Frontier

Lots of New Information on Discovery

Recommended Posts

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.

Chakotay's problem was that they had no interest in having him have any specific ancestry. Like, if they said his ancestry was Aztec or Incan they'd have to have someone on the show that had some understanding of either. They didn't have any interest in him in anything other than as a dumping ground for New Age claptrap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were smarter, they would have had it take place in between TUC and TNG.

That might have been a bit better. I still dislike the prequel premise but very little is known about what occurred during the events of the ENT-B and ENT-C. In fact, considering Starfleet pumps out an Enterprise almost immediately after one is destroyed .... I'm surprised by the big gap between ENT-C and ENT-D.

Edited by The Founder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

If they were smarter, they would have had it take place in between TUC and TNG.

That would have been preferable, IMO.  That would have been a pretty rich period to explore.

With the new approach and all that, perhaps the exploring will be less about the big events and outside world, but rather "micro", how small events matter a lot for the characters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping this will make the ENT haters give another try on the show. It really isn't as bad as they all imply. But also was hoping for a post 24 century show. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping this will make the ENT haters give another try on the show. It really isn't as bad as they all imply. But also was hoping for a post 24 century show. 

As long as there's no Temporal Cold War...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping this will make the ENT haters give another try on the show. It really isn't as bad as they all imply. But also was hoping for a post 24 century show. 

My fear is exactly the "ENT haters" mindset hitting this show. Unless the diehards are no longer as interested in Trek/continuity? But I feel those old criticisms that hit ENT will resurface on this show.

I agree with you that I hope this show is given a chance. ENT was torn to shreds simply after the pilot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kc1966   

Nothing about these leaks excite me at all.  If the captain is shown, it is going to have to be handled well - in fact, to me, it presents the problem I think Supergirl is going to run into by having Superman added this year.  How do you have the supreme authority around and not be the focus?  I guess they could go the MASH route where Hawkeye was really the focus of the show but Cols. Blake and Potter were essential  characters - Potter more so than Blake IMO.

As to the lead being female or African-American?  Been there done that to a certain degree with Janeway and Sisko. As for the gay character other shows have already gone there.  (Buffy, Waehouse 13, Flash).  If it is just a part of the character, as some have mentioned (I think of the Flash and the handling of  Captain Singh, for example) I don't see it as a big ground breaking event.  If anything, just catching up to other shows.  (Of course, being straight and a Christian, maybe my perspective is different from those who have felt unrepresented on the show - but that in itself can be a problem and could lead to character check lists like StillKiork mentioned, although I don't think that is the case here.)

Personally, if they were going to do a prequel, I would have preferred it tying into Enterprise in some way.  The first year could have even had guest appearances from that cast as they focus on the Romulan War and then the founding of the Federation as a bridge to Discovery's mission.

I will wait to see the pilot and if it does anything for me, I will subscribe.  If not, I'll wait until they are rented/sold either through Amazon Video or on DVD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, if they were going to do a prequel, I would have preferred it tying into Enterprise in some way.  The first year could have even had guest appearances from that cast as they focus on the Romulan War and then the founding of the Federation as a bridge to Discovery's mission.

I think the ENT cast can do cameos. Scott Bakula said he talks to Fuller about it and the idea is being tossed about. Granted, all of them will be elderly (minus T'Pol?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about Archer being dead. McCoy was there when the Enterprise D launched. Elderly, yes, but that suggested that humans could achieve advanced ages by the 24 century. O know it's a prequel, but there's no mention about when they achieved that level of aging. 

Edited by Garak the spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Archer should be dead by a good 10 years.

I read somewhere that he died in 2245. All Fuller said is that this show will take place "10 years before TOS". The Cage is TOS, so it could be 2241. Or a tad further back so we're closer to the Kelvin event. Either way, Bakula could pull an "Admiral McCoy touring the Enterprise-D" routine and it would work. We shall see.

-- Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Archer should be dead by a good 10 years.

