Set roughly ten years before the events of Star Trek: The Original Series, the show sees the Klingon T'Kuvma look to unite the 24 great Klingon houses, leading to a cold war between his race and the United Federation of Planets that involves the crew of the USS Discovery.
Though will be available through regular TV for the first two episodes but after that then on CBS' own streaming service CBS All Access. Really hope this works as I am getting Stargate Universe vibes with the latest trailer.
Im kind of on the fence for now, I think I'll need to see a few more episodes to form an opinion.
I liked what I saw for the most part, but I couldn't stand the Klingons, not because they were different but because they talked so slowly and that annoyed me a lot. The prosthetic must be a pain for the actors so Im not blaming them. Hopefully they down down the lens flares too. I know Im nitpicking, but I've dropped shows for less negatives. Other than that I liked it.
On September 28 2017 09:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Yeah it was good. Though still pissed that only in the US do we have to pay to see via stream. Everywhere else it is on TV.
Well it's not like it's on free tv here in germany, u need a netflix sub here to watch it.
Yeah i thought it is Netflix exclusive you can't watch anywhere else? My dad liked it, he is a Star Trek nut! I thought most hardcore Star Trek fans don't like it though as it is being based around the "new film model" which everyone hates JJ Abrams for? xD
I like Orville more. Main problem of this ST show is the main character as it is an unlikeable character and the actress is terrible (and was in The Walking Dead as well). I would have prefered if the main character was the captain instead. She is a better actress and has a much better screen presence. Also her character is more likeable.
On September 28 2017 17:59 -Archangel- wrote: I like Orville more. Main problem of this ST show is the main character as it is an unlikeable character and the actress is terrible (and was in The Walking Dead as well). I would have prefered if the main character was the captain instead. She is a better actress and has a much better screen presence. Also her character is more likeable.
This is what I.was thinking. What orville did at the end of.the last episode showed a lot of bravery that you dont see.from shows and it was closer to star trek then this first episode. The captian was a lot better character then the main. Is the main character the same one as was depicted in the vulcan flashback? So shes spock now?
The worst part was.without a doubt the science officers line.about seeing death approch. Its emblematic of terrible forward planning to boil down a races existance as being equivalent to quasi psychic guard dogs. Well.that and the + Show Spoiler +
30 second poorly planned.and.execuited mutiny I mean shes going to be killed for.that right?
Hm :thinking: If the asian captain wants to go on a kamikaze mission and the black first officer goes to prison, have you done enough to stay clear of clichês by casting females?
Nothing in the show has really grabbed me yet and made me think this is going to be anywhere near as great as previous STs, but going to give it more time....To be honest, the pilots of TNG/DS9 were pretty lack luster too, and then turned into amazing series.
Don't particularly care about the change in Klingon appearance, but I hope their general personality as a species isn't changed too much from the original. They've clearly established the Klingon honor and war themes, but a huge part of Klingon's is also their love of having a good time/drinking/partying/story telling etc.
Klingons look like uruk-hai? Their speech scenes were terribly dull, couldn't convey emotions and they all seem like boring monks now. They even suck at melee fighting...
Why does the main character have to be some super gifted person who knows everything better than the entire bridge combined? Isn't Star Trek supposed to be about a range of characters with different perks that compliment each other?
Also they managed to make a spaceship fleet battle without tension. After watching The Expanse this series is just so much lower quality and hard to watch.
On September 28 2017 17:59 -Archangel- wrote: I like Orville more. Main problem of this ST show is the main character as it is an unlikeable character and the actress is terrible (and was in The Walking Dead as well). I would have prefered if the main character was the captain instead. She is a better actress and has a much better screen presence. Also her character is more likeable.
On September 28 2017 17:59 -Archangel- wrote: I like Orville more. Main problem of this ST show is the main character as it is an unlikeable character and the actress is terrible (and was in The Walking Dead as well). I would have prefered if the main character was the captain instead. She is a better actress and has a much better screen presence. Also her character is more likeable.
The Orville seems too crude.
Its crude but you have to admire the balls of a show thats able to pull off a baby sex change story + Show Spoiler +
and actually pull the trigger on transitioning the baby to male from female.
Damn episode 3 was actually way better than the start, we get to Discovery and the story gets explored and teased. Certainly looking forward to more episodes now.
On October 03 2017 21:25 Quateras wrote: Damn episode 3 was actually way better than the start, we get to Discovery and the story gets explored and teased. Certainly looking forward to more episodes now.
I found episode 3 disturbing. Defnitly interresting, but zero star trek vibes. Episode 4 of Orville was straight up ripped out of 90s TNG, love it more and more.
On October 03 2017 21:25 Quateras wrote: Damn episode 3 was actually way better than the start, we get to Discovery and the story gets explored and teased. Certainly looking forward to more episodes now.
