitable for public presentation. Videos must not include profanity, nudity, obscenity, pornography, depictions of drugs, alcohol, tobacco, or any harmful or illegal activity, or any material that is offensive, fraudulent, defamatory, libelous, disparaging, sexually explicit, threatening, hateful, or any other inappropriate content...

It's good to know that CBS is so hypocritical. I had looked forward to watching Discovery with my daughter but unless CBS starts listening to the fans and stops trying to make Star Trek into Game of Thrones, I will most definitely pass.

Shame on you CBS for ruining such a great franchise!

A roundup of upcoming Discovery merchandise

The one that confuses me is that the first novel will be ready in time for the premiere, but you'll have to wait until next year for the second. It's not like CBS would want to strike while the iron's hot and take every dollar that they can from the viewers coming off of the premiere...oh, wait...

Someone weakly attempts to defend the TV-MA rating

"If you take a look at shows carrying TV-MA rating, it’s a broad category. Sure, Game of Thrones is on there, but so’s The Crown, and it’s not like John Lithgow’s parading around nude in that one. TV-MA is, essentially, TV shows that perhaps adults don’t want kids to see for any number of reasons, and that’s always been Star Trek to some degree. Not because it showed Vulcans Gone Wild: Pon-Farr Out or Worf proving tribbles are best eaten alive, but because of the franchise’s efforts to be socially relevant."

Huh? I mean it, huh? Since when was Star Trek unsuitable for children? Yes, a few scenes or episodes aren't suitable, but using the word "always" is really asking for guys like me to refute it as a blatant lie.

"Over time, though, people have gotten touchier about the politics of their entertainment, real or perceived. It doesn’t matter what the show is, no matter how innocuous, there are people on the internet offended by it, even if they have to contort themselves into a mental pretzel to make that happen. So, networks turn to a simple ratings system: Don’t blame us, we told you it was TV-MA."

That's called "cowardice." I don't doubt that this has happened, but Star Trek should be held to a higher standard, that was kind of the entire point of the show. Besides, last time I checked the studio wasn't assigning the ratings, the MPAA was.

And they repeat the Aaron Harberts quote I already posted. It almost seems to be him saying "I don't think it's worth a TV-MA, I think it should be TV-14, so just pretend that it is."

Jason Isaacs dares the doubters to watch the show.

He doesn't care to cater to fans because we're going to watch anyway. He thinks we're going to pay money just to nitpick?

A comment chain over at redshirtsalwaysdie.com

(ignore the speculation about the date, this is from three months ago when I suspect the 2255 date wasn't set in stone yet)

Some pertinent quotes:

"No this is not even remotely "the TOS era put through a modern day perspective." This is the TOS era put into the meat grinder."

"I don't know why these show runners can't get their facts straight - at least with Star Trek there's tons and tons of reference material and information online. Easy to fact-check. If they're just doing a reboot, they need to just own up to it. I really, really, reaaaaaallly hate it when those in charge of these projects treat the viewing public, let alone actual fans of the franchise, like we're idiots."

"To those who don't get it and are caught asking the insipid question, "Why is continuity important?", I will explain it to you in the simplest terms I can. Imagine that you like a certain period of history -- a lot. Say, the 18th century. Lets say you like it so much that you find historical re-enactments of events from that period interesting. Perhaps you're even a re-enactor yourself. You pay close attention to historical detail when making or buying parts of your outfit/uniform. Now, consider this. Because Star Trek is a legendarium that covers more than 300 years of "history" (okay, fictional history), and because it covers those years in so much detail -- the ships, the uniforms, the technology -- avid Star Trek fans are like historians in their attention to detail, and cosplayers are like re-enactors, likewise. You do not simply decide, "Well, we decided to change it, because reasons." Its like walking into Mordor."

Discovery is the solution to today's problems

Once again I had to delete a lot of snark. I'll just point at the rating again and question how the title of the article can be the truth when children shouldn't even be watching it.

Your link is broken, because you have an extra "http://" in there.

Corrected.

Not that I am commenting any which way before the premiere of the show. I plan on watching then determining whether it is good or bad, rather than read the vitriol that is the Internet Hate Machine. (Yeah, I realize that usually only describes the 4chan Anonymous members, but if the shoe fits it usually was denounced as awful a year before its release.)

The classic red/blue/yellow uniform colors may be introduced gradually.

The uniforms should be here NOW. Christopher Pike and the Enterprise are buzzing around in them, after all.

Or are you going to tell me that there's going to be a line of dialogue saying that only the Consitution-class ships of the line have those uniforms. Because I doubt it.

The studio states that plans for Season Two have not been made yet.

Ah, they still think they're going to get a second season. How adorable.

Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?

Eight essential episodes to watch before Discovery

I had so much snark written out that I had to delete. Ugh.

If they tell some good Trek stories then I'm willing to let them let the costume designers have some fun.

Damn, there's no Like button.

