Frontier

Lots of New Information on Discovery

462 posts in this topic

It's been shared in a few replies to existing threads, but I think it warrants its own considering its the first real concrete information we've got.

http://trekcore.com/blog/2016/08/bryan-fuller-reveals-long-awaited-star-trek-discovery-details/

Star Trek: Discovery will take place 10 years prior to Captain Kirk's (prime timeline) 5 year mission (so roughly, 2255 - when Captain Pike commanded the 1701 with Number One and Lieutenant Spock.)

The series lead will be a female Lieutenant Commander "with caveats" said Fuller (demoted? battlefield commission? something else?); she will not be the commanding officer of the ship itself, on purpose.  It's been suggested by people "in the know" but not stated outright that they're looking for a woman of color rather than a Caucasian actress for the part.  No one has yet been cast in any role.

The crew will feature more aliens than you might expect; more even than previous shows apparently.  The core cast is being built around 7 people.

We may seem some upgraded/rebooted designs of existing species (Andorians recently hinted at in a photo Fuller tweeted).

The serialized aspects of the plot are around an "event" we heard about in TOS (no one can figure this out yet!) - Axanar was ruled out, as was a real life Kobayashi Maru.  Taursus 4 was a decade-ish prior to the shows setting.  So everyone's trying to figure it out.  Nothing suggested fits at the moment.

We will have a gay character, for certain.  That's as specific as they got, they didn't clarify further.

An appearance by Spock's mother, Amanda Grayson, was hinted at - with even Winona Ryder's name brought up (she played the role in the 2009 Kelvin timeline film).  But she won't be central; just might appear.

They're open to bringing in/referencing other TOS characters, but want to establish the crew first.  I read that as "wait until season 2" but that's my opinion.  TNG famously waited until season 3 to have Sarek appear, though they did have Admiral McCoy in the pilot.

Scott Bakula said at last weekend's Vegas convention he's spoken with Fuller and is willing to appear as Archer; Archer's death was once given as 2245 in "In a Mirror, Darkly" from the Defiant's memory banks.  So not sure how/if this will occur but its interesting to share.

Section 31 may well make an appearance/have something to do with the story, but they didn't get too specific about that; Fuller has simply responded "maybe" when asked a few times now.

Oh and, "there will be robots" - whatever that means.  :P

 

 

Edited by Frontier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yay! Can't wait until January! =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All well and good.....but another prequel?....I am not liking that idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All well and good.....but another prequel?....I am not liking that idea.

I'd have preferred a post-24th century show, too ... but on the other side, the announced change of perspective away from a crew around the captain, will probably make the show sufficiently fresh, new and distinguishable, despite the prequel setting. Guess it will be just as different from the five older shows, as a post-24th century show would have been, if not moreso.

I'm thrilled... of course the show can still fail, but if it does, it won't be because Fuller isn't bold. That's great, IMO. Better a new approach that may or may not work, than "playing it safe". :)

As Mr. Picard said in another thread, I'm also mildly tired about TOS time and again being the focal point of newer Trek, as if the 24th century shows weren't legendary. But then, it's TOS's 50th anniversary, so it's just appropriate. And who knows, if DSC is a hit, they might still produce another show with a different setting later, or as a spin-off, some day.

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All well and good.....but another prequel?....I am not liking that idea.

I'm actually in favour of it for a number of reasons.

The TOS era isn't as "fleshed out" as what comes before and after it.  We only had 3 years (excluding the animated series even though I love it) to get to know the era, the characters, and the federation in general.  This will be our first chance to see this part of history with a modern budget.  As amazingly well as the original series has held up over the last 50 years, it is still so dated that for many it isn't easy to be immersed.

All due respect to TOS, of course, for it started it all, but imagine TOS with TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT's attention to detail regarding continuity, technical concepts, and character development.  Sure, Kirk and Spock's friendship certainly developed over time, but it wasn't really until TMP and onward that they became relatable people (at least to my millennial mindset).

