Star Trek Discovery, finally a trailer

[Excession]

What does Game of Thrones even have that you would want to port into a Star Trek show?

Multiple viewpoint characters done well.
Real story arcs.
The feeling that the story exists in a larger world that the characters can affect.
Broad appeal that goes beyond fans of the genre.

Not saying Discovery is going to achieve any of that, but there are worthwhile goals.

[Joran]

As soon as it was mentioned that Game of Thrones had been an influence, I knew that it wouldn't be any good. For a Star Trek Series, Game of Thrones is not the right place to draw for influence. I can get using Game of Thrones to influence a Star Wars story, but for Star Trek? Were the developers drunk? I can't think of any real shows that would be more the polar opposite of Star Trek than Game of Thrones. If they were going for character arcs/etc, why not just say that they were to focus on the character arcs as part of it.

What does Game of Thrones even have that you would want to port into a Star Trek show? The nudity? The Brutality? The Cruelty? The fact that Game of Thrones present a view of people completely opposed to how Star Trek tried to view us humans?

This will wreck Star Trek badly. The only place Game of Thrones can apply is maybe Klingon politics, but still, Game of Thrones as influence? Why is that considered acceptable?

Sure, if you take the quote out of context. Here's the quote:

"I'm not involved in the movies anymore, but I've been involved in the show," he said. "One of the things that I do really love about television now is that the line between TV and film is so blurred. It used to be such a specific line, and now with things like Game of Thrones, it's a movie; it's just on television in your living room. We're endeavoring to bring that level of scope, scale and emotional experience to the new Trek."

http://www.fandango.com/movie-news/s...thrones-752296

So, basically, larger budget, larger stories (probably no bottle episodes); nothing in that quote says anything about taking plot points or tone from Game of Thrones. The producers want to make more of a cinematic TV show (similar to all the other premium shows) and less of a Network show.

Also, if you're doing a genre, fewer episode series, you're contractually obligated to say "HBO", "Game of Thrones", or "Netflix" when selling your show.

Multiple viewpoint characters done well.
Real story arcs.
The feeling that the story exists in a larger world that the characters can affect.
Broad appeal that goes beyond fans of the genre.

Not saying Discovery is going to achieve any of that, but there are worthwhile goals.

A Game of Thrones style plot might be interesting. The original Star Trek had major Cold War analogies with the Federation and Klingons vying for control and influence throughout the galaxy. So I'd think a Game of Thrones style Star Trek would be interstellar politics between the Federation and the Klingon Empire, with the Romulans off doing their plots in the shadows. It could end up being something similar to what DS9 Season 5 and 6 looked like with Sisko and the crew being the main cast, but also getting look-ins at their antagonists.

[russdm]

Multiple viewpoint characters done well.
Real story arcs.
The feeling that the story exists in a larger world that the characters can affect.
Broad appeal that goes beyond fans of the genre.

Not saying Discovery is going to achieve any of that, but there are worthwhile goals.

Weird. I thought that they did that in previous Star Trek Series, oh, and Babylon 5. The one with G'Kar and Londo. Or in The West Wing, or X-Files, or a considerable number of shows, all of which were before Game of Thrones came out. They weren't all Scifi or Fantasy though.

You do realize that Game of Thrones is only really popular because the B**bs, don't you?

[Legato Endless]

Also, if you're doing a genre, fewer episode series, you're contractually obligated to say "HBO", "Game of Thrones", or "Netflix" when selling your show.

This. Game of Thrones is just a pop marketing term now. It's totally meaningless when people say runaway hit X inspired this work. I'm pretty sure in private writers are pitching educational children's cartoons to execs as inspired by Game.

You do realize that Game of Thrones is only really popular because the B**bs, don't you?

That's pretty impossible as explanations go. Lots of shows have gratuitous nudity nowadays. Some more than Game. The majority aren't popular. Also we have the internet, so it's not like people can't see skin easily enough anyway. I don't even like the television adaption and I'll cop there's more going on than that.

But more seriously, can we not whinge about Thrones in the Star Trek thread?

The evil captain would be my favorite: make the captain the villain. They would need to be subtle and piloting, but it could be lots of fun. And while the captain does evil plots, he would distract the crew with ''oh go save them people, all life is precious." You could really get a lot out of ''is the captain really evil or does he just have an unique style''.