I found episode 3 disturbing. Defnitly interresting, but zero star trek vibes. Episode 4 of Orville was straight up ripped out of 90s TNG, love it more and more.
I think a lot of the vibe difference is simply by location (Discovery is during war) + the possibility that we might be on a "Section 31" vessel. Big monster might have been a supersized tardigrad from the spores which would be awesome in itself.I like science nods.
On October 03 2017 21:25 Quateras wrote: Damn episode 3 was actually way better than the start, we get to Discovery and the story gets explored and teased. Certainly looking forward to more episodes now.
I found episode 3 disturbing. Defnitly interresting, but zero star trek vibes. Episode 4 of Orville was straight up ripped out of 90s TNG, love it more and more.
I think a lot of the vibe difference is simply by location (Discovery is during war) + the possibility that we might be on a "Section 31" vessel. Big monster might have been a supersized tardigrad from the spores which would be awesome in itself.I like science nods.
Those are valid points. I always felt that star trek had this unique role in television to discuss ethics and paint a positive picture of the future. Though discarding this opportunity is a travesty, I think I could enjoy the show more with the perspective you offer. Thank you.
Episode 3 was a lot more interesting, maybe this will be something after all. But I still hate that Michael is like Neo in the Matrix, knowing everything and with extreme combat skills, I don't need another superhero series.
On October 04 2017 22:54 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Episode 3 was a lot more interesting, maybe this will be something after all. But I still hate that Michael is like Neo in the Matrix, knowing everything and with extreme combat skills, I don't need another superhero series.
Yeah for me Star Trek has always been about how humans, being prone as we are to getting things horribly wrong, can find our way through our shortcomings and get things right. Having a superhero main character is not a good way to examine this problem.
normally liking strong female characters, this one piques the cynyst in me - "ofc the main character has to be a colored female superhero, whom else should all the american girls look up to" ?
So far the series feels / looks more like ...um.. Mass effect than Star Trek, but man, are those CGI shots epic :O
If we now get some oldTrek(tm) Dilemma going with multi-layered characters on top of that....
Yes, it differs from any Star Trek show or even movie, but I'd say in a good way, interesting concept overall And I don't care about main character being female or colored, or both, the story is not about one character
So they repeatedly kept calling Klingons a race instead of a species. This level of scientific ignorance makes the show unwatchable for me, but i was extremely underwhelmed by everything else anyways.
On October 05 2017 08:52 Talaris wrote: normally liking strong female characters, this one piques the cynyst in me - "ofc the main character has to be a colored female superhero, whom else should all the american girls look up to" ?
Are you applying the same criticism to Jean Luc Picard for being a strong white male character to whom all the american boys should look up to? Or is it really that transparent, that you're only triggered by characters that don't fall under what you consider normal for a lead character?
On October 05 2017 09:45 KadaverBB wrote: This simply does not feel like Star Trek. I don't even know if the show is good or bad, but it is definitely bad Star Trek -.-
On October 05 2017 08:52 Talaris wrote: normally liking strong female characters, this one piques the cynyst in me - "ofc the main character has to be a colored female superhero, whom else should all the american girls look up to" ?
Are you applying the same criticism to Jean Luc Picard for being a strong white male character to whom all the american boys should look up to? Or is it really that transparent, that you're only triggered by characters that don't fall under what you consider normal for a lead character?
His point was that "colored female superhero" is the obvious choice if you don't want anyone to be able to critizie the main character. Jainway or Sisko weren't any different then any other character on the show or another show. they were good charcters and their race or gender didn't factor into anything at all.
You have to admit that the main character of the show is a bit beyond beliveable. She shouldn't be in starfleet anymore after her mutiny attempt and that they're giveing her another command even with an admiral over her shoulder is just silly after that. She doesn't show the strength of character that you'd see from a captain of a previous star trek show, like jainway or sisko.
On October 05 2017 08:52 Talaris wrote: normally liking strong female characters, this one piques the cynyst in me - "ofc the main character has to be a colored female superhero, whom else should all the american girls look up to" ?
Are you applying the same criticism to Jean Luc Picard for being a strong white male character to whom all the american boys should look up to? Or is it really that transparent, that you're only triggered by characters that don't fall under what you consider normal for a lead character?
His point was that "colored female superhero" is the obvious choice if you don't want anyone to be able to critizie the main character. Jainway or Sisko weren't any different then any other character on the show or another show. they were good charcters and their race or gender didn't factor into anything at all.
You have to admit that the main character of the show is a bit beyond beliveable. She shouldn't be in starfleet anymore after her mutiny attempt and that they're giveing her another command even with an admiral over her shoulder is just silly after that. She doesn't show the strength of character that you'd see from a captain of a previous star trek show, like jainway or sisko.
