Star Trek Discovery. [SPOILERS WITHIN]

They've gotta a do a prequel. The 24th century tech was almost becoming magical. Temporal transporters. Borg nanoprobes that cure death.

They have to capitalize on the success of jj trek and and go back.

If it's successful maybe they can go forward with the next one


I still wish the series was an anthology like American horror story. Each new season a new time period

You sound just like Rick Berman.

There was nothing wrong with 24th century Star Trek that decent writing couldn't fix.

Curing death started in TOS, when the munged-up probe resurrected Scotty.

The problem is generally who owns the tech. When it's the antagonist you've a story, when it's the protagonist then you either come up with a reason for them to lose it (Janeway and Chuckles heaving an Omega particle into a black hole whilst Seven screams "Precccioousssss!") or fold it into the ongoing narrative ("Oh, just blow up an Omega particle and dick up warp drive in the quadrant. We've pimped our ride with a slipstream drive, which we feel just adds to the batmobile armour, so we'll be fine")

Post VOY, you've really got to go extra-galactic. Fuck, TOS already gave us aliens from Andromeda, go visit them and see if they've upgraded from turning people into artistically shaped stock cubes.

It's doable.

Why are they still not showing the ship? Are they afraid of more backlash?

It would have made the most sense to do an anthology series with one overarching story and a few side stories within the season. It's dumb that they didn't do that.

He's the beardy chap telling Burnham she "better hurry, because things are getting a bit close to..." *makes kaboom gesture with hands*

There's also the line "You're mad! No, I'm Mudd!" Which is either brilliantly in-character, incredibly cheesy or not mutually exclusive.

"Spock! I love you !!! Amanda !! Perrin!!! ...Michael burham... Wtf ?

There appears to be a shot of it at around 1:32 in the trailer:



Brightened to show detail:

I don't see how Kurtzman can explain this, Picard should know about Spock's sister, and you'd think he would have mentioned it.

I've always thought a "Star Trek anthology" series had serious budget concerns. When they do a Star Treks series, there is a huge investment in sets, uniforms, and effects before a single episode is filmed. Those expenses are then amortized over the course of an entire series.

What would happen with an anthology series if you had to make significant to the sets, uniforms, and effects....repeatedly.

You can do TNG, DS9, VOY era with very little changes. You can do pre-TNG, TOS movie era with little changes. The only major problems would be TOS, ENT and post VOY era, but once you do them, you just keep rotating them.

So you are suggesting an anthology series where each of the different stories (and casts) are still set aboard basically the same ship or station?

post-VOY is ptetty much one throwaway line. 'built in self destruct of future tech as to not spoil the timeline'. or the temporal agent guys from DS9 taking it away. done

Assumes Sarek felt strongly enough about Burnham. Picard experienced his emotions, not his memories. And his most powerful ones, at that.

Did Picard!Sarek express loss or grief over Amanda? Or more concern that he couldn't show his current wife his love for her? Burnham might have been significant to Sarek, but not on a par with his regrets over Spock... did Picard!Sarek even mention Sybok?

If you did a season set in the TNG, DS9, VOY era then the uniforms, phasers, tricorders and such would be pretty much the same. The only thing you'd have to change is the ship, station and the bridge. In TOS most ships look basically the same, same with ENT. You explain that Starfleet wants a uniform look, like our own military. Then, like I said, rotary them out with each season a new crew a new cast. If you really wanted, you could have the same cast return a couple of seasons later to continue telling their story. If one cast and crew in particular is the most popular, then stick with them the most.

Decent writers can do away with the "future tech" in a heart beat.

Like I suggested in another thread. What if they found out repeated transporter use caused some kind of gruesome "syndrome" and eventual death. ?

Just as humans today in various occupations have limits to their allowed exposure to radiation annually and lifetime, what if in the future each person could only be transported a certain number of times?

Two lines in an episode and the transporter can no longer be used as the "deux ex machina" for Star Trek.

Scotty held himself in one for 75 years with no ill effect, so....yeah.

And the guy in the same transporter with him died.

The physically deleterious effect of the transporter could be due to the dematerialization or rematerialization process rather than single prolonged "suspended in transit"

for that matter, for all we know from onscreen sources, Scotty might've crumbled into tiny, tiny pieces an hour after leaving the Enterprise.

So, it's the last day of Comic-Con, and for all the Trek fans I have on FB, it's been crickets on that front.

If nothing else, Voyager fans may get vindication at knowing that theirs is no longer the worst Trek series.

News has been pouring out, but I've been juggling Marvel, DC, Marvel-Netflix, Ready Player One, Stranger Things, etc.


Here, here's everything TrekMovie.com has from SDCC.

http://trekmovie.com/category/trektv/star-trek-all-access/

Where's the logic in Khan getting his ship destroyed and his entire crew killed in a futile attempt to avenge himself against Kirk? Where's the logic in Q fucking around with humans for no other reason than he can? Or in Spock risking his career to take Pike back to Talos IV so Pike could have a somewhat normal life?

Khan's and even Spock's motives are clear (revenge and loyalty, in short). They do act illogically from their subjective point of view, but the causes for their actions exist. The two individuals are illogical in these instances, but the universe isn't.

I liked seeing Spock's actions in "The Menagerie".

It showed that even beyond Spock's friendship with Kirk he had an as strong or even stronger bond to his former CO.

I'm curious.

By what metric will CBS consider Star Trek: Discovery to be a "success" or "disappointment".?

That's an excellent question, and they have been refusing to answer it very deliberately with The Good Fight. I don't think they know.

The line in question is "The world isn't always logical," not "the universe," and I see no reason why the statement can't be metaphorical rather than literal. Additionally, in the TOS episode with the giant space amoeba (which was really frickin' stupid, IMHO), it's stated that the Vulcans the Enterprise went to rescue were killed by their own logic.

Capt. Kirk: Well, they may not have done ALL of these things. You just pointed out how illogical this situation is.
Mr. Spock: True. It is also true they never knew what was killing them. Their logic would not have permitted them to believe they were being killed.

So, even if you're going with a literal interpretation of the line, it's canonically correct.

Well, if the line is metaphorical, that would work; it would make it a bad choice for the trailer, though.

I would maintain that the quoted dialogue makes sense, however. Logic only helps you figure out the data you have. You can logically completely misjudge a situation.

I doubt they care enough to do so.

I can't wait for "Star Trek: Discovery" reimagined!

From what we're hearing I would settle for Star Trek: Discovery imagined...