Why? 
There was an "Admiral Archer's prized beagle" in ST09 (about 2258; that would be around the time of this 
series).

Given that lifespans are increasing all the time in our own time (up 25-30 years in the past century or so), it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine a hundred-something Jonathan Archer.    And Scott Bakula did drop a hint that his character could conceivably appear in the new show, so... there's that. 

Not sure about Archer being dead. McCoy was there when the Enterprise D launched. Elderly, yes, but that suggested that humans could achieve advanced ages by the 24 century. O know it's a prequel, but there's no mention about when they achieved that level of aging. 

^
This too.  McCoy lived to be at least 137.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a sharp eye, you'll see that Archer died one day after the Enterprise 1701 launched in 2245.  You can find it in In The Mirror Darkly.  I tried to see if the picture that said it was online, and it was, but it's out of focus.

Maybe you can fastforward it on netflix.

As for the Vulcans, they absolutely could be alive and appear.  They actually don't necessarily have to look THAT old either. 

 

They have some issues with setting it ten years before TOS.  They still can't do things that Kirk did first that was supposed to be first.  No time travel for example. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They have some issues with setting it ten years before TOS.  They still can't do things that Kirk did first that was supposed to be first.  No time travel for example. 

I for one would be happy to avoid time travel and the timey-wimey that comes with it.

From what we read, it seems it could be a little more occupational-drama than space-opera, a lead with some burden or dark past (can be cliché, but can be new too), and a touch of the lower decks feel, which is really interesting to me. As many stated, I have some issues with the prequel setting, but I have a feeling it might not just be that; despite my opening comment, it could be sent to the future, could be a long-range/generational exploration ship or, notwithstanding what Fuller said, see many generations "discovering" space and themselves aboard an aging (or new incarnation) of the USS Discovery.

As for the lead, I love how some have commented that we'd been there and done that with a black or female one. I guess we've also been quite there with a white dude! So I'll say this: At the very least, I don't think they should have an American/Human captain. Why not an alien for once? It could also be a specific alien-dominated ship (as it seems to be possible with humans and Vulcans, which would actually make sense in a younger Federation) to which the human lead must adapt, discovering new themes, ideas and cultures aboard the ship itself. I'd love for that species to be the Andorians and see a treatment similar to what was done in the DS9 relaunch with their rich world and culture, but it could be anything. Of course, it could be quite expensive on a TV budget.

As for the lead, I'm open to anything, but I'd welcome some diversity, and not only for the sakes of a mystical checklist...

Edited by Tupperfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   

Nothing about these leaks excite me at all.  If the captain is shown, it is going to have to be handled well - in fact, to me, it presents the problem I think Supergirl is going to run into by having Superman added this year.  How do you have the supreme authority around and not be the focus?  I guess they could go the MASH route where Hawkeye was really the focus of the show but Cols. Blake and Potter were essential  characters - Potter more so than Blake IMO.

As to the lead being female or African-American?  Been there done that to a certain degree with Janeway and Sisko. As for the gay character other shows have already gone there.  (Buffy, Waehouse 13, Flash).  If it is just a part of the character, as some have mentioned (I think of the Flash and the handling of  Captain Singh, for example) I don't see it as a big ground breaking event.  If anything, just catching up to other shows.  (Of course, being straight and a Christian, maybe my perspective is different from those who have felt unrepresented on the show - but that in itself can be a problem and could lead to character check lists like StillKiork mentioned, although I don't think that is the case here.)

Personally, if they were going to do a prequel, I would have preferred it tying into Enterprise in some way.  The first year could have even had guest appearances from that cast as they focus on the Romulan War and then the founding of the Federation as a bridge to Discovery's mission.

I will wait to see the pilot and if it does anything for me, I will subscribe.  If not, I'll wait until they are rented/sold either through Amazon Video or on DVD.