I agree that the writing is an absolute horror, including the writing for the black female Captain figure. Where is anyone having a problem with me saying that? Where is anyone saying that you cannot criticize this show because of the choice for a main character actress?
On October 05 2017 20:05 TigerKarlGeld wrote: So they repeatedly kept calling Klingons a race instead of a species. This level of scientific ignorance makes the show unwatchable for me, but i was extremely underwhelmed by everything else anyways.
Well, to be fair Klingons and humans can canonically interbreed and have fertile offspring (just like humans and Vulcans). And today's scientific community can't even agree on what separates species once they can breed and create fertile offspring, so I wouldn't fault the show too much.
After all I'm pretty sure canonically the prevailing theory is that all of the humanoid Trek races are descended from a humanoid common ancestor.
I also think that any communication between civilizations would default to using terms like "race" over species when discussing each other. Species is scientifically accurate, but also the way that scientist would discuss frogs or insects. It doesn't account for things like culture, history or any of the other critical diplomatic issues that Federation crews would deal with. And it could be translated incorrectly too.
I think it would be much less of an issue if klingons in the show didn't look.completely different from humans or vulcans. Original star trek was a lot.closer to humans then this jj Abrams interpretation.
On October 06 2017 01:23 Sermokala wrote: I think it would be much less of an issue if klingons in the show didn't look.completely different from humans or vulcans. Original star trek was a lot.closer to humans then this jj Abrams interpretation.
Both of those have these weird racial overtones to them. Worf was this weird 90s ass token "one of the good ones" characters. Original series had a bunch of weirdness. If they are going to keep the the lore, it is better to make them more alien, rather than this weird savage race that all look sort of human.
PS: I love Worf, but its funny to watch NG now and see the whole "noble savage" and "model minority" tropes in full bloom.
On October 06 2017 06:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: + Show Spoiler +
Huge Section 31 foreshadowing.
Also the reveal just boxed them in story wise and anyone who has seen TOS and Voyager knows what I'm talking about.
DS9 as well, where they approached Bashir :D I'm curious to see how they will approach that story wise.
I don't think Section 31 is the reveal that he is referring to that is boxing them in, as Section 31 wasn't in TOS or Voyager as far as I recall? They were in DS9/Enterprise
On October 06 2017 06:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: + Show Spoiler +
Huge Section 31 foreshadowing.
Also the reveal just boxed them in story wise and anyone who has seen TOS and Voyager knows what I'm talking about.
DS9 as well, where they approached Bashir :D I'm curious to see how they will approach that story wise.
I don't think Section 31 is the reveal that he is referring to that is boxing them in, as Section 31 wasn't in TOS or Voyager as far as I recall? They were in DS9/Enterprise
They are hinting at Section 31 but also the tech that would make warp almost instantaneous but a lot faster as well, the problem is that it has already been discovered it doesn't work/isn't stable. Otherwise Voyager would have never happened.
Also that Discovery is possibly a Section 31 ship. Hence Stamets going off about having to work for a warmonger like the Capt instead of in a Lab.
On October 06 2017 06:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: + Show Spoiler +
Huge Section 31 foreshadowing.
Also the reveal just boxed them in story wise and anyone who has seen TOS and Voyager knows what I'm talking about.
What reveal exactly?
On October 06 2017 19:03 Quateras wrote:
On October 06 2017 06:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: + Show Spoiler +
Huge Section 31 foreshadowing.
Also the reveal just boxed them in story wise and anyone who has seen TOS and Voyager knows what I'm talking about.
DS9 as well, where they approached Bashir :D I'm curious to see how they will approach that story wise.
I don't think Section 31 is the reveal that he is referring to that is boxing them in, as Section 31 wasn't in TOS or Voyager as far as I recall? They were in DS9/Enterprise
They are hinting at Section 31 but also the tech that would make warp almost instantaneous but a lot faster as well, the problem is that it has already been discovered it doesn't work/isn't stable. Otherwise Voyager would have never happened.
Also that Discovery is possibly a Section 31 ship. Hence Stamets going off about having to work for a warmonger like the Capt instead of in a Lab.
I think you're being a bit short-sighted here. You can have a perfectly good story based on people's actions surrounding something that ultimately fails. I.e. it's not about the technology itself, it's about the story surrounding it.. what people do to try to make it succeed, etc.
I'm not sure I like this show yet, but I do like how the federation isn't the moral paragon of the galaxy like it was in the previous series. Down and dirty, do what you need to survive etc. I'll definitely give it a chance.
EDIT: DS9 definitely went into this in isolated incidents, but it seems like the Federation is by default just trying to survive and do whatever it takes in this one.
