Star Trek Discovery

Star Trek: Discovery: 'Prime' Setting, Gay Character, Heavy Alien Presence and 11 More Spoilers About CBS Reboot

Set phasers to scoop!

Star Trek: Discovery executive producer Bryan Fuller closed out CBS’ portion of the Television Critics Association summer press tour with a panel previewing his anticipated reboot. Herewith are the 10 newsiest bits:

* As we reported, the show’s lead character will be female. Fuller elaborated that she will be human but not a captain. She is a “Lieutenant Commander — with caveats.”

* On the main story driving the 13-episode first season: “There’s an incident, an event in Star Trek history in the history of Starfleet that had been talked about but never fully explored. [We’re telling] that story through a character who is on a journey that is going to teach her how to get along with others in the galaxy.”

* Fuller confirmed that the aforementioned series-opening event is not Kobayashi Maru, nor the Romulan War and it won’t involve Black Ops Section 31 (aka Starfleet’s black-ops arm). Fuller later spilled that said event was referenced during the original series and diehard fans “should be very happy. It’s something I want to see.”

* “We’ll probably have a few more aliens than you normally do in a Star Trek cast,” Fuller revealed. “We’re going to have new exciting aliens and also re-imaginings of existing aliens.” (One of the original aliens is named Saru.)

* Fuller said the new series will be set in the prime universe — aka the universe of the TV series, not the one of the J.J. Abrams movies — and will “bridge the gap between Enterprise and the original series,” which puts it “about 10 years before Kirk” and his five-year mission.

* “There will be robots.”

* “We’re absolutely having a gay character,” Fuller said, recalling how, during his time on the Deep Space Nine Voyager writing staff, fans sent hate mail protesting a rumor that Jeri Ryan’s character Seven of Nine was going to be gay. He added that he kept a file folder of the vitriolic mail in his garage, solely to remind him of the importance of including gay characters if he ever got his own Trek series.

* Fuller strongly hinted that Amanda Grayson (aka Spock’s mother) would figure into the series. “I love that character. I loved Winona Ryder’s portrayal of her [in the 2009 movie] and it’s a great character. It would be fun in some iteration of this show to incorporate her and her storyline. She’s not a central part of the show but we love that character.”

* Fuller made light of the series’ acronym — STD — and said that sex and profanity likely will have a place on the show. “There will probably be slightly more graphic content,” Fuller said. “We discuss every day about language… Is it appropriate to have a bridge blow up and have somebody say, ‘Oh, s—t?'”

* The series’ opening scene is “not set on Earth, and not on a planet,” Fuller divulged.

* The show will feature “about seven” lead characters. Fuller, meanwhile, agreed “wholeheartedly” that Pushing Daisies‘ Lee Pace would be a nice add.

Star Trek: Discovery episodes will unspool weekly on CBS All Access after initially launching with a two-hour episode on CBS network in January 2017.

Comments are monitored, so don’t go off topic, don’t frakkin’ curse and don’t bore us with how much your coworker’s sister-in-law makes per hour. Talk smart about TV!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. I am definitely curious about this show, but have never seen an episode of any of this series. I wonder if I’ll be able to jump in without seeing anything previous.

    • Badpenny says:

      There are a lot of TV stations which show Trek reruns. Simply watching a couple of seasons of Enterprise will fill you in – as this show takes place after Enterprise.

      • David4 says:

        This is horrible advise. The show is 90% unwatchable. You start with TNG and can pick it up easily.

        • Temperance says:

          It wasn’t that bad. They just didn’t didn’t get the feel or the tech quite right. The cast didn’t immediately gel, but they became memorable over time. I didn’t like some of the major plot arcs (the Xindi and such) and the finale was so, so lame. It was fine… but not as good as the others.

          • Gawaine'sBanner says:

            Saw some of the scripts for future proposed Enterprise episodes. It was getting good, it would have gotten better.

        • notfeelingencouraged says:

          OMG, TNG was the Worst! Bunch of woosies!!

          • David4 says:

            TOS is too much for new fans.
            DS9 has too much storyline.
            Voyager is useless trash.
            Enterprise is unwatched garbage.

            Thus you are left with TNG which is a perfect balance of bad and good, with decent acting and writing.

          • BillyBobJohnson says:

            Why is TOS too much for new fans? It explains everything about the world of Star Trek. Always go with the original. Then watch TNG. The rest are worthless (yes, even DS9).

        • notfeelingencouraged says:

          OMG, TNG would NOT give any accurate account of what the Star Trek story really is. My god, no! Could not stand that one, bunch of (insert profanity here).

    • Michael Summerset says:

      You should start with the classic series. It’s what made Star Trek what it is. Each episode is stand-alone and independent of the others so it doesn’t matter what order you watch them in.