Beyond TNG there was so much potential, and DS9 and VOY did a remarkable job in my opinion in fulfilling that potential, each show taking certain aspects of TNG and putting their own unique spin on them.  Beyond VOY, well... those damn grey uniforms are just so dark, compared to the vibrant TOS, TNG and early DS9 uniforms.  Then, what do we get after the grey ones?  Well, Endgame and The Visitor, while both technically took place in alternate futures, presented these ugly things:

endgame_0070.thumb.jpg.2fff335eaea75e31b

I apologize if you like them, but they're just so... I'm not sure how to put it.  I want to say ugly but I don't think that captures how I feel about them.  I guess you could say I just don't resonate with them.  Our other options too are grim, from the Babylon 5 special, to the lazy communicator/rank combo, to, well, whatever the hell Daniels wore:

Command_division_uniform_29th_century.thP1100400_1.thumb.JPG.06009ec920351369b66bw37imucxv14i9vofxeq_400x400.thumb.jpeg.

The truth is, the post-VOY and Nemesis Trek universe is actually pretty fleshed out.  Even if most of what we see can be explained away by time paradoxes and alternate realities, it seems that in every possible future we've seen, the Federation becomes massively overpowered, with ships that retain the same basic interface that has been present for hundreds of years.

Early TNG failed in a lot of ways, but I don't consider it a failure.  It presented a bright future with a bold new look.  The ENT-D was not streamlined; it had no need of feigning aerodynamics.  It was secure in what it was.  The uniforms were form-fitting and loud, showcasing Roddenberry's ideal of a future where the human body was no longer seen as an object of shame.  Men wore skirts, because the concept of gendered clothing had obviously worn off, as it should.

Then, the skirts disappeared (at least the men's), and the uniforms became duller.  This, to me, is the beginning of the downfall of Star Trek uniform design.  I know there were real-world reasons why this was a necessity (not least of all the physical health of the actors), but something was lost of the texture of Star Trek.  I like the idea of the DS9 jumpsuits, but the First Contact uniforms were so drab.  This worked with the theme of the film, but not with the themes of Star Trek.

I'm fixating on the uniforms, but I feel the biggest reason why going "forward" isn't really the best idea is that, unless they somehow handicap the federation, and ignore Janeway's ridiculously advanced future technology, the stakes need to continually be raised.  We'd need new enemies that were even bigger and even badder than the Borg, the Xindi, and the Dominion!  Sequel escalation, really, and I don't find that sort of thing very compelling.

Going back (or forward, from the NX-01's perspective), we have plenty of story to tell.  Janeway didn't often mention the ENT-D, so why should we expect Kirk to have mentioned the DSC?  Tangentially, I love the idea of a ship that isn't a "legend" in the way the Enterprise or Voyager was.  What is more fascinating to me than the crazy space anomalies and what have you, are the mundanities of everyday starfleet life.  So rare are our extended glimpses into the lower decks, that there is actually an episode called Lower Decks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Doctor Odd:

Good points, I hadn't really looked at it like that before.

Though I guess if there will ever be a post-24th century show, they'd most likely ignore all the hints at the future we've previously seen. (Including the uniforms. :P ) It can all easily be explained away by changes in history. (And, of course, producers of a new show would not feel stylistically bound by 90s productions, but would be required to come up with something new.)

They've ignored even some depicted future events over the course of the shows. Granted, in TNG "Future Imperfect", it wasn't really the future, but what we see there is very different from what we see post-GEN -- Data is still alive, the uniforms look differently, and so on. The same for the future shown in "All Good Things". So a new show there wouldn't have to respect "canon future" either.

I guess the only event that's hard canon fact post-NEM is the destruction of Romulus and Spock Prime's time travel, as shown in ST09 ... but even this could be explained away easily (who says Spock Prime really came from the Prime Timeline?).

 

You made a great point about fleshing out the shortly-pre-TOS era with modern production values, and I agree! It's an amazing idea!

I'm just worried that some canon fetishists will run amok, because the show won't look like a $100,000 production from the 60s, and won't be satisfied until an on-screen canon explanation is given why it doesn't. I'd say, bad for them. It's really sad when people cannot accept that Star Trek is a tv show rather than reality, and tv shows necessarily reflect the times of their production.