Why do writers insist on depecting women in a masculine tough way rather than a feminine one? The tiny skinny captain lady going blow for blow with the big fucking alien who revels in hand to hand combat and who can apparently break her arm with just one hand is just kinda dumb. Im all for female captains and admirals but why do we have to pretend they're super strong as well?
On October 16 2017 16:06 B.I.G. wrote: Why do writers insist on depecting women in a masculine tough way rather than a feminine one? The tiny skinny captain lady going blow for blow with the big fucking alien who revels in hand to hand combat and who can apparently break her arm with just one hand is just kinda dumb. Im all for female captains and admirals but why do we have to pretend they're super strong as well?
It would be stupid to cast a female character with Kung Fu skills and knowned for "Chrounching, tiger, hidden dragon" and then make her a non fighting character
I think this show tries to be both Star Trek and some dark sf movie. Since those both are not compatible we get a show that is ok for many but great for none. Trekkies dislike it for all divergence from cannon while people not found of ST are turned off by the usual ST crap (which is still present in this show in large quantities).
Also in regards to Klingons why do they make them "Speak like retards" - thats a quote from one of mine Trekkie friends. They speak so slow and weird that every scene when Kilingons talk automaticaly becomes very static and slow. Also since language influance way we wthink i even wonder if specie talking so slow would be even capable of discovering electricity not to mention warp drive.
On October 16 2017 16:06 B.I.G. wrote: Why do writers insist on depecting women in a masculine tough way rather than a feminine one? The tiny skinny captain lady going blow for blow with the big fucking alien who revels in hand to hand combat and who can apparently break her arm with just one hand is just kinda dumb. Im all for female captains and admirals but why do we have to pretend they're super strong as well?
Females are fighting males and winning in Star Trek at least since far point station.
It would be stupid to not include efficient martial arts in the training of a starfleet officer to hold your own against e.g. klingon warriors.
Why do you depict females who can hold their own against males as 'masculine'?
On October 16 2017 20:04 Silvanel wrote:
Also in regards to Klingons why do they make them "Speak like retards" - thats a quote from one of mine Trekkie friends. They speak so slow and weird that every scene when Kilingons talk automaticaly becomes very static and slow. Also since language influance way we wthink i even wonder if specie talking so slow would be even capable of discovering electricity not to mention warp drive.
I think the confusion and awkwardness concerning klingons speaking klingon is, to a huge extent, that we've never really seen this happening before. Not this much at least.
Point was that the Klingon dude was depicted as a super strong life long warrior and the human he fought was a 1.65 cm 60 kg woman (estimating) that somehow could even match him in a pushing contest when their weapons clashed.
Obviously it's star trek so we can just assume Klingons are surprisingly weak or women of the future are way stronger, I just think it's a bit of a lack of imagination to have the strong female leader also be depicted in a masculine strong way e.g. raw physical strength, rather than have her just be someone with superior intellect and leadership skills. For this reason I think Janeway was a very good character.
Its typical hollywood having 50kg small girls with zero muscles just touch of death guys who weigh 100 kg with punches and kicks that would have 0 effect in real life.
Are we talking about realism in a sci-fi show where they made up teleporters because the special effects were cheaper? Or where Captain Picard just fights everyone at age 64, despite having the body of a thespian actor? Or where Worf gets his ass handed to him by everyone? Literally everyone. Worf gets dropped like a sack of potatoes all the time.
I assumed they were using some kind of futuristic martial art beyond our comprehension, one that would negate some of the weight and strength disadvantages. I used the same reasoning to justify seeing Kirk use his double-fist hammer punch during every other episode of TOS.
I don't care about stuff like that because if I were I wouldn't be able to watch pretty much any show or movie where they perform something remotely close to stunts.
On October 17 2017 11:22 eviltomahawk wrote: I assumed they were using some kind of futuristic martial art beyond our comprehension, one that would negate some of the weight and strength disadvantages. I used the same reasoning to justify seeing Kirk use his double-fist hammer punch during every other episode of TOS.
The Kirk ax handle was a high risk, high damage move in the old star trek table top RPG. You needed advanced federation martial arts training to even attempt it. I sort of wish the rest of that RPG was better.
5 episodes later and I still havent been drawn in on the show. Besides the painfully slow speaking Klingons and the urge to skip those parts, I havent been able to connect with the story or the characters either. I dont know what it is about this show that just doesnt draw me in. Orville on the other hand, despite having a much weaker opening episode, has managed to grab my attention and I simply cant wait for new episodes.
Yeah Orville is surprisingly great. I like seeing relatable people in those star trek situations and reacting in a way you would expect. A gang of loveable idiots in space.
I'm so surprised to see so much positivity for Orville here.
I just watched episode one, and I really didn't like it at all. I saw Seth Mc Farlana so I figured I was supposed to be laughing, but I can't recall a single funny moment.