      You could completely skip The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Voyager. There were a few characters introduced such as the Borg and the Ferengi, but there’s a lot of episodes to slog through (about 21 seasons worth altogether) and the story all takes place after the original series. This show is set before it.

      I would also recommend watching the first and last seasons of Enterprise, but skipping the final episode with Riker. It was only made for Frake’s ego and ruins the ending of the series. The second last episode makes for a better finale. Despite what others may think, it was good but had a different, almost darker tone than the Next Generation shows. Since it came as people were burning out on ST and took a different tone than the previous shows, it wasn’t as well received. Had it come out today after the movie remakes, it likely would have been better accepted.

      • brch2 says:

        My advice would be for introducing someone to Trek that wants to watch Discovery would be first start with TOS, at least the first couple of episodes. If the person is someone that has trouble watching dated shows, then I’d suggest skipping to watch “Space Seed”, then jump and watch Wrath of Khan, The Search for Spock, and The Voyage Home (watching them, without ever having seen TOS (don’t remember if I’d watched any TNG yet then or not) is what sold me on being a Trek fan. Then, if the person likes them, go give the rest of TOS another try.

    • lrdslvrhnd says:

      Ignore everyone’s advice, ’cause everyone’s advice is gonna be different.
      My advice to be ignored: Go ahead and watch this, whether or not you’re “caught up” on any other series. Since it takes place before everything except Enterprise, you should be fine, even with the mention of telling the story of an incident mentioned in TOS.

    • Corie says:

      Don’t begin with Enterprise. It’s the absolute worst.

  2. Badpenny says:

    Star Trek is about going boldly into the future yet for the last 15 years everything-Trek has been about filling in the past. Do these producers not understand how much Trek fans hate having their continuity screwed with?
    And I will say this as a woman, I am tired of seeing every major character lead needing to be female now. Both Star Wars movies have female leads, Ahsoka has a bigger part then Vader in SW: Rebels, and now we need to have a female captain on the Discovery just to show how bad-ass women can be. Seeing this trend is getting almost as tiring as seeing every husband on TV needing to be a moron to his superior wife. We need more diversity rather then constant trends of all A and then all B.

    • Patrick says:

      I think there is a good series wherein the captain is an older, cerebral male, with his Number 1 being sort of a hot-headed, action oriented female. With no romantic shipping between the two.

      • Ben says:

        It only got 13 episodes :(

        • Géraldine says:

          Wait the end of the 1st season and maybe you will be glad that the series “only” counts 13 episodes. When I remember TNG, DS9, Voyager and Ent, only about 10-13 episodes on 24 or 26 were watchable!

          • Ben says:

            I was talking about the series Patrick was. It was cancelled before it’s time (he was talking about Firefly – at least that’s how I took it).

          • lrdslvrhnd says:

            Mal is “cerebral”? Since when? He’s only cerebral compared to Jayne… MAYBE Zoe, but that’s iffy.

      • O'yaya says:

        Are you kidding , that pair is ripe for shipping. I already ship them from what you just said !

    • DotDotDot says:

      More ‘diversity’ in major lead? You can either have a male or female. And when you consider that this past TCA, for CBS alone, six new shows are being led by six dudes..yeah no. Female lead characters are still drastic minority.

      • I think it’s interesting that female leads, and strong females in general, are more likely to be found in Sci-Fi/Fantasy genre shows.

        • Yeah I’ve noticed that, and it not really good either! Even though Scifi/fantasy is my favorite types of shows, most of those kinds of shows don’t last as long as say a cop show or a medical drama! I mean look at all the CSI shows, Law & Order shows, NCIS, shows, and of course the medical dramas, like ER and Grey’s Anatomy, all of them have or were on for at least 10 years, some much longer than that! And except for Grey’s, which is still mostly about women running around trying to find a man, so much more like a soap then anything else, the rest is lead by men! There is only one show Rizzoli And Isles, that has a female lead, who is tough, and is a cop, and her co-star is another woman, not a man! Every other show made has at least 2 men, for every woman! Which usually means, 1 or 2 women, and and at least 4 men! And one of the women will always be less attractive or geeky or weird in someway! And even in Rizzoli And Isles, when it started had 3 or 4 men in it at all times! Like Rizzoli’s two brothers, and then the two other cops, then of course her boyfriends and Isles boyfriends! Because of course women can’t go through life without looking for mr right all the time, even if they are a tough police detective! Unlike the men in shows just like it, who instead spend the whole time bedding different women, and not caring about looking for a wife! I wonder if when they say they are going to have a gay character if they mean gay male or a gay female! If they mean female, why not just say lesbian, since that is what gay women are called, most prefer it! Something tells me they are talking about a gay man, which frankly has been done to death! While Lesbians, have just been put to death! Almost every show on TV either has a gay male or has had a gay male character, most as a member of the cast too! Every time a show gets a lesbian on it, they always either get killed ( which is most of the time) or they leave, never to be seen again! Or sometimes they just switch to a guy if their bi of course! But most of the time even the bi girls die and horrible death! Which is probably another reason why they won’t have a lesbian, because they may not be able to kill them off as soon as they would like to! But even if they do, they probably will be one of the background cast members, not one of the ones they focus on much, since most shows will only show them for a little while, just to hook the lesbian/bi girls into watching the show, and then either kill them or put them way in the background of the shows stories! So you hardly get to see them, and it seems like they’re dead anyway! Which for some reason they don’t do with gay men, I guess its because they are men, and whether gay or straight, men always get to be above women!