(Too strict literalists are annoying in any religion IMO, Star Trek isn't an exception. :P )

For me, this isn't a problem in the slightest, on the contrary. I was already slightly annoyed about the Klingon forehead explanation on ENT -- I found Worf's subtle line on DS9 -- "we don't discuss it with outsiders!" -- absolutely brilliant. It was IMO more than sufficient, and even an elegant way out. ;) ENT's pandering to "scriptual literalism" spoiled this a little, although it was still a good episode.

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to admit, with all the possibilities of the final frontier, I'm a little disappointed it's been confirmed as another prequel. That feels like fitting in with established lore rather than boldly going. There's no way to know quite how they're going to frame it, of course... It could be a startlingly fresh take, whatever my reservations. I certainly hope so. But maybe I'm focusing on the premise too much, and this show will all be about details, both character and story.  

After so long an absence on TV screens, I think Star Trek could've afforded to have taken another leap forward in the timeline the way TNG did at first, placing it beyond any immediate continuity concerns with the all the older shows. The Federation doesn't have to be a focal point, there don't even have to be references to established alien cultures - but a ship exploring space with only the occasional tie back to its distant parent civilization, via the occasional visit to a starbase or colony could still work. 

Maybe if this iteration of Star Trek does indeed turn out to be an anthology show as one of the original rumors hinted, we'll get eventually get that... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to admit, with all the possibilities of the final frontier, I'm a little disappointed it's been confirmed as another prequel. That feels like fitting in with established lore rather than boldly going. There's no way to know quite how they're going to frame it, of course... It could be a startlingly fresh take, whatever my reservations. I certainly hope so. But maybe I'm focusing on the premise too much, and this show will all be about details, both character and story.  

After so long an absence on TV screens, I think Star Trek could've afforded to have taken another leap forward in the timeline the way TNG did at first, placing it beyond any immediate continuity concerns with the all the older shows. The Federation doesn't have to be a focal point, there don't even have to be references to established alien cultures - but a ship exploring space with only the occasional tie back to its distant parent civilization, via the occasional visit to a starbase or colony could still work. 

Maybe if this iteration of Star Trek does indeed turn out to be an anthology show as one of the original rumors hinted, we'll get eventually get that... 

With any luck, DSC will be the first in a whole new generation of series!  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds ok, but nothing about me makes me feel this is exciting.  Sounds like Fuller has a politically correct checklist and is more concerned with that than just making great characters.

 

I am glad the lead is a Lt. Commander.  It might be interesting if there is a captain that is just a secondary character and this Lt. Commander is the focus. 

This is a show that I would watch on regular TV, but it's not a show that I'm going to pay to watch.  At least not at this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds ok, but nothing about me makes me feel this is exciting.  Sounds like Fuller has a politically correct checklist and is more concerned with that than just making great characters.

^

~ sigh~


Here we go again.

You haven't even seen or heard anything about these characters beyond that there is a woman and that one of them is gay and you assume that they exist ONLY because Fuller's being 'politically correct'?   Yeah, I guess Roddenberry was just following a checklist when he created Hikaru Sulu, Nyota Uhura and Pavel Chekov, right?

Inclusivity is not about just being politically correct; it's accurately reflecting the world we live in (and more importantly, the audience... to whom you want to sell your product; that's not PC; that's smart marketing).   And that Fuller (a gay man himself) created a gay character is no more 'following a checklist' than looking in a damn mirror.   Not to mention Roddenberry had a female executive officer ("Number One") in his original pilot, circa 1964.

 

As for them being 'good characters' or not?  How about judging that when you hear or see more than a one or two word description?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were in charge I'd make most characters LGBT (like I do in my writings, I sometimes have to literally remind myself "honey, there HAVE to be a few straight people on the Enterprise too"). It's who I am, my show would reflect that. So yeah, looking into a mirror is probably one aspect for Fuller.

It isn't just that, though.