Am I just missing a bunch of meta humour because I never watched Star Trek?
Yeah, the first episode was rather weird and I think it was their weakest one so far. The comedic parts didn't work for me either, but 5 episodes in, I can safely say that the comedy is toned down and it should work for most people, it certainly works for me now.
On October 18 2017 02:29 B.I.G. wrote: A gang of loveable idiots in space.
Lol agreed, that's a pretty good way of looking at it.
Oh I will admit that the Klingons are a bit weird, im not sure because im not a trekkie. But they are not how I expected them to be, sure they care about honor and all tha re but I expected them to be an intelligent race of "brutal" warriors, sure they care about honor and all that but they come across as primitive. You don't have to be "primitive" to be brutal or warrior-like right.
idk am I wrong? I only watched snippets of Voyager and Enterprise when I was young.
On October 18 2017 03:06 FreakyDroid wrote: Yeah, the first episode was rather weird and I think it was their weakest one so far.
Ah alright then, I'll watch a second episode before I conclude the entire genre isn't for me.
I thought episode 3 was a lot better than episode 2 since 3 dealt with a pretty deep philosophical dilemma with the plot feeling more like a TNG episode. Overall pacing and editing felt more TNG-ish from episode 2 and onwards as well.
Decent episode, nice to see a bit more relation/character building between the crew. Bit odd that jumping is appearantly without any issue now. You'd think there'd be a bit more getting used to it for the mushroom guy.
Bit predictable that the admiral got taken. About to blow the whistle on a major character before you go off to meet with the enemy? What could possibly happen?
On October 24 2017 06:46 Thezzy wrote: Decent episode, nice to see a bit more relation/character building between the crew. Bit odd that jumping is appearantly without any issue now. You'd think there'd be a bit more getting used to it for the mushroom guy.
Bit predictable that the admiral got taken. About to blow the whistle on a major character before you go off to meet with the enemy? What could possibly happen?
Dont think ive seen any spore jumps? The only thing they did was normal warp to the nebula, no?
I thought mushroom man said something along the lines of "once you get used to needles sticking into you, it's no trouble at all" which I interpreted as him being used as the medium for spore jumps.
Depends ... if you're looking for the classic star trek experience, I don't think you'll get that from Discovery. The last 2 episodes were a bit better imo, but its kind of developing slow. Dunno what to tell you, give it a try, you might like it. Even if you dont, you'll still have Orville.
On January 15 2018 21:42 LennX wrote: That was an interesting way to introduce the identify of the emperor and the rebels. A parallel universe where most of the things are flipped.
It was terrible way. Rebels are completely incompetent. And the so called faceless emperor that there is no info about in their ship records just shows herself to the whole bridge of the ship. B level amateur show.
On January 15 2018 21:42 LennX wrote: That was an interesting way to introduce the identify of the emperor and the rebels. A parallel universe where most of the things are flipped.
It was terrible way. Rebels are completely incompetent. And the so called faceless emperor that there is no info about in their ship records just shows herself to the whole bridge of the ship. B level amateur show.
Well, the body switch would be interesting, if not for tyler. The actor always has a puppy face when he tries to be confused (or in love for that matter). calling it now: the emporer has the cloaking device and they have to reuse the knowledge from the midseason finale to beat her. Also: Burnham is conflicted over killing Georgiou a second time.
I fucking love this current story arc in Discovery. It makes those episodes people didnt like and thought was pointless have a lot of payoff. Really interesting stuff.
Man, that guy looked so cool as Captain Pike in the trailer.
I didn't watch barely any TOS, I figured Captain Pike had this big backstory given his role in the 2009 J.J. Abrams movie, but apparently he was only in a few episodes?
On July 26 2018 08:33 lestye wrote: Man, that guy looked so cool as Captain Pike in the trailer.
I didn't watch barely any TOS, I figured Captain Pike had this big backstory given his role in the 2009 J.J. Abrams movie, but apparently he was only in a few episodes?
He was only in arguably a couple episodes. The first one was the rejected first pilot. The second one was a two-parter from the main show, which re-used most of the footage from that rejected pilot.
Patrick Stewart is returning to the “Star Trek” universe. And though he’ll be reprising his role as Captain Jean-Luc Picard, it won’t be on a reboot of “The Next Generation” but rather as part of a new series coming to CBS All Access; per a release, said show will “tell the next chapter of Picard’s life.”
“It is an unexpected but delightful surprise to find myself excited and invigorated to be returning to Jean-Luc Picard and to explore new dimensions within him,” the actor tweeted alongside a photo that contains a longer statement. “During these past years, it has been humbling to hear stories about how ‘The Next Generation’ brought people comfort, saw them through difficult periods in their lives or how the example of Jean-Luc inspired so many to follow in his footsteps, pursuing science, exploration, and leadership,” that statement reads in part.