    • quang says:

      You act as if a few examples makes up for the fact that males still make up a majority of the leads for tv and movies. Having more women on screen to represent the 50-50 split should be the defualt, not treated as a “trend”.

    • David4 says:

      It’s being made by a great guy, and a fan, one of the writers wrote Star Trek 2, 4 and 6, AKA the best Trek films by a mile.

      I’m OK with this and the ugly ship.

    • Temperance says:

      Yes, we know your prejudice is strong. Too bad. Get used to the homosexuals, too.

    • Trillian82 says:

      Holy cow, you’re right.

      I mean, not just Ahsoka having a bigger part than Vader in Rebels–like, those other rebels, Hera and Sabine, do, too. (Also Ezra, Kanan, Chopper, and Zeb, but never mind that). Then by the time we tally up the new Star Wars trilogy and Rogue One AND the Han Solo trilogy, only 9 of 13 Star Wars movies will have featured a male lead!

      If Destiny has a female lead, when you count her and Captain Janeway, only 4 of 6 of the Star Trek series will have a male lead.

      And look at the Marvel and DC television properties! Okay, we’ve got Supergirl and Jessica Jones… against Arrow, The Flash, Legends of Tomorrow, Gotham, Agents of SHIELD (I guess this one is questionable–is it Coulson or Daisy who is the lead protagonist? I think it’s Coulson…?), Daredevil, Luke Cage, and Iron Fist. That’s ONLY 8 male-led shows against 2 female-led shows.

      (And let’s not even start with the cinematic universes, with Wonder Woman next year and Captain Marvel in ’19. That’s stacking heavily against Batman, Superman, Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Star-Lord, and Black Panther.)

      Killjoys, Shadowhunters, iZombie, and Orphan Black absolutely cancel out Doctor Who, Supernatural, the Magicians, Preacher, Lucifer, Mr Robot, 12 Monkeys, the Walking Dead…

      It’s really, really hard to find shows headlined by men these days, especially in sci-fi and its offshoot genres. :(

      • Adam says:

        You are my new hero! Amazing!

        • Trillian82 says:

          Heh, thanks. I couldn’t let this one go. It was too ridiculous NOT to reply to. (No lie, though–I’m appalled at myself for not working Game of Thrones into it, with its particular ratio of male to female leads by the end of season 6.)

      • Brigid says:

        LOVE this!!

      • Mowbray says:

        ROTFL. This is a perfect, Trillian82. Whining over poor, “underrepresented” white men never fails to amuse, especially if it’s done by oh-so cool women.

        • Trillian82 says:

          Heh, thanks, Mowbray. I’ve never commented here before, and I really expected to get ripped to shreds over it–and I’m not surprised that the poster I replied to hasn’t said anything in the last two days. I just couldn’t let this one go. There is precisely zero shortage of men headlining genre TV! But as soon as there’s a HANDFUL of women in lead roles, they’re “every” lead role. Yeah. Okay. Suuuuuure.

    • John says:

      If you actually read the article you will notice that the Captain is definitely NOT female. The lead character is, but not the captain. But those are just details…

    • Pret a Porterpotty says:

      Every major character is female now? It likely just seems that way to you because you’re accustomed to seeing males overrepresented.

  3. James S says:

    So I’m guessing the ST event mentioned but never seen is the first encounter with the Klingons that led to the First Contact rule?

    • Badpenny says:

      First contact with the Klingons happened in Enterprise. The opening episode had them going to Qo’noS to deliver an injured Klingon back to the High Command.

  4. Ben says:

    I don’t think profanity is a good idea at all. It reminds me of Star Trek 4, when Spock was completely unaware of the concept of profanity. It doesn’t feel to me like it fits, I hope they decide not to.

    • Badpenny says:

      I think a little more realism is fine; especially since we are paying to see the episodes. And the Spock statements were done for levity – the whole movie was a dramedy.

      • Ben says:

        Why is it ‘realism’? Star Trek is set in a time with more respect and less conflict. It’s not set on the streets of Brooklyn.

        A lot of TOS was a dramedy, really, which is a big part of its charm. But I don’t think that means you should ignore things just because you can. Too many shows consider introducing profanity just because they have the opportunity to… but it can be like eating a whole tub of ice cream because it’s there. You should do what is right for your show and the universe it’s set in. Some shows are wrong for network TV because they need profanity. Other shows should avoid profanity even when they could choose to use it. Star Trek is one, for me.