With Trek, you also have the whole "the writers owe us LGBT folks, and they owe us BIG" thing. Fuller knows that, and given the fact that he's gay himself he probably also very strongly FEELS the community's frustration and anger at Bermaga's "no homo on the ship-o" policy and knows he has to AND can be the one who changes things. I'd do the very same thing. I'd make the CAPTAIN gay. And give him a nice husband, too. Who is ALSO on the ship, not some long distance "oh it's never shoved into people's faces too much" stuff to calm down some of the more "squeamish" male viewers who can't stand even a simple kiss between two guys.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You haven't even seen or heard anything about these characters beyond that there is a woman and that one of them is gay and you assume that they exist ONLY because Fuller's being 'politically correct'?  

Of course I am, because it happens time and again.  This is a clear checklist. 

 

With Trek, you also have the whole "the writers owe us LGBT folks, and they owe us BIG" thing. Fuller knows that, and given the fact that he's gay himself he probably also very strongly FEELS the community's frustration and anger at Bermaga's "no homo on the ship-o" policy and knows he has to AND can be the one who changes things.

 

This could be a very accurate assessment. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were in charge I'd make most characters LGBT (like I do in my writings, I sometimes have to literally remind myself "honey, there HAVE to be a few straight people on the Enterprise too").

^
A token straight here or there, right?  :giggle: 

Token Straight: "Lt. Straighty McRedshirt, reporting for duty."

Captain: "Not for long..."  :P

 

It's who I am, my show would reflect that. So yeah, looking into a mirror is probably one aspect for Fuller.

It isn't just that, though.

With Trek, you also have the whole "the writers owe us LGBT folks, and they owe us BIG" thing. Fuller knows that, and given the fact that he's gay himself he probably also very strongly FEELS the community's frustration and anger at Bermaga's "no homo on the ship-o" policy and knows he has to AND can be the one who changes things. I'd do the very same thing. I'd make the CAPTAIN gay. And give him a nice husband, too. Who is ALSO on the ship, not some long distance "oh it's never shoved into people's faces too much" stuff to calm down some of the more "squeamish" male viewers who can't stand even a simple kiss between two guys.  

It's been well-known for a long time that ST has a very big LGBT following.   A lot of gay people got their start on the show after being inspired by it; author David Gerrold, for example.   He was a fan before submitting his spec script for "Trouble With Tribbles."   Art designer/illustrator Mike Minor (TOS, TMP, TWOK) was also a gay fan before joining the production as a young man (he designed the "Melkotian" in "Spectre of the Gun" and also came up with the idea for Genesis in TWOK).   

This isn't about being 'politically correct' (I wish that phrase would just evaporate already); it's about honoring ST's longtime 'message' of inclusivity and 'IDIC' (finding beauty and meaning with 'infinite diversity in infinite combinations').   To ignore its OWN MESSAGE by casting a crew composed exclusively of white, straight males would make Star Trek look more like a '50s B-movie than, well, Star Trek.    

Representation was a goal of ST right from the beginning; this isn't some 'crazy idea' that Fuller is suddenly taking out for a test drive... this is how Star Trek has always BEEN.   Since the 1960s show. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ten years before Kirk would set the series somewhere around the events of The Cage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You haven't even seen or heard anything about these characters beyond that there is a woman and that one of them is gay and you assume that they exist ONLY because Fuller's being 'politically correct'?  

Of course I am, because it happens time and again.  This is a clear checklist. 

^
Have you not read the rest of the counterpoint?  

This isn't about being 'politically correct' (I wish that phrase would just evaporate already); it's about honoring ST's longtime 'message' of inclusivity and 'IDIC' (finding beauty and meaning with 'infinite diversity in infinite combinations').   To ignore its OWN MESSAGE by casting a crew composed exclusively of white, straight males would make Star Trek look more like a '50s B-movie than, well, Star Trek.    

Representation was a goal of ST right from the beginning; this isn't some 'crazy idea' that Fuller is suddenly taking out for a test drive... this is how Star Trek has always BEEN.   Since the 1960s show. 