Why is everything a prequel or a damn AU timeline. Just keep on with the main timeline after the Dominion war. Hell have a series during the time the USS Voyager is missing.
CBS’s plans for the Star Trek franchise do not start and end with Discovery. In addition to the Captain Picard series that was announced over the weekend, CBS executives have confirmed there are other potential Star Trek shows being considered for CBS All Access. The plan looks to be all Star Trek, all the time.
“My goal is that there should be a Star Trek something on all the time on All Access,” CBS TV Studios president David Stapf told Deadline.
During an extended interview with Deadline, CBS All Access president Marc DeBevoise and executive vice president of original content Julie McNamara joined Stapf to chat about ongoing and future projects for the streaming network. However, most of the questions surrounded CBS All Access’ growing Star Trek franchise. On the heels of the announcement that Sir Patrick Stewart would be reprising his role as Captain Jean-Luc Picard in a new standalone series—as well as the news of Star Trek: Short Treks, the Discovery shorts that will air before the next full season--the executives shared that more Star Trek projects are on the horizon.
“We’re looking at limited series for some Trek shows, and we are looking at ongoing series for some other Trek shows. We’ve obviously announced the one that’s coming next with Sir Patrick Stewart, but we have more in development there,” McNamara said.
There are no details about what form those shows could take, but it sounds like a hell of a lot of options are on the table. For example, according to McNamara, nearly every Discovery character has been considered for his or her own show, including a series about Michelle Yeoh’s Emperor Georgiou. However, Stapf did insist that episodes in the Short Treks series, which will feature characters like Tilly, Harry Mudd, and Saru, are not test pilots for potential spinoffs.
However, one thing that isn’t being considered (for the time being) is another series based on a former Trek franchise. As of now, the only one in development is the one featuring Stewart, which will take place 20 years after the events of Star Trek: Nemesis, the final film in The Next Generation series. During the interview, Stapf shared how they got Stewart to sign on for the show, considering how he’s previously said he wasn’t interested in returning to the character unless it was for a Quentin Tarantino-led Star Trek project:
It came to us, as do all things Trek now, through Alex Kurtzman, with the idea of, wouldn’t it be cool to do something Next Gen-oriented, [or] get Patrick Stewart [or] any of those iconic Next Gen characters. As Patrick himself has said, he was of the opinion that “I’ve done that character,” but he got a meeting with Alex and some of the other guys and they won him over. The deal didn’t take that long once he decided to do it.
Star Trek: Discovery is set to return in 2019, with Short Treks coming out later this year. No word on when Stewart’s new Star Trek series will begin development, but we’re guessing and hoping it’ll be soon. In the meantime, we’ll keep pushing for a Star Trek show from the aliens’ point of view, and will keep you posted if William Shatner gets a Star Trek spinoff of his own. As Stapf put it during his interview: “Never say never.”
The other updates provided to Deadline were on CBS’s adaptation of Stephen King’s The Stand, saying it’s on course to come out sometime next year, as well as Jordan Peele’s The Twilight Zone, which is in development and should start production in a couple of months.
It's probably part we are actually more technologically advanced in some areas now than star trek was. The Star Trek universe feels out of date. The big technological issues today is AI, data mining, genetic engineering and how it relates to humanity and governance. The idea that humanity through a great disaster will band together and form a paradise of equality looks not idealistic, but impossible today. Star Trek has...Data and The Doctor, and were essentially at their best when either exploring the big questions behind these characters or interactions between the crew and the effects of technology on humanity interposed by the races they discover. It probably doesn't help that Star Trek has generally fucked up with its depiction of pop alternate timelines and universes and time travel. A current timeline could work, but it would require devoted and great scriptwriters who understand the impact of technology today and tomorrow and compress everything in a few years before the federation become time police. Also spaceboobs.
Isn't that the appeal of the Picard series though? They're finally pushing the story forward. Although I'd imagine they're going to have to tone back the Discovery Klingons, because if the Picard series has more traditional klingons, its gonna make discovery look stupid
On August 07 2018 23:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Why is everything a prequel or a damn AU timeline. Just keep on with the main timeline after the Dominion war. Hell have a series during the time the USS Voyager is missing.
CBS’s plans for the Star Trek franchise do not start and end with Discovery. In addition to the Captain Picard series that was announced over the weekend, CBS executives have confirmed there are other potential Star Trek shows being considered for CBS All Access. The plan looks to be all Star Trek, all the time.
“My goal is that there should be a Star Trek something on all the time on All Access,” CBS TV Studios president David Stapf told Deadline.