I look at the lead African-American female lead and a gay character as cool, sounds good. Its nice but not that big a deal. On the other hand, I would be very annoyed if all of the major characters were white middle aged males.

It's not because of pc its because I want the show to be realistic. Google U.S. Army and look at all of the group pictures. They're not all Western European descent guys.  About 5 to 10% of people are gay. 1/2 the population are women. Worldwide about 18.5% of people are black. Sixty percent are of Asian descent. Having an all male, all white, all straight, all human crew would be boring and unrealistic. 

The reason that my reaction is just a mild, cool rather than a celebration is because I expected it of Star Trek. Diversity is in its DNA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the gay character other shows have already gone there.  (Buffy, Waehouse 13, Flash). If it is just a part of the character, as some have mentioned (I think of the Flash and the handling of  Captain Singh, for example) I don't see it as a big ground breaking event.  If anything, just catching up to other shows.

It's a little sad that Star Trek is now in the business of catching up and not breaking ground like it used to.

-- Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a sharp eye, you'll see that Archer died one day after the Enterprise 1701 launched in 2245.  You can find it in In The Mirror Darkly.  I tried to see if the picture that said it was online, and it was, but it's out of focus.

Maybe you can fastforward it on netflix.

Meh...if they wanna put him in, I like Bakula and he deserved better than TATV, so I don't really care. No one else is either.

As for the gay character other shows have already gone there.  (Buffy, Waehouse 13, Flash). If it is just a part of the character, as some have mentioned (I think of the Flash and the handling of  Captain Singh, for example) I don't see it as a big ground breaking event.  If anything, just catching up to other shows.

It's a little sad that Star Trek is now in the business of catching up and not breaking ground like it used to.

-- Steve

Which boils down to the fact that Berman was a suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a sharp eye, you'll see that Archer died one day after the Enterprise 1701 launched in 2245.  You can find it in In The Mirror Darkly.  I tried to see if the picture that said it was online, and it was, but it's out of focus.

Maybe you can fastforward it on netflix.

As for the Vulcans, they absolutely could be alive and appear.  They actually don't necessarily have to look THAT old either. 

 

They have some issues with setting it ten years before TOS.  They still can't do things that Kirk did first that was supposed to be first.  No time travel for example. 

Archer already has.  Though I wouldn't care if no one time traveled in the new show; leave the time travel to Doctor Who... that show does it better anyway. ;)

And ST09 retconned Archer's death (the 'admiral Archer's beagle' reference).  Personally I'll take what's mentioned by characters in dialogue rather than what a barely visible graphic on screen.   Unless, of course, Nero's incursion into 2233 somehow saved Archer's life?   Or the loss of the Kelvin upped his personal will to live?  
Who knows.  

As for the gay character other shows have already gone there.  (Buffy, Waehouse 13, Flash). If it is just a part of the character, as some have mentioned (I think of the Flash and the handling of  Captain Singh, for example) I don't see it as a big ground breaking event.  If anything, just catching up to other shows.

It's a little sad that Star Trek is now in the business of catching up and not breaking ground like it used to.

-- Steve

^
Yes, it is sad that ST no longer leads the charge with progressive characters.    

But one thing I am getting tired (and a little disturbed) of reading here (especially from supposedly forward-thinking ST fans) is that ensuring a female lead or a gay character is somehow not being more concerned with creating 'great characters.'   Having gay, female, or minority inclusion is NOT ignoring the need for 'great characters.'   Having diversity is not excluding the possibility for 'great characters.'   Are 'great' characters only white, straight and male??   Since when?   This is Star Trek, not the Six Million Dollar Man.  

Star Trek has a long history with creating great and diverse characters.   Lt. Uhura, Lt. Sulu, Ensign Chekov, Jean-Luc Picard (a European commander!), Geordi LaForge (a blind man; maybe a new show could address another current 'handicap?'), Lt. Worf, Capt. Sisko, Dr. Bashir, etc. etc.   All non caucasian (or non-Americans) who helped to make the ongoing series the great amalgamation of the human condition that it is today.  
 