ST has ALWAYS been about inclusivity; from the outset (female exec Number One, Asian, black, Russian crew members, etc).   That they're including a female central character and a gay character are not a 'checklist'; it's just a continuation of the show's mission statement from day ONE (as far back as 1964).

Inclusivity is as intrinsic to the ST format as a ship with a saucer and two nacelles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds ok, but nothing about me makes me feel this is exciting.  Sounds like Fuller has a politically correct checklist and is more concerned with that than just making great characters.

 

I am glad the lead is a Lt. Commander.  It might be interesting if there is a captain that is just a secondary character and this Lt. Commander is the focus. 

This is a show that I would watch on regular TV, but it's not a show that I'm going to pay to watch.  At least not at this point. 

Huh?

There was NOTHING revealed about the characters so far. How do you know if you'll like or dislike them, at this point?

Or does being female or gay make it impossible for you to like a character by default?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suffer from "politically correct checklist" fatigue as well, but I think it's a creation of the media and how they zero in on these traits (or perceived lack thereof) to stir up discussion.  "Can a woman lead a scifi show?"  "Sulu's gay - does that mean he knows how to fly a ship?"  The answers are, of course, "Duh - been there and done that."  I look forward to the day when we can read articles that say, "One of our new characters is Lt. Swanson, a gay, black, female Muslim in a polygamous marriage with a Vulcan and an android" and society shrugs and says, "So?"  Maybe the way to make things status quo is to focus on the sources that report on the plotlines, character development, and production, making it clear that we're not hung up race, gender, or sexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any idea what the event is? This sounds amazing To me. 

To my knowledge, there is wild speculation about the event, but nothing official so far.

Could be anything, I guess.

I suffer from "politically correct checklist" fatigue as well, but I think it's a creation of the media and how they zero in on these traits (or perceived lack thereof) to stir up discussion.  "Can a woman lead a scifi show?"  "Sulu's gay - does that mean he knows how to fly a ship?"  The answers are, of course, "Duh - been there and done that."  I look forward to the day when we can read articles that say, "One of our new characters is Lt. Swanson, a gay, black, female Muslim in a polygamous marriage with a Vulcan and an android" and society shrugs and says, "So?"  Maybe the way to make things status quo is to focus on the sources that report on the plotlines, character development, and production, making it clear that we're not hung up race, gender, or sexuality.

Yeah, I'm a bit annoyed by the buzz, too ... nothing is said about the lead character, except rank and gender. Gender or sexual orientation *shouldn't* be such an issue that this alone gets so much attention. Hopefully, some day, it won't anymore.

But then, the fact it does shows that perhaps we still need this buzz now.

 

I'd also hate token characters... like Chakotey was a token native American, portrayed in the most cliché manner. We don't need gay clichés like that. I'd rather see a character who's interesting, has many traits, just one of which happens to be homosexuality.

But when it comes to Fuller, I have full confidence in him that his characters won't be defined exclusively by their gayness. I'm pretty sure he'll at very least try to make them interesting for many other reasons, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any idea what the event is? This sounds amazing To me. 

To my knowledge, there is wild speculation about the event, but nothing official so far.

Could be anything, I guess.

I would bet that it's going to involve the peace mission to Axanar, which took place in the early 2250s.  That would also firmly establish Axanar as a part of the canon and give them an opportunity to feature a young James T. Kirk if circumstances warranted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to admit, with all the possibilities of the final frontier, I'm a little disappointed it's been confirmed as another prequel. That feels like fitting in with established lore rather than boldly going. There's no way to know quite how they're going to frame it, of course... It could be a startlingly fresh take, whatever my reservations. I certainly hope so. But maybe I'm focusing on the premise too much, and this show will all be about details, both character and story.  

After so long an absence on TV screens, I think Star Trek could've afforded to have taken another leap forward in the timeline the way TNG did at first, placing it beyond any immediate continuity concerns with the all the older shows. The Federation doesn't have to be a focal point, there don't even have to be references to established alien cultures - but a ship exploring space with only the occasional tie back to its distant parent civilization, via the occasional visit to a starbase or colony could still work. 