I wouldn't mind a season long arc devoted to a Captain Jellico style figure. Someone with a very different philosophy who really clashes with the crew as an antagonist. Not necessarily evil, but so different in ethos it creates gobs of conflict.

[Velaryon]

Visually, it doesn't really look like Star Trek at all to me. That isn't a deal-breaker, but it's enough to make me skeptical. Being locked behind CBS's subscription service, on the other hand, is a deal-breaker. I'll wait until there are other (preferably legal) ways to view it. Hopefully there will be a DVD or Blu-Ray release at some point, though that isn't a guarantee in this day and age.

Beyond that, I don't really understand everyone's issue with who is or isn't the "main" character. Star Trek has always been (with the exception, somewhat, of the original series) an ensemble show, with plenty of prominent attention given to the entire main cast. One person might have top billing, but there are usually seven or eight main characters at least. That's really the one thing I'm not worried about so far with this series.

Anyway, there isn't enough substance to the trailer for me to decide what to think here. Also, is it just me or is the volume on Mando Knight's mirror link (the only one that would work for me) really, really low? Even with the volume on my computer cranked all the way up, I could barely hear it. Probably doesn't help that my family has their TV's cranked up absurdly loud, but I still could barely get any volume on the computer.

[Olinser]

Visually, it doesn't really look like Star Trek at all to me. That isn't a deal-breaker, but it's enough to make me skeptical. Being locked behind CBS's subscription service, on the other hand, is a deal-breaker. I'll wait until there are other (preferably legal) ways to view it. Hopefully there will be a DVD or Blu-Ray release at some point, though that isn't a guarantee in this day and age.

Beyond that, I don't really understand everyone's issue with who is or isn't the "main" character. Star Trek has always been (with the exception, somewhat, of the original series) an ensemble show, with plenty of prominent attention given to the entire main cast. One person might have top billing, but there are usually seven or eight main characters at least. That's really the one thing I'm not worried about so far with this series.

Anyway, there isn't enough substance to the trailer for me to decide what to think here. Also, is it just me or is the volume on Mando Knight's mirror link (the only one that would work for me) really, really low? Even with the volume on my computer cranked all the way up, I could barely hear it. Probably doesn't help that my family has their TV's cranked up absurdly loud, but I still could barely get any volume on the computer.

Yes, Star Trek has always been an ensemble show.

That's why them announcing that somebody is the 'main' character, and that character is NOT the Captain/Commander (who is arguably the 'main' character of all other series), does not sound like they are taking this in a good direction for Star Trek.

[Hopeless]

Am I the only one that wishes they try a series that's starts off with a cadet cruise involving discovering a mystery that causes Starfleet to establish an outpost to research it but have to be careful because it involves a colony that was left bereft of protection because of a war they're only now via that cadet cruise to accidentally get back in contact with?

Maybe have someone considered a war criminal by the Federation because they stayed behind to protect that colony anyway they could?

Wouldn't be the first time the Federation made a mistake but would they make a series that acknowledges they're fallible instead of an unrealistic utopia?

[Darth Ultron]

Star Trek has always been (with the exception, somewhat, of the original series) an ensemble show, with plenty of prominent attention given to the entire main cast. One person might have top billing, but there are usually seven or eight main characters at least.

Except the ensemble thing does not work so well with a show like Star Trek. If you just have seven people living in New York as friends you can ensemble all you want as each character can just be used or not used on a whim. No ''friend'' has to ask another ''friend'' if they can do something and the ''friends'' are not doing things like saving people from a burning building.

But Star Trek is not like that. You can't have Ensign Jones in command of the ship while saving the day and just ignore the rest of the crew. Unless you do the silly ''the whole crew is trapped in dimension x'' or something, but you can only do that like maybe two times. Really, you can't have any ''big and important'' type plot without the higher rank characters. And it is just beyond dumb to have a character who is like security officer, do surgery on a wounded person when their are real doctors on the ship(you know unless just the two of them are trapped out of phase in an upside down blackhole or something).

Star Trek can do a good ensemble show...sometimes. But most of them are like ''character X tries to buy a baseball card''. Or ''character x goes on vacation and encounters an adventure with wacky weather terrorists.'' Or ''character x finds an..um..evil ghost/vampire in a candle.'' Or..oh my gosh ''character x goes to the holodeck and it breaks.....AGAIN"

[Velaryon]

Except the ensemble thing does not work so well with a show like Star Trek. If you just have seven people living in New York as friends you can ensemble all you want as each character can just be used or not used on a whim. No ''friend'' has to ask another ''friend'' if they can do something and the ''friends'' are not doing things like saving people from a burning building.