You're telling me that uniform colors are protected by the "established facts can be ignored for the sake of a good story" clause?

The answer to "why should I watch Discovery" is apparently...

...it's the first new televised Star Trek in over a decade and the cast is diverse. That's it. Pretty weak arguments if you ask me.

A second site adds...

...there are impressive visuals, plenty of action, and interplanetary drama. I repeat my previous comment.

Here's the thing, dude: you have been bagging on Discovery practically since the announcement. Actually, I think you did the same day it was announced... well, within 24 hours of posting the thread, at least.

If story is good, then they could have the whole crew run around in Drive jumpsuits for all I care. Or naked. That is actually why I could forgive a lot of Enterprise, once they got some of the establishing stuff out of the way: it is not necessarily the Trek we know and love, and it looks a little different than the way we've been imagining all this time, but the story (more or less) was decent and I was entertained. The fact that they are wearing the wrong colors is something that we have had to endure since they began the movies - the Hell was up with the TMP pyjama uniforms, anyway? - and different series will mean it.

And it is not to say things like the character vs. character business in a post-human conflict society, or the Klingon's looks, or even a uniform design is not a little off-putting. Long-time Trek fans can look at this in the way that this isn't the way they exactly pictured it and pick it apart and show people that it is the worst thing ever... or they can look on Discovery as a new direction in a universe that already hasn't been consistent with itself, accept that there are always going to be changes as time goes on, and just enjoy the ride as long as it lasts.





I am sorry, I got a little rant-y there. It gets to me that the majority of comments here on Discovery been negative, when no one has any idea what the finished product looks like. Star Trek, to me, has always been about optimism for the future, and if I even get a glimmer of that out of Discovery with a good story, I will take it.

This, exactly this. It's Star Trek. I'm going to watch it. Are people seriously bitching about the uniforms? It's fucking Star Trek with a non-white non-male lead, opening with an Asian female captain (I know she's not the captain of the Discovery), with a character in an open, stable, non-straight relationship.

It's Star Trek. Tell good stories, be optimistic, show IDIC, and I'm there. The rest is noise. Gatekeepers and universe purists can suck warp plasma.

It's clear that I need a time out from this topic. The premiere is in less than two weeks, I'll see how I feel after the reviews from people not on CBS's payroll turn out.

I'll see you elsewhere in the forum. Hopefully the TOS 50th and TNG 30th threads will be more fun than this.

I agree that you can use a break, but I also agree with a lot of your concerns (as does Wowbagger, who I talk to often on FB). Optimism is important, no question. One CAN hope. But there are just so many bad signs.

There's a song in Fiddler on the Roof with this bit:

The contrapositive is just as true. The worse things look, the harder optimism gets.

On a different note, can you guys believe it's less than two weeks now? After all the delays and chaos, I had gotten used to thinking of ST<span>:</span>D as a distant-future thing. I had the same feeling when Batman v Superman finally really happened.

You'll have to wait until release day, then, because CBS just imposed a review embargo! Yayyyy! http://io9.gizmodo.com/cbs-wont-allo...efo-1809073782

I want this so desperately to be good, and I agree with everything F_G said about good stories being able to make up for many sins against continuity... but everything I have seen about Discovery (except the decent theme song) says to me that it's not going to be good. The embargo is a damning exclamation point on all that.

I haven't felt this way since early September 2001, back before ENTERPRISE convinced me it would actually be Star Trek and not some horrible knockoff.

(Of course, that one ended well, and I'm pinning my cautious, perhaps foolish hopes on that.)

See, that's what I mean about unforced errors. The review embargo doesn't prove anything -- but it was the last bad sign they had time to give us before launch, and boy, they jumped at the chance!

I promise I'm not on the CBS payroll. Not that I wouldn't mind that, mind you... but I can also be critical of them. Ask me my opinions about cancelling Two Broke Girls, or making a Big Bang Theory spinoff.

I concede this. I still don't worry about it, though, until after premiere.

Seriously, CBS, stop trying our patience as a collective and just let someone, anyone, tell us it's good, bad, or in between.

I would be so, so fine with in-between right now. Trek always improves, after all! (Well, except TOS.)

((And I know Zeke thinks early VOY is better than late VOY. (((Incorrectly.)))))

I've had to put up with the existence of a single-nacelle Federation starship, I can put up with a continuity deviation that actually looks decent.

As long as they don't introduce Kirk's crew or other crews we've already seen and show them in the wrong uniforms, I don't mind. Enterprise already had blue uniforms, we're going to see a crew in between that fashion and TOS's. I'm okay with that. If these were some other color, it would be weirder.

I agree with you and others that there is a lot of room for skepticism and pessimism about this series, but I'm going to give it a chance where it deserves a chance and not risk throwing a baby out with the bathwater.

Still not signing up for All Access (I might come home and find that KJ has, but that's her decision), but I'm also not going to dig a grave before the thing even launches.