Maybe if this iteration of Star Trek does indeed turn out to be an anthology show as one of the original rumors hinted, we'll get eventually get that... 

^ My feelings too, but I'm slowly warming up to the idea of another prequel.

Especially when it's not just a "random" prequel, but apparently very closely tied to TOS (perhaps even leading up to TOS over the course of its run). Guess it's just appropriate, since this is TOS's 50th anniversary.

Guess it won't be an anthology (didn't Fuller even deny that rumor? Don't remember clearly), unless they make every season about a different ship called "Discovery"... I can't imagine they rename the show with every season.

But if the show will be as successful as we hope it will be, a true restart for the franchise, then hopefully, there will be a post-24th century spin-off at some point... we can dream. :)

Any idea what the event is? This sounds amazing To me. 

To my knowledge, there is wild speculation about the event, but nothing official so far.

Could be anything, I guess.

I would bet that it's going to involve the peace mission to Axanar, which took place in the early 2250s.  That would also firmly establish Axanar as a part of the canon and give them an opportunity to feature a young James T. Kirk if circumstances warranted.

Fuller explicitly said it will not be Axanar, nor Kobayashi Maru.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you not read the rest of the counterpoint?  

I did, and obviously I don't buy it.  There is nothing groundbreaking about having a gay character or a female lead today.  Been done by many franchises over the years.  It's just a checklist plain and simple.  No black female lead yet?  Next.  No gay character yet?  Do it.  Basically, it seems like this will be Star Trek: Characters we didn't fit into the first 5 series'.

But when it comes to Fuller, I have full confidence in him that his characters won't be defined exclusively by their gayness. I'm pretty sure he'll at very least try to make them interesting for many other reasons, too.

Let's hope so.  If they handle it like STB, and not like New Voyages, you'll be right.

 

What kind of major event happened around the events of the Cage that would be usable here?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What kind of major event happened around the events of the Cage that would be usable here?

 

Dunno... but I guess there are dozens of pre-stories or mentions from TOS you could use ... I don't remember the exact time frames given on-screen, so I'm not sure which is likely and which is not. Kodos the Executioner's rule? How long before "WNMHGB" did the Valiant attempt to cross the galactic barrier? When was the colony on Cestus III established? When did the Federation clash with the Tholians for the first time? When did Kirk clash with the bloodsucking cloud from "Obsession" for the first time? When did Dr. Janice Leister fail at the academy? When did the Federation visit the native people on "A Private Little War" for the first time? When did Mericus's ship crash on the Roman Empire planet?

I guess the possibilities are endless...

IMO, the Tholians would be pretty interesting. They're rather mysterious and we haven't seen much of them so far.

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to admit, with all the possibilities of the final frontier, I'm a little disappointed it's been confirmed as another prequel. That feels like fitting in with established lore rather than boldly going. There's no way to know quite how they're going to frame it, of course... It could be a startlingly fresh take, whatever my reservations. I certainly hope so. But maybe I'm focusing on the premise too much, and this show will all be about details, both character and story.  

After so long an absence on TV screens, I think Star Trek could've afforded to have taken another leap forward in the timeline the way TNG did at first, placing it beyond any immediate continuity concerns with the all the older shows. The Federation doesn't have to be a focal point, there don't even have to be references to established alien cultures - but a ship exploring space with only the occasional tie back to its distant parent civilization, via the occasional visit to a starbase or colony could still work. 

Agreed. I was disappointed when I read that it is yet another prequel. They seem really jittery that Star Trek move too far away from Kirk's era. If they were going to go down this route, I'd have preferred another universe. That way the obvious disconnect in technology could be explained. The issue that ENT had was that some of the technology looked more advanced than TOS...

I'm guessing the bridge technology will look something like this then?

st09pd-19.jpg

Then to make matters worse - nothing big can really happen. Although, to be fair, this time period isn't really well known at all. So a lot of minor things can occur. I'm just tired of prequels because it will be an obvious minefield and the show won't be able to really stretch its legs now that they put it in the prime universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now