And addressing the notion that since Ben Sisko was already a black commander, there doesn't 'need' to be another.   

Seriously, really??  Ben Sisko represents ALL black men (or people) everywhere?   It's no longer possible now to have another?   Same with Janeway: just because we had ONE female lead in a series that means we can't have another?  I mean, I guess they're saying that ALL women everywhere are the exact same.  So why do we need another female lead, right?

Oh, and that 'gay thing' was taken care of in ST Beyond, so it's all over now, right?   Wrong.  Dead wrong.  

And shame on any alleged fan of Star Trek (with a 50 year history of inclusivity) who thinks that.   Comments like that remind me of the network execs who sent the memo to Gene Roddenberry reminding him to make sure he casts his show "sensibly" (meaning: all whites). 

Having diverse casting is not about a list of 'boxes to be checked' for the big, politically correct list of some kind.    These are characters in a show; a show that has survived (and thrived) largely because of its eye on diversity.   How many little girls loved ST because of Janeway?   How many black people (including Whoopi Goldberg, astronaut Mae Jameson and even the late Dr. Martin Luther King) were fans of ST because of the inclusion of a prominent black character on the bridge of the Enterprise?   How many middle-Eastern fans might've been inspired by Sudanese-British actor Alexander Siddig's Dr. Bashir?  

Personally, as an 'ethnic caucasian,' (I'm a bit of a mutt) I think there is something to love and inspire with any or ALL of these characters.  
So having a new female lead or another black character or a gay character is NOT checking off boxes on a PC checklist; it's Star Trek doing what is has ALWAYS done since 19-f#@king-66.   

Sorry if that offends anyone, but seriously; to those that think that ST's long history of inclusivity is only a 'PC checklist' I have to ask: do you even WATCH the same show that I do?   And to those who don't think that ST's diversity was the key to its survival?  Well, when was the last time you attended a Six Million Dollar Man or Fall Guy convention?  

Even "I Love Lucy", arguably one of the most beloved sitcoms of all time, broke new ground by having a (real-life) couple with a Cuban bandleader marrying a crazy Irish-American redhead.   Diversity is what keeps things future-forward.   I don't think ST would've survived for 50 years if the entire cast looked like the cast of "Forbidden Planet" (ironically one of Roddenberry's templates for the show; personally I think ST improved upon it). 

Nothing about these leaks excite me at all.  If the captain is shown, it is going to have to be handled well - in fact, to me, it presents the problem I think Supergirl is going to run into by having Superman added this year.  How do you have the supreme authority around and not be the focus?  I guess they could go the MASH route where Hawkeye was really the focus of the show but Cols. Blake and Potter were essential  characters - Potter more so than Blake IMO.

As to the lead being female or African-American?  Been there done that to a certain degree with Janeway and Sisko. As for the gay character other shows have already gone there.  (Buffy, Waehouse 13, Flash).  If it is just a part of the character, as some have mentioned (I think of the Flash and the handling of  Captain Singh, for example) I don't see it as a big ground breaking event.  If anything, just catching up to other shows.  (Of course, being straight and a Christian, maybe my perspective is different from those who have felt unrepresented on the show - but that in itself can be a problem and could lead to character check lists like StillKiork mentioned, although I don't think that is the case here.)

Personally, if they were going to do a prequel, I would have preferred it tying into Enterprise in some way.  The first year could have even had guest appearances from that cast as they focus on the Romulan War and then the founding of the Federation as a bridge to Discovery's mission.

I will wait to see the pilot and if it does anything for me, I will subscribe.  If not, I'll wait until they are rented/sold either through Amazon Video or on DVD.

I look at the lead African-American female lead and a gay character as cool, sounds good. Its nice but not that big a deal. On the other hand, I would be very annoyed if all of the major characters were white middle aged males.