During an extended interview with Deadline, CBS All Access president Marc DeBevoise and executive vice president of original content Julie McNamara joined Stapf to chat about ongoing and future projects for the streaming network. However, most of the questions surrounded CBS All Access’ growing Star Trek franchise. On the heels of the announcement that Sir Patrick Stewart would be reprising his role as Captain Jean-Luc Picard in a new standalone series—as well as the news of Star Trek: Short Treks, the Discovery shorts that will air before the next full season--the executives shared that more Star Trek projects are on the horizon.
“We’re looking at limited series for some Trek shows, and we are looking at ongoing series for some other Trek shows. We’ve obviously announced the one that’s coming next with Sir Patrick Stewart, but we have more in development there,” McNamara said.
There are no details about what form those shows could take, but it sounds like a hell of a lot of options are on the table. For example, according to McNamara, nearly every Discovery character has been considered for his or her own show, including a series about Michelle Yeoh’s Emperor Georgiou. However, Stapf did insist that episodes in the Short Treks series, which will feature characters like Tilly, Harry Mudd, and Saru, are not test pilots for potential spinoffs.
However, one thing that isn’t being considered (for the time being) is another series based on a former Trek franchise. As of now, the only one in development is the one featuring Stewart, which will take place 20 years after the events of Star Trek: Nemesis, the final film in The Next Generation series. During the interview, Stapf shared how they got Stewart to sign on for the show, considering how he’s previously said he wasn’t interested in returning to the character unless it was for a Quentin Tarantino-led Star Trek project:
It came to us, as do all things Trek now, through Alex Kurtzman, with the idea of, wouldn’t it be cool to do something Next Gen-oriented, [or] get Patrick Stewart [or] any of those iconic Next Gen characters. As Patrick himself has said, he was of the opinion that “I’ve done that character,” but he got a meeting with Alex and some of the other guys and they won him over. The deal didn’t take that long once he decided to do it.
Star Trek: Discovery is set to return in 2019, with Short Treks coming out later this year. No word on when Stewart’s new Star Trek series will begin development, but we’re guessing and hoping it’ll be soon. In the meantime, we’ll keep pushing for a Star Trek show from the aliens’ point of view, and will keep you posted if William Shatner gets a Star Trek spinoff of his own. As Stapf put it during his interview: “Never say never.”
The other updates provided to Deadline were on CBS’s adaptation of Stephen King’s The Stand, saying it’s on course to come out sometime next year, as well as Jordan Peele’s The Twilight Zone, which is in development and should start production in a couple of months.
I would like to see that, perhaps if they have success with these they will take more risks. It sounds like they are planning to do a bunch more Trek so here is hoping.
Just keep on with the main timeline after the Dominion war. Hell have a series during the time the USS Voyager is missing.
Voyager started during DS9 and DS9 was active for ~5 of the 7 years that Voyager was away.
Voyager's starting episodes involved DS9 & the DS9 story; they conveniently missed the dominion war plus a year or two on either side during their vacation ;D
--
As a sci-fi megafan i didn't enjoy Discovery S1.
It fits shockingly poorly into established lore without adequate reason IMO. When skipping the stereotypical hollywood action scenes (close/zoomed cameras, way too frequent cuts to new camera zooms, dark scenes with flashy lighting effects, dramatic music etcetc) there is not much else left that appeals to me unlike the TNG/DS9/Voy era, Stargate and even Star Trek Enterprise which i wouldn't rate super highly but enjoyed a lot more than Discovery.
It feels very much like i'm not in the target audience for this show which is confusing given my background and interests.
The only thing we have or is more advanced than Star Trek had or didn't have is flat screens, and tablets. We still don't have Replicators, Warp drive, Transporters, Holodecks, Cloaking devices, Universal translators. Although we are getting close to the last one
Besides it is about the story, it's philosophy. CBS for some reason is going in your face action packed plus the added idiotic main character.
The only thing we have or is more advanced than Star Trek had or didn't have is flat screens, and tablets.
AFAIK they might not have been in the original series but they were all over TNG and everything that came after. DS9, VOY. You'd sometimes see someone carrying a stack of tablets around because of their limited storage/capability lol
One of the executive producers for the new Picard series is Pulitzer Prize-winning author Michael Chabon, who has been sharing some of the goings-on from the recently formed writers’ room, as we reported last week when he revealed his galactic map briefing. This week Chabon has again used his Instagram account to reveal more about the show, including the year for the show’s setting.
Regarding the time setting of the show, Chabon’s Instagram post states: “So we finished our first amazing two weeks in the #space2999 writers’ room, and I think all you 99ers out there are really going to “grok” what we have planned.”
Chabon also used an image from the ’70s sci-fi series Space: 1999 to send out his message about the “99” setting of the show.
