Star Trek: Discovery

There's an interesting discussion in this article as to why Bryan Fuller was let go, and four things he pitched that are not coming to pass.

The tl;dr is his first pitch for the series is that it would be like American Horror Story and change cast and location each season, the plan was it would progress to the Picard era and beyond it.

Later when Discovery was approved he had a 'complex and allegorical' plot for the show that has been shuttered.

His designs for the uniforms were more like TOS's primary colour look, though muted,

And he wanted Edgar Wright to direct the pilot. (Not that unreasonable - Jon Favreau directed the pilot for the Orville, and Favreau's more in demand these days.) He clashed with David Semel, the veteran CBS director hired for the pilot, and was let go.

Also, CBS sure is delusional about their streaming service.

Basically, you pay them $6 a month.  In return, you get to watch all the episodes of your grandparents' favorite shows.  Starting in September, you'll be able to watch ST:D, but only one episode a week with a midseason hiatus.  So, they're starting a streaming service but forcing a network TV model on it.

I'm unclear if all episodes will remain up when it finishes.  If so, I might subscribe for a month to watch the whole series.  If not, eh, there's enough Star Trek out there.

To be fair, the Romulans could still end up being the primary antagonists in a future season of Discovery with the current Starfleet cast, right?

Oh yeah, good point, my bad.  Didn't "Balance of Terror" also establish that Spock (and by extension other Vulcans) knew that the Romulans were related to Vulcans, though?  And it's not like the Vulcans were new members of Starfleet, and it's kinda hard to square Spock's knowledge of the Romulans with the idea that nobody in Starfleet knew what they looked like?  The whole "nobody knows what the Romulans look like" thing just seems like a kinda odd decision to amp up the drama of the episode by revealing that they look like Vulcans so that one dude can be speciesist at Spock, anyway.  Couldn't you just abandon this one fairly unimportant and kinda illogical bit of canon, and everything would make a bit more sense anyway?  I mean, one could also argue that the fact that Michelle Yeoh's character in Discovery is captain of a Starfleet ship contradicts canon too, because "Turnabout Intruder" establishes that women weren't allowed to be Starfleet captains in the 23rd Century, but thankfully, the franchise seems to have ignored that shitty, shitty episode.  I get that "Balance of Terror is often held up one of the great episodes of the franchise, as opposed to one of the very worst episodes of any Trek series the way "Turnabout Intruder" is, but it does show that not every single thing that is said in TOS became immutable canon, right?

DS9 was great, it was serialized and episodic in the perfect balance. I doubt with STD we would ever get episodes like Visitor or Our Man Bashir. And I will kinda miss traditional two parters. Not all two parters were great, but whenever they happened they felt important and special.

I know this is an entirely different point (and a fairly stupid one at that) than the point you just made about the writers and DS9, but I wonder how people would react if an audience member had casually mentioned some major, major Star Trek character like Captain Kirk, and then all the people on the panel had been like "Who?" and then they'd all revealed that they legitimately had no clue who Kirk was.

I don't remember seeing this mentioned here so I thought I'd drop it in:

trekmovie.com/2017/06/02/exclusive-nicholas-meyer-talks-star-trek-discoverys-niche-and-hints-at-another-star-trek-project-2/

So Meyer is apparently working on another Trek project, but won't say if it's a movie or a TV show or what.

Yes, they already started work on it. Chris Hemmsworth is coming back as Kirk's dad which leads me to believe time travel plot. They haven't said one way or the other about it, but I don't think they would be announcing him coming back if not for having a bigger part in the movie.

Beyond didn't do especially well, and Paramount may be rethinking what direction they're going to go in regarding the property. I think it's possible we get an Abramsverse TNG movie next, or possibly they're rethinking their approach and will focus on making something cheap.

Im confused about the ridges, I thought the ridges happened inbetween tos and the movies. STD comes before TOS in the prime universe, so why forehead ridges? Or were their more human like forms the actual mutation? This is all dumb. STD is dumb.

Was the initial addition of ridges not just retconning the original Klingon look? 



And you all can obviously take this with a grain of salt, as I'm not even entirely sure why I'm even commenting in this thread so much, having only seen TOS, the TOS films, TAS, and half of TNG, but I'm in the camp of "the new forehead ridges aren't so bad, having seen the Klingons in the trailer.  It looks less plastered-on than the facial makeup on the actors playing the Klingons/90% of the other non-human species of the TNG era.

Enterprise? You mean the car rental company?

It's not entirely clear to me that they are ignoring the episode, because they seem to less be saying "we're going to explain the look of TOS Klingons" than "we're going to explain the function of the ridges in Klingon society." The implication being that ridges serve some sort of biological function and/or societal marker.

That said, given that we saw individual Klingons both with and without ridges, I think the show (specifically the DS9 episodes with the TOS Klingons) sort of cemented the "makeup budget" explanation in canon, at least for Kor, Kang, and Koloth.