        • BadPenny says:

          More respect and less conflict? Did you watch many of those 700+ episodes? At least 2/3 of them are filled with conflict.
          What makes the program interesting is if you can relate to it. Knowing human nature as I do I really do not believe people have stopped swearing, lying, having sex – Kirk certainly didn’t, etc. If you want people to understand human nature you cannot pretend it does not exist.

          • Ben says:

            Star Trek was created to be aspirational. I don’t see what ‘lying’ or ‘having sex’ has to do with it, and the conflict was patently NOT amongst earth people like it is today, but caused by dealing with other races that retained those qualities. Swearing is – in canon – not something that happens on earth at that time. For me it’s as simple as that. If you want new rules, set it in a different timeline. I don’t really believe any part of Star Trek is a realistic documentary of the future, and I don’t think swearing is somehow enhancing of its reality. To me, it’s the complete opposite – it is discordant with its reality. Its been 700 episodes and a number of movies without it, and it would feel like it does not fit as part of the world (unlike, say, sex… which is obviously still happening).

        • Chris says:

          Ha, the irony of the comments saying not to curse and the article extolling adding more cursing.

          The problem with the cursing is it really doesn’t add realism. It becomes more like a tween who suddenly finds out they can now say naughty words. Then instead of writing sharp, smart dialog it devolves into adding more crude language. It was the same problem with upping the sexuality in Enterprise. It’s an attempt to hide the inadequacies of the show.

          • Ash says:

            I agree. Generally I writer has someone curse if they can’t find a better way to state something. Everything Fuller is revealing aboutthis show feels like a bag of hot air.

    • steven says:

      There’s profanity in Star Trek. Always has been.

      • Chris says:

        But never much, usually pretty subdued, and often played for laughs because it is rare.

      • Bella says:

        Yes, Chief O’Brian used to say ‘Bloody’. Shocked me ridged as a little kid, brought up never to use that word.

        • Kathy says:

          Since TNG and DS9 were filmed in the US, with primarily US crews, where ‘bloody’ isn’t thought of as even risque, let alone profanity, it went over the heads of most (unless you either read a lot of UK-based books, watched a lot of Brit shows on PBS, or were an American of Irish, English, Scottish, or Welsh descent).
          Swearing in Trek? Let’s go back to the time of TOS, the mid-60s. There was this little thing called Network Standards and Practices which was a department at every network — aka ‘the censors’. They had a lot of power over what you could say and show. They had veto power over costumes (which came into play when they were designing costumes for the female guests and regulars to wear), dialogue, and actions (that interracial kiss in Plato’s Stepchildren). And their word was final. So no, there was no swearing in any of the TOS eps – though any kid my age (11 in 1966) heard it regularly on the street and at school. I remember the first time I heard someone say ‘son of a b*tch’ on network TV — it was 1989, and I nearly swallowed my tongue. Flash forward to the late 90s, and my first African Grey picked up the F word by hearing it on The Sopranos (I was and still am very careful what I say around my parrots — they can pick up a word or phrase after hearing it once).

          • BillyBobJohnson says:

            Don’t believe for a minute that Network Standards and Practices has gone away. They’re still very much there with EVERY show on broadcast TV.

  5. david says:

    Fuller was not a good choice to head the new series. He’s overrated and his bizarre surreal whacky approach isn’t very appealing.

    He also wrote some of Treks worst episodes when he was a staff writer –spirit folk, course oblivion mortal coil juggernaut gravity empok nor fury

    And lets stop with the prequel crap the show should have been a century after DS 9 which would allow familiar cultures at a different place plus introducing new races without worrying about continuity

    This is what happens when fanboys get to helm a series. They think how cool it is to recreate their childhood fantasies and out their stamp on it rather than worrying about good writing. Hence the prequels’ reboots and reimagining’s of so much 89s and 90 tv and films

    • Temperance says:

      I’d say the exact opposite.

      • David says:

        No. With the trek reboot film franchise by Abrams and now this TOS wannabe series it clearly demonstrates people who grew up on TOS and now can’t wait to relive it anew and play dress up and recreate those iconic sets.

        It’s the very thing that has a stranglehold on Hollywood and why we keep getting all these reboots from MacGuyver, Ghostbusters, lethal Weapon, melrose place, Dallas , 90210, hart to hart, murder she wrote , and on and on

        Rather than hiring competent skilled writers who are familiar to an extent with the franchise but not a giddy fanboy we get John Logan , Abrams, orci, kurtzman and now Fuller who want to do-let’s be honest- TOS rather than forging new ground.

        Nowadays it’s all about gratuitous namedropping, Easter eggs, regurgitating plots(hello Star Trek Into darkness and force awakens).