But Star Trek is not like that. You can't have Ensign Jones in command of the ship while saving the day and just ignore the rest of the crew. Unless you do the silly ''the whole crew is trapped in dimension x'' or something, but you can only do that like maybe two times. Really, you can't have any ''big and important'' type plot without the higher rank characters. And it is just beyond dumb to have a character who is like security officer, do surgery on a wounded person when their are real doctors on the ship(you know unless just the two of them are trapped out of phase in an upside down blackhole or something).

Star Trek can do a good ensemble show...sometimes. But most of them are like ''character X tries to buy a baseball card''. Or ''character x goes on vacation and encounters an adventure with wacky weather terrorists.'' Or ''character x finds an..um..evil ghost/vampire in a candle.'' Or..oh my gosh ''character x goes to the holodeck and it breaks.....AGAIN"

On the contrary, being an ensemble cast is exactly what was good about Star Trek. Focusing on one particular character for an episode does not mean excluding everyone else from the episode, or putting that character in command of the ship. Those episodes do happen sometimes, and they can be quite good, but sometimes it just means you have a Riker/Troi-centric episode, followed by a Data/Geordi episode, followed by a Worf/Alexander episode.

Conversely, while the original series had an excellent dynamic between Kirk/Spock/McCoy, there were a lot of missed opportunities with the rest of the crew because after the first half or so of season 1, Sulu, Uhura, and sometimes even Scotty were barely more than window dressing most of the time.

For the highest-stakes parts of the show (when the whole Federation is in trouble, or the ship is nearly destroyed, or whatever) you generally want everyone present and for the main focus to be on the captain and other most prominent command crew. But if you want the entire story to focus on one or two characters, that isn't how Star Trek has normally been done, nor should it be.

[gooddragon1]

I think we should hold our Qapla's until the show comes out though.

I've been holding on to that pun for a while.

[ImperiousLeader]

You mean, not jump to massive conclusions based on a single short trailer? On the Internet?

[Ranxerox]

New trailer is out and now it is being referred to as an original Netflix series. So, maybe I will watch it after after all.

[Honest Tiefling]

TNG to Voyager were ensemble cast shows. Whatever issues you might have had with early TNG, Voyager or DS9, when they were good they were typically using their ensemble to the fullest. There were a few episodes where certain characters got shoehorned in (NNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELIX! Damn you!), but overall, the formula has worked for most of Trek, especially the newer series. You know, the ones more likely to be written like a show written in 2017.

Also, focusing on the first officer is a great idea. Why? Because then the captain won't keep leaving the ship whenever a space thingymajiggy appears and actually does their job! No more of the ship can't function because Kirk went on a space adventure. Novel!

[Kitten Champion]

Really not into it based on the trailer.

It's really dour looking. A common thread between every Star Trek television series is the sublime and wondrous nature of space with Man triumphantly navigating it, it goes into opening imagery, the music, and a lot of the writing for that matter. Here, everything's gloomy and broken, space looks bleak and hostile, the music is low-key and melancholic -- not that you can't do that, but there's quite a bit of that already with shows like The Expanse.

They're really focusing this around the protagonist, which I'm hoping is mostly trailer-related. I like having an ensemble approach and while I have nothing against Sonequa Martin-Green, she's not an actor I'd watch a thing for her being in it.

The alien make-ups look weirdly out of place within the rest of the show's overdone aesthetic. While it's true that Trek has had plenty of unconvincing rubber-headed aliens they've generally fit the rest of the show's overall feel even in series I repeatedly kick in the crotch like Enterprise, but I see such a disparity between the what the CGI is doing here with the make-up design that it sticks out. It's a small thing, but it's been bugging me every time the dude shows up to deliver "I can sense death" lines.

I don't get their changes on the Klingons whatsoever. Sure, Klingons have obviously been changed before on several levels but there's a degree of continuity between their characterizations as being pretty human-like in their mannerisms and personalities but with this value-dissonance between them and the Federation as highly aggressive imperialists with anachronistic honour codes and legalism that trickles into every aspect of their culture. Between this and Into Darkness I don't get what the people currently running the franchise envision them to be besides "alien threat". Though they seem to share Enterprise's perspective that Vulcans are total jerks.

Also, why a Harry Mudd reference? I'm not necessarily against it conceptually or anything, it's just odd to throw it in here.