“Space 2999” seems to be an inside joke and mashup of Space: 1999 and the actual year the show is set, which appears to be 2399. The last time we saw Picard was in the 2002 film Star Trek: Nemesis, which takes place in the year 2379. At Star Trek Las Vegas, Patrick Stewart said of the setting: “Twenty years will have passed, which is more or less exactly the time between the very last movie – Nemesis – and today.” It appears that Stewart was being specific and that the show will take place exactly 20 years later, or 2399.
2399 puts the new Picard show at the end of the 24th century, which is somewhat poetic as it will bring to an end the century which was the setting for Star Trek: The Next Generation and the two subsequent series, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, and Star Trek: Voyager. Through 21 seasons those three series thoroughly covered the period between 2364 and 2378, with Nemesis taking place one year after the Voyager finale. It also brings up the possibility that the show will be a bridge into the 25th century of Star Trek’s future history.
The only known events set out in canon for the post-Nemesis 24th century comes from the 2009 Star Trek movie. J.J. Abrams first Trek film established that in 2387 a supernova which threatened the galaxy exploded, destroying the planet Romulus. Spock was able to prevent the supernova from destroying the rest of the galaxy but he and his ship were drawn back in time, along with a very angry crew of Romulan miners, to kick off the new Kelvin timeline in the 23rd century.
I just want a series that is “Picard, space diplomat and consultant” where he travels from planet to planet solving problems in the parts of Trek we never get to see because it isn’t a space ship.
The only known events set out in canon for the post-Nemesis 24th century comes from the 2009 Star Trek movie. J.J. Abrams first Trek film established that in 2387 a supernova which threatened the galaxy exploded
Can we not use "canon" and "2009 star trek movie" in the same sentence please? :D
Well its time to dust off this old thread as the Orville season 2 premiered last Sunday and had its second episode on Wednesday.
I really really liked episode two. A story about an alien porn addiction marriage and redemption. I really really liked the suit on the alien porn dealer I could not sea any difference from where the practical effects ended and the CGI/dub on its voice started It was fantastic. The cgi for the dying sun was super cool and you had some real star trek philosophy shit going down between gordan and the robot.
Seth MacFarlane has some seriously insane latitude for this show. I'm still shocked we got forced gender reassignment surgery in the first season but vaguely gay alien sex was something I never thought would make it to network television.
I'm not caught up yet, I think I'm on episode 7 or so on Discovery and 1 episode behind on the Orville. I'm enjoying both these shows this season, I feel Orville became AMAZING, especailly with the Isaac's planet arc, although the robot-human romance is still really stupid.
Discovery, I think is better than last season, a lot more cool stories, even though the overall story feels like something out of Marvel. I LOVE Captain Pike. I would prefer him getting the spinoff than the weird Section 31 thing.
I think it sort of funny how the crew on discovery are trying to deal with the problem of the future being written and I'm the writers of the TV show suffer from the problem of the future already being written
I think season 1 was a lot better than season 2. During season 1, at least at some point it was possible to forget that this was supposed to be Star Trek and just enjoy a goofy SF show with very high production value.
Season 2 was probably the worst writing on television I have ever seen. And this for a show that by virtue of it's name, Star Trek, advertises itself as smartly written deep entertainment.
In season 2, back to back scenes aren't even coherent with themselves. The main plot of the story is a completely convoluted time travel plothole. And the story almost becomes a parody of itself by making a character that seems deliberately written to be unlikable and arrogant as the main character. I don't know how people could enjoy seeing Michael Burnham talk down all those people around her. Literally nothing makes sense. No one has any idea wtf is happening. And almost every character except maybe Pike is annoying. On top of that, you can literally see the writers struggle with writing. It is the most tropy tv series I have ever seen. When an episode starts off with giving you more background info on a crew member, you just know they are doing that because that crew member is going to die.
If you compare this show to Star Wars The Last Jedi, it is hard to believe how much worse this tv show is.
They should definitely have made a Pike&Spock series. Now, we have this ship teleported 900 years into the future WTF are they going to do.
And now they are shooting a Picard series. Apparently, they have even more money per episode to blow away than STD had. But how the fuck are you going to shoot a tv series with a 78 year old lead actor? It doesn't make any sense. So it will be like STD, but with a super old dude as the most important actor? I absolutely love Picard in TNG. But why do they think this is a good idea? It boggles the mind.
I think Pike is not in season 3 because something personal happened on set with Pike's actor. So I doubt they will also make a new show based on Pike. They are already trying to get that silly Section 31 thing off the ground. And so far, this has all been a disaster. No one is watching this shit, which is one of the reasons why this thread is completely dead.
I really liked the Orville this season as well. They transitioned a character off the show really well and with class before introducing a new one to replace them. And had probably the funniest scene in television this year for me so far.