        Nobody cares about plotholes, creating adversaries with a coherent motive for their actions or writing entertaining original plots. It’s all about ADD pacing , playing dress up, and lots of eye candy

        When gene Roddenberry decided to do TNG he explicitly sought out people who weren’t that familiar with Trek and didn’t want TOS aliens brought onto the show. He wanted to do something different

        Besides trek has already attempted a prequel with modern sensibilities and it was called Enterprise.

    • Christopher says:

      Bryan Fuller is awesome. Pushing Daisies is possibly the most creative show I’ve ever seen on network television.

      I wish that STD was set in a later era because I also think that it would be more interesting to explore the time period post-DS0, but with that Bryan Fuller is helming the series I know that it will be awesome. I can think of very few creators that would bring the level of excitement, wonder and charm that Fuller packs into his projects.

      • David says:

        If by creative you mean pretentiously artsy for the sake of being pretentiously artsy then yes he’s creative. Look what he did to the munsters ?!?!?!?

        What was needed was a serious writer to come onboard. Now that would probably mean looking to a older more seasoned person who honed his craft before the year because all I ever see on tv is excess for its own sake rather than any decent writing

        It’s all about structure from a whole bunch of time jumps and flashbacks to adding puzzle pieces on top of previous information to WTF cliffhangers and twists. As well as a heapful of pretentiousness for added measure

        No one seems to be able to tell a straightforward linear modestly plotted story arc with a modest ensemble anymore these days. No these days can’t have less than a hundred characters in the ensemble, have to have a good 300-400 plotlines and the pacing must move along so fast that if you ink you miss the scene

        And fanboys are the worst writers. Studios should not let them anywhere near nostalgic properties like Star Trek. They lose all perspective

        • militantgod says:

          And look what he did with Hannibal. A masterpiece but I guess that was garbage too. For someone who says he’s overrated and pretentious, you sure seem to know a lot about him.

          It’s pretty ironic that you state fanboys are the worst possible writers for the show yet you, said fanboy, have all the correct ideas on how to create an amazing Star Trek show. Too funny.

    • BillyBobJohnson says:

      He’s the reason that DS9 was garbage most of the time. The show was unwatchable.

    • Ben says:

      +1. I’m sooo disappointed… another precuel. I want to know what happen AFTER Voyager!.. this is like having Enterprise all over again.

      Urrgg… and to have all that PC bs now in ST to force current issues in the show is just the cherry on top. I want science fiction, not another soup!.

      No more rehash!.

  6. snazzyo says:

    Eugenics Wars? Those were supposed to be 1990s but perhaps they’ll fudge it a bit?

    • BadPenny says:

      Enterprise ends in 2155. The Romulan War is 2156-2160. The United Federation of Planets is formed in 2161. The new series is about 10 years after Enterprise so that makes it around 2165. I cannot think of anything which happens in 2165.

      • David4 says:

        It takes 10 years before Kirk’s 5 year mission. However that whole ‘spoiler’ is a mess because Enterprise took place like 100 years before TOS.

  7. Sam Valley says:

    Girls and gays, just what I want in my Star Trek. Lame

  8. Donna Salvi says:

    So, you won’t be able to watch this on a regular CBS cable TV station? Only the paid access one?

  9. Yeah, you know, because of Rodenberry’s near-perfect society, people still cuss and homosexuality hasn’t been cured like most genetic disabilities….

    Sounds more like shoving 21st century society into the 23rd.

    Going backwards, knuckleheads….

    • Kathy says:

      Are you seriously saying that homosexuality is a genetic disability?

      • warhorse says:

        well, it’s not a good way to perpetuate a species. let’s say we had a massive accident of whatever kind (waves wand of plot device) and the entire population is turned gay. that would be the end of the species, correct? of course, barring artificial means…which isn’t a good way to ensure the survival of humans either.

        • Brash&Flossie says:

          there’s never going to be an event that turns every person gay. you should thank the gays for slowing down the perpetuation of our species, which is destroying its own habitat like a cancer.

    • Delirious says:

      I honestly can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic, or an actual D.

  10. Tom says:

    Calling it. Axanar. Even more reason for them to want to kill it.

    • Matt Webb Mitovich says:

      Axanar was ruled out.

      • Tom says:

        Did not know that.

      • brch2 says:

        Unless something was missed on the Memory Alpha wiki, Axanar is the only thing that’s been mentioned to have happened between 2233 (everything before that is part of both timelines, unless it’s meant to be misleading) and 2260 (they are saying before Kirk, so I’ll go that far even though they said several years before Kirk’s first 5 year mission) that clearly is something a lot of people want to see, and that could fill 13 episodes (nothing else mentioned in that period seems like it’d be reasonably stretchable that far). And frankly, anything after 2245, and I’m gonna be mad they couldn’t set it on Enterprise NCC-1701 (no bloody A, B, C, or D), and give us a season where we can FINALLY see a live action Captain April.