Still...if it's on Netflix in my region, I'll watch it. Why not? All it'll cost me is a bit of time and at worst I'll just have seen yet more disappointing Star Trek, which I have plenty of practice on

[Legato Endless]

Also, why a Harry Mudd reference? I'm not necessarily against it conceptually or anything, it's just odd to throw it in here.

They've written in some crazed eccentric outsider to act as a guide/conflict device/conflicting perspective with crew and decided to have it double as a character we already knew. Of well known timeline appropriate characters Mudd doesn't have much competition. They've already used Khan in that one film.

Will Commander Kor appear amidst the Krall groupies Klingons at some point? Probably.

[Kitten Champion]

They've written in some crazed eccentric outsider to act as a guide/conflict device/conflicting perspective with crew and decided to have it double as a character we already knew. Of well known timeline appropriate characters Mudd doesn't have much competition. They've already used Khan in that one film.

I mean, yeah. There's no reason they can't use him technically... he's just so ill-fitting with everything else they seem to be going for. It would've been like Wesley Crusher showing up on DS9 for some important Dominion War plot, there's nothing technically stopping him but...

That "No I'm Mudd" line too.

Will Commander Kor appear amidst the Krall groupies Klingons at some point? Probably.

Oh, I hadn't thought of that.

Really though, I wouldn't know those were supposed to be Klingons if it didn't directly state that they were. The only bit of iconography that's representative of them is the Klingon insignia shown on their consoles and maybe the vague outline of their ships if you squint just right.

Sad times.

[Legato Endless]

I mean, yeah. There's no reason they can't use him technically... he's just so ill-fitting with everything else they seem to be going for. It would've been like Wesley Crusher showing up on DS9 for some important Dominion War plot, there's nothing technically stopping him but...

To be consummately cynical, I don't think we're getting TOS Mudd based on the framing of that scene. We're getting a darker, edgier Nu-Trek accelerated 'genius' scoundrel. Even if they rationalize him having the same character, he'll still come off way more threatening.

What I mean is, look at the dour dangerous ambiance of the trailer, and imagine someone who is tonally consistent with this environment filling Mudd's archetype. It's very tempting to throw in tweaked nostalgia bait. If you stick the landing the fans love you. If you don't, it's never a deal breaker for the less enchanted.

That "No I'm Mudd" line too.

Ugh.

[Ranxerox]

Opps! Sorry, I gave bad information. Star Trek Discovery will be on Netflix ... just not in the United States. Here we will be expected to get CBS Access. The YouTube trailer that I posted must have been intended for non-U.S. markets. So, for us living in the US, we will be denied the pleasure of this show or protected against this travesty against Trekdom as the case turns out to be*.





*- Of course this doesn't appy if you go out and get CBS Access. Don't do that. I will only encourage other Networks to go the same way.

[Velaryon]

Based on that trailer, it seems I was misinformed. I thought they were making a new Star Trek show. This looks even less like Star trek than the Abrams films did.

They keep mentioning Klingons in the trailer, but I see no Klingons. Everything seems to revolve around Sonequa Martin-Green, rather than being an ensemble cast. The space battles look more like Star Wars than Star Trek.

I will try to give the first episode a chance, but this absolutely does not look promising.

[kraftcheese]

I'm not expecting anything after the Nu-Trek movies so I guess I won't be disappointed if it turns out bad; I'm reserving judgement for when it comes out but my partner's already refusing to watch just from that trailer.

[FreddyNoNose]

You mean, not jump to massive conclusions based on a single short trailer? On the Internet?

If the trailer turns someone off, don't blame that person. From what I have seen, I am not impressed. Plus the Spock's adopted sister. Pandering to the nerds. Although some of the more pathetic ones will lap this up.

[FreddyNoNose]

TNG to Voyager were ensemble cast shows. Whatever issues you might have had with early TNG, Voyager or DS9, when they were good they were typically using their ensemble to the fullest. There were a few episodes where certain characters got shoehorned in (NNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELIX! Damn you!), but overall, the formula has worked for most of Trek, especially the newer series. You know, the ones more likely to be written like a show written in 2017.

Also, focusing on the first officer is a great idea. Why? Because then the captain won't keep leaving the ship whenever a space thingymajiggy appears and actually does their job! No more of the ship can't function because Kirk went on a space adventure. Novel!