It's not because of pc its because I want the show to be realistic. Google U.S. Army and look at all of the group pictures. They're not all Western European descent guys.  About 5 to 10% of people are gay. 1/2 the population are women. Worldwide about 18.5% of people are black. Sixty percent are of Asian descent. Having an all male, all white, all straight, all human crew would be boring and unrealistic. 

The reason that my reaction is just a mild, cool rather than a celebration is because I expected it of Star Trek. Diversity is in its DNA. 

^
This. 
Very MUCH this.  Written like a real ST fan. 


I just came back a few days ago from Las Vegas (along with our own prometheus), celebrating 50 years of ST at a big convention.   And, as you can easily see from my 260-odd pictures (available for viewing in the General ST section; under the Star Trek Las Vegas thread) that the fans (and actors) there were of ALL sizes, shapes and colors.  

And I also saw a LOT of handicapped fans as well;  to be honest, I've never seen so many wheelchairs and mobility assistance-devices in one building that was not a hospital.  Not even at Comic Con, San Diego (and that event has 130,000 people).   

ST gives all of its fans (no matter their color, religion, sexual orientation or physical well being) hope.  Hope for a positive future where none of these things will matter.   You spend a few days in a place like that and it kind of rubs off on you.   So much so that you find yourself not wanting to leave.    You kind of wish that the 'real' world outside of the ST bubble could be a helluva lot more like Star Trek.    

THAT is why inclusivity and diversity (in casting and in characters) is part of the CORE of Star Trek. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammer   

I've read over some of the details, wow, what a let-down!

The most galling thing they are doing is putting in 12 mins of commercials onto a show that you are paying to stream online!!! They want you to pay a sub fee AND sit through commercials. What a joke. They are double-dipping. Who's going to pay $6 to stream an ad-supported TV station?

The setting was exactly what I didn't want. This era has also been beaten to death with 9 movies, to anyone who is complaining about the 21 seasons of TNG era Trek. Even worse, this is a prequel to TOS so they are still going to run into all of the canon problems that ENT had. I have zero interest in this era. Ugh. Why couldn't they have moved forward instead of back?

As for the casting, yeah I expected political correctness to trump over who is objectively the best actor for a role. That's just par for the course in TV land now and I expect it. No use complaining about it, it's not worth the headache.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read over some of the details, wow, what a let-down!

The most galling thing they are doing is putting in 12 mins of commercials onto a show that you are paying to stream online!!! They want you to pay a sub fee AND sit through commercials. What a joke. They are double-dipping. Who's going to pay $6 to stream an ad-supported TV station?

The setting was exactly what I didn't want. This era has also been beaten to death with 9 movies, to anyone who is complaining about the 21 seasons of TNG era Trek. Even worse, this is a prequel to TOS so they are still going to run into all of the canon problems that ENT had. I have zero interest in this era. Ugh. Why couldn't they have moved forward instead of back?

As for the casting, yeah I expected political correctness to trump over who is objectively the best actor for a role. That's just par for the course in TV land now and I expect it. No use complaining about it, it's not worth the headache.

^
Why do you automatically assume that a diverse cast (or characters) are automatically going to be lesser actors?   See: upthread.

And yes, posts like this are exactly what I'm talking about in my above rant... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the casting, yeah I expected political correctness to trump over who is objectively the best actor for a role.

Are you serious with that statement? You do realize Bryan Fuller never said "Oh, and we're definitely having a gay actor." right? There will be a character who is, and he or she will probably be played by a straight actor or actress too. I mean c'mon....

-- Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the casting, yeah I expected political correctness to trump over who is objectively the best actor for a role.

Are you serious with that statement? You do realize Bryan Fuller never said "Oh, and we're definitely having a gay actor." right? There will be a character who is, and he or she will probably be played by a straight actor or actress too. I mean c'mon....

-- Steve

I don't understand how someone could object to inclusive casting and still call themselves a ST fan... ST has been all ABOUT inclusive casting for 50 freaking YEARS. 

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