        2236, SS Columbia crashes on Talos IV, but that’s the set up for Captain Pike’s visit there on Enterprise in the first pilot, so wouldn’t be it here.

        2245, Enterprise launched, but don’t see how that matters here except that a show past this point should be on Enterprise with April or Pike.

        2245, Federation-Klingon battle (Battle of Donatu V) near Sherman’s Planet/Deep Space Station K-7 that didn’t sound like much of anything.

        2246, Tarsus IV, a lot of their food is killed off by fungus, and Governor Kodos (Kodos the Executioner) kills off 4000 to try to save other 4000. Problem with this is, He’s presumed dead, not caught until TOS. So nothing here that’d need a starship and last 13 eps, though we would have to see 13 year old Kirk.

        2247, Eminiar-Vendikar War… apparently the year they ended a few century old real war (they felt they were killers and kept killing each other), and turned into a war where computers fought and figured out who died, while those “killed” were disintegrated within 24 hours, until Kirk and an Ambassador ended it 20 years later. This isn’t it.

        2254, non canon date commonly used for Battle of Axanar

        2255, Federation-Sheliak Conflict… sounds like it was boring, considering it’s called a brief skirmish, and ended with hundreds of lawyers and a 500,000 word contract/treaty.

        The ONLY thing I see that could reasonably have much of anything to do with robots in that frame is if Daystrom built them when or after inventing duotronics in 2243, maybe as a precursor of his attempt to develop AI that led to M5. But still don’t get what story they’d make out of that, as the only thing mentioned in TOS about him til then is he’d invented duotronics (the type of technology in late 23rd and early 24th century computers) and won two prizes for it).

  11. James D says:

    I’m a huge trekkie, but everything I’m hearing about this series makes me want to cry. I will check it out but I’m not hopeful, which makes me very sad. why would you need to swear in Star Trek (they know it’s Star Trek and not BSG 3.0 right). This is honestly not meant to offend anybody but why does there have to be a gay character, it seems to me they are doing it for all the wrong reasons instead of letting things unfold organically. trying to think what the connection to TOS is, could it be something from the episode Glass Menagerie perhaps something to do with Commander Pike. not sure it has been awhile since I’ve watched TOS.

    • Chris says:

      Part of the problem is that certain people look at one part of Star Trek, social commentary, and get it in their head that that is all it was about. If you really look at it, most of the worst Star Trek episodes are dominated by social commentary. The worst ST:TNG episode is the stupid homosexual alien who falls for Riker episode. So my guess is we’ll get all sorts of preachiness with the new homosexual Star Trek character.

      • Corngod says:

        What? “The Outcast” was an amazing episode. If you don’t enjoy social commentary, why are you even an ST fan? It’s kind of an integral element of the series.

    • David says:

      There’s nothing inherently less organic about deciding a character will be gay than there is deciding they’ll be straight.

      • xyz says:

        Is it organic when he is doing based on letters he kept in his garage?

        In any case, I am not willing to play CBS to view this series.

        • David says:

          You’re right. Real-life inspiration has no place in writing.

        • Ben says:

          That sounds pretty much what ‘organic’ normally looks like, to me. Someone writing something out of passion, instead of because they feel like they have to.

          • xyz says:

            No, he is trying to right the wrong of the letter. Not organic. BS

            People should own it. Don’t call it organic call it righting a wrong. I can respect someone saying that.

    • Pedro says:

      If you were a Trekkie, you’d love that. Trek was ALWAYS about breaking barriers, diversity, all people coming together.

      • James D says:

        you misunderstand me I have no problem having a gay character on a show, I do have a problem with using a gay character as a means to an end in a sense to overtly show that you are a diverse and open series. Trek is about diversity and breaking barriers but that is not the only thing that made it brilliant. and the only thing I meant by organic was have a character be him or herself without preaching to the world you are gay (or straight for that matter) because it too often becomes that characters defining characteristic which in my opinion limits the storytelling.

        • David says:

          All they said is that they’re gay, nothing else. Assuming that it will be their defining characteristic is more on you than them.

        • jj says:

          until you actually see the show you have no idea how organic it is or not. It’s like claiming that having the series lead of the show being a woman isn’t organic because it’s going to be all about her being female etc. You’re making it sound like the default should be straight white men, and you can only deviate from that if it’s “organic”. At this point, all that you know are basic elements of some of the characters (e.g. the lead is female, one is gay, a few will be aliens). That’s how shows are formed, creating characters. You have no idea yet if it’s organic or not. You’re hiding behind this “organic” excuse for simply not wanting a gay character.

    • quang says:

      A gay producer wanted gay characters on his show. You can’t get anoy more simple or organic. Many producers write and cast for this exact same reason, and no one bats an eye.