I'd say there is only one true star trek show and that was TOS. The rest are just ensemble soap opera shows. J/K. But this show looks like it is going to hoover.

[Darth Ultron]

Based on that trailer, it seems I was misinformed. I thought they were making a new Star Trek show. This looks even less like Star trek than the Abrams films did.

Saddly this does seem like the intent: make a ''21 st century style politically correct space drama and slap the ''Star Trek'' label on it. So the ''creator x'' folks get their wonderful ''chance to change the world with their beautiful show'' and they hope the ''Star Trek'' label will have all the Star Trek fans watch the show automatically like zombies (oh, and sign up for the CBS service too, wink wink).

The CBS Access part is a big, bad dark hole.....and could set a very bad future of TV shows. If the masses of Star Trek fans sign up for the service as they ''have to/must watch any Star Trek show!'', as CBS hopes they will, then people will take notice. And then we can see lots of others do the same thing ''oh, you want to watch X, then you must sign up for YU first''.

The only good thing about the whole thing is networks just don't ''get it''. They will bend over backwards to make a ''super cool politically correct drama in space'', but can't grasp the idea of just ''make a good show and people will watch it''.

[kraftcheese]

politically correct drama in space

I don't know what you thought you were watching before, but Star Trek's always been that, and all the better for it!

[Rogar Demonblud]

The CBS Access part is a big, bad dark hole.....and could set a very bad future of TV shows. If the masses of Star Trek fans sign up for the service as they ''have to/must watch any Star Trek show!'', as CBS hopes they will, then people will take notice. And then we can see lots of others do the same thing ''oh, you want to watch X, then you must sign up for Y first''.

Don't order your doom and gloom just yet. The only people who'd have to get All Access to watch this are those of us in the U.S.A. The rest of the world just uses Netflix. And I'm reasonably sure Netflix will find a way to release it to us as well, probably after All Access crashes and burns like the Hindenburg.

[Rodin]

I don't know what you thought you were watching before, but Star Trek's always been that, and all the better for it!

If we're not careful, the SJW writers will do something really crazy, like have a black woman as part of the bridge crew!

[Legato Endless]

If anything, trying to just write stories without a regard for the current cultural context would be a fundamental loss of part of Trek's core identity.

I'm not even sure what the hullabaloo is about. The cast has a bit higher percentage of PoC and women in command positions but it's not all that different different from the past besides more aliens and possible GSRM inclusion.

[Joran]

If anything, trying to just write stories without a regard for the current cultural context would be a fundamental loss of part of Trek's core identity.

I'm not even sure what the hullabaloo is about. The cast has a bit higher percentage of PoC and women in command positions but it's not all that different different from the past besides more aliens and possible GSRM inclusion.

One of the complaints/criticisms I've heard of Star Trek Discovery is that it seems to be more of a character-driven show with a POV character rather than an ensemble show. Star Trek has always been an ensemble show, so it doesn't feel quite the same if a Star Trek series focuses on a single character.

[Darth Ultron]

I don't know what you thought you were watching before, but Star Trek's always been that, and all the better for it!

Well, not exactly.

Star Trek TOS was against the normal types, but the ''others'' had no voice. It's not quite true today as the 'alternative' to normal is now considered normal..so everything is everything and the same...or so they say.

TNG and VOY walked the line very carefully, but still stuck to mostly normal. You only saw the other life stlyes once in a while...like when Riker when to the planet of non just two sexes people exactly like classic Earth and he out of character falls in crazy love with one of the people there. The other 99% of the time Riker only goes after attractive human women or near human women.

DS9 had no ''correctness'' at all, they were the rebel show and they stuck to it.

ENT, well they had it in spades...until the later bits when the ''correct '' people left and the Trek Fans took over.

But in 2017 you have so many groups demanding ''you must put our type of person on your show orr..um...we won't watch or something''. And way too many show creators either agree with them or fear them.

And then you get a ''correct show'' but not a ''good show''.

[kraftcheese]

"Political correctness" is a pretty much meaningless buzzword, but what do you mean by it Ultron?

One of the complaints/criticisms I've heard of Star Trek Discovery is that it seems to be more of a character-driven show with a POV character rather than an ensemble show. Star Trek has always been an ensemble show, so it doesn't feel quite the same if a Star Trek series focuses on a single character.

I know we all have to wild mass guess on the internet, but no-one's actually seen the show yet; we don't really know what it's going to be like, except for a few short trailers.