  12. Daniel Snow says:

    I’m curious but that’s no guarantee

  13. Marsawe says:

    Enough with prequels…boldly go where no one has gone before. Give us the next “Next Generation”. Also, no way will I pay CBS for a streaming service that includes commercials. This show won’t last. Maybe 10 years from now we’ll get an actual Star Trek show.

  14. Ash says:

    Lol 7 of 9 gay? Dax was bi. Did he keep any hate mail letters about that? I think Fuller is getting the shows mixed up. Jeri Ryan/ 7 of 9 was not even on Deep Space 9. She was on Voyager.

    • Chris says:

      Facts don’t matter because….gay.

    • David4 says:

      Dax was an alien without a gender. The host bodies were both male and female.

      • Carla Verkoren says:

        Would be awesome, though, if they included one of dax’s earliest hosts in the new series…

        • brch2 says:

          Depending on the time frame, it’d be Emony or Audrid joined at that time… Emony had to have met McCoy right around 2245 during her trip to Earth to judge the gymnastics competition, but Audrin died in 2284, so I imagine Emony would have died and Audrin been joined sometime around when the show’s supposed to be set, so it’d be up to the producers which Dax to use if they chose to use the character. Of course, they COULD, if it ever fit into their plot, show one or both of them depending again on the time frame, or any other Dax if the show jumps to different time frames for each season.

    • TAB says:

      Yeah I wondered about this too…and honestly I don’t remember any rumors about Seven being gay? I know a lot of people shipped Janeway and Seven but I don’t remember rumors about Seven’s sexuality at all.

  15. william says:

    So, the show will feature Gayliens huh. LOL

  16. quang says:

    Lol at those conservative Trekkies who still do not realise that the franchise has ALWAYS been about diversity and progressiveness.

  17. Porthos says:

    Now that I know this is a prequel show (again!) I have little interest in seeing this. shame.

  18. mfrank says:

    I get annoyed by all this “prime” talk when it is a “prequel”. If this is before the Original series, then there is no “prime” timeline terminology needed as it hasn’t split yet. The split was when Spock came back in time and Vulcan blew up. Since this is before that, it is shared by both timelines, just like Enterprise would be. The only time the “prime” terminology would have meaning is if a show is set way in the future.

    • Augie says:

      The timeline changed on the day of Kirks birth long before Vulcan blew up. In the original timeline Kirks father didn’t die on that ship.

    • Kelly James says:

      Vulcan did not “blow up” as there was no explosion. It was collapsed, or imploded, to become a black hole.

  19. Dr. M says:

    It sounds like every bullet point is: “It’s the like Star Trek you know… except”

    Isn’t that how we ended up with the J.J-verse?

  20. Trekkie says:

    So it is set in a place in Star Trek history where Kirk is in his 20s, Scotty and Bones are in their 30s and Spock is already a member of the Enterprise crew during Pikes first 5 year mission.

    This show best have the Enterprise turn up, with a recast Pike, Number one and Spock, even if it’s only a cameo.

    Looking forward to finding out if the uniforms will all be like those in the Cage pilot… Someone give them a Star Trek timeline quick

  21. Erik Mamen says:

    At what time did it become a reboot? I believed and hoped it would be a continuation of the prime continuity.

    • Michael Summerset says:

      Enterprise was the first to change things in around the fourth season as I recall. The movies have done their own remake. At this point, the Next Generation shows are irrelevant. This isn’t the same Star Trek. The continuity is gone.

  22. Bark Star says:

    Sounds like TREK is growing up ! Good !

  23. StillKirok says:

    Honestly, while there are some interesting things here, and it’s a show that I would watch on regular TV, I’m not going to pay to watch this show.

    I guess at this point in time, Pike is captain of the Enterprise.

    The only way I would actually pay to watch this show is if they somehow did a special episode involving Shatner returning as Kirk, establishing the character is alive after the events of Generations. The nexus makes that possible, but without that, they’re not getting my money.

  24. Bill Johnson says:

    Why oh why does everybody think we have to be subjected to gay characters in today’s entertainment? Gay’s are such a small percentage in the world. Stop shoving them down our throat!

  25. Well it can’t be the Tomed Incident, could it be the Four Years War

  26. Davidj says:

    Really looking forward to this. I admit I would have preferred a post-Nemesis show as well, but I’m not going to get hung up on it like others here, and I am very curious to see how Fuller reimagines and updates the pre-TOS years (something that has already been done before with the sleeker looking Defiant we saw in the Enterprise mirror universe episode).

    Seems like there could be a bit of conflict with introducing new aliens and conflicts that were never mentioned before in Trek, but as long as the writing it strong that should make up for anything else. And I do really like the idea of a Trek series centered more around another character besides the Captain, and seeing things from that slightly different perspective.

  27. Troy1986 says:

    So they want me to pay to watch a show with commercials in it?

  28. warhorse says:

    I refuse to watch any more star trek until they free up AXANAR.

    no axanar? no more trek!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  29. It amazes me that one of the “requirements” of a show or this one, would be that probably (quote from Fuller) “sex and profanity likely will have a place on the show. “There will probably be slightly more graphic content,” Fuller said. “We discuss every day about language… Is it appropriate to have a bridge blow up and have somebody say, ‘Oh, s—t?’”
    None of the highly rated shows on CBS (NCIS, NCIS:LA, NCIS:NO, CRIMINAL MINDS, PERSON OF INTEREST, ELEMENTARY, ETC, ETC; ON NBC: ALL OF THE CHICAGO PACED DRAMAS, OLD ER; ON ABC: GREYS ANATOMY; ETC, ETC. have had to stoop to those levels to make them the shows that they are and were!!!!!!! What’s wrong with just great writing, script, cast and subject matter to keep your interest!! OR all of the GREAT past Star Trek series and movies – none of that kept audiences from watching or enjoying!!!!

  30. Mare says:

    VERY excited about this!!!!

  31. BillyBobJohnson says:

    Thought I’d come here to read the *spoilers*, since I won’t be watching the series after the initial two-hour show on CBS. Not going to pay $6-7/mo. just to watch a new Star Trek show. Will it eventually go to Netflix? If so, I’ll catch it then. If not, then I’ll rent the DVDs.

  32. Keefe Burton says:

    Heres my suggestion for an awesome star trek series. Instead of focusing on the Federation how about focusing on the aliens of Star trek. Base it off of the Klingons, the Dominion, The Borg or a whole new set of Aliens altogether who would have run-ins with the Federation from time to time.

  33. Tom says:

    The new producers of this star trek is wrong for go away from gene orginal cast by going against his believe of the bible with a gay crew member.. I hope the producers of this series dont kill it like they did voyager

  34. Stewart W. says:

    * “We’re absolutely having a gay character,” Fuller said, recalling how, during his time on the Deep Space Nine writing staff, fans sent hate mail protesting a rumor that Jeri Ryan’s character Seven of Nine was going to be gay. He added that he kept a file folder of the vitriolic mail in his garage, solely to remind him of the importance of including gay characters if he ever got his own Trek series.’

    Seven of Nine was in Voyager, not DS9. Just sayin’.

  35. liame says:

    the wrong casting could ruin this show, not a Pace fan so I hope this rumor stays a rumor.

  36. DRock99 says:

    Humanity is supposed to be more evolved in the future, yet they want to include a qu*er. I don’t mind the fact that George Takai is that way in real life, but on the show and its movies he will always be Mr. Sulu who went on to command the Excelsior. For the love of God keep that BS out of a legendary TV show and stick to what Star Trek is about, which was/is a look-in-view of a hopeful promising future where humanity achieves interstellar travel and explores the vastness of deep space, don’t tarnish Gene Roddenberrys’ legacy with that kind of abomination.

    • Corngod says:

      Give it a rest, Parson Brown. Star Trek is about inclusion and Gene tried to add gay folks to the cast before he died. Fans like you disgrace him.

  37. If Discovery takes place 10 years prior to Kirk’s five-year mission, then Spock will be serving on Pike’s Enterprise during the new series.

  38. RonnyEbmeier says:

    We’re not supposed to curse and Starfleet officers rarely spoke above a damn or a hell in all series. More violence and cursing? A gay character just because a bunch of preachers and conservatives felt threatened? This isn’t the Brian Fuller who wrote Mortal Coil or Living Witness now that he’s got the whip in hand. The show was best in the hands of guys like Michael Piller who didn’t make these issues the show but the show a vehicle for the issues. Very bad, boys. I’m just glad I was able to witness the series during it’s peak and not the continual march backwards into the lore instead of actually continuing to explore that rich universe so many writers built for us fans.

  39. ctleng76 says:

    I am excited about a new Star Trek series! However, I don’t know that I am excited enough to pay to watch it. Nevermind the fact that my TV and my Blu-Ray player don’t include support for CBS’s streaming service. This is a HUGE mistake! What a way to cripple the show before it even starts!

    If the show is going to be taken seriously, then the pilot needs to be about the story and not about shock value. I don’t want to see any sex scenes during the pilot. The show isn’t about sex, and therefore it shouldn’t be featured right out of the gate. It is a cheap way to gain viewers, and they won’t be the kind of viewers that are likely to stick with the series anyway.

    I am OK with LGBT characters, as long as homosexual relationships are not the theme of the show. Hopefully the producers and directors will make sure it doesn’t feel cheap and forced. This show should be about Star Trek. Let’s not make it a platform for politics and social agendas. That will turn fans away. Make sure it is something all Star Trek fans want to watch!

    Lastly, put this on TV! No more of this pay to stream crap!