CBS Delaying 'Star Trek: Discovery' To Maintain Quality (foxnews.com)

New submitter Zorro shares a report from Fox News: The premiere of "Star Trek: Discovery" on CBS' subscription streaming service, CBS All Access, was postponed nine months to maintain the quality of the brand. Executive producer Alex Kurtzman told the Television Critics Association Tuesday that they "spent a lot of time" discussing how to create this new world for TV that felt authentic to the "Star Trek" universe. Also during that time, executive producer Bryan Fuller decided to exit the series as showrunner to focus on other projects. Kurtzman said "it became clearer and clearer" that the targeted January debut would "compromise the quality of the show," so it was pushed with the blessing of CBS Chairman and CEO Leslie Moonves.

Comments

Stinker

[sexconker]

They've got a real stinker on their hands and they know it.
9 months to fix it? Good luck. That's long enough to tell us that there are serious fucking problems, yet not long enough for them to fix them.

I expect this will either be delayed further, outright canned, or just put out as-is and never spoken of again.

Re:Stinker

[0123456]

Too many SJWs, probably. Everything they touch turns to crap.

Re:Stinker

[imidan]

They've got a real stinker on their hands and they know it.

In the long history of Star Trek, that knowledge has never stopped them before... and I say this as a fan of the franchise.

Re:Stinker

[mhkohne]

There's no way they don't ship it at this point, but given that the current plan is to make it available via their Streaming service, I bet when it tanks they blame streaming instead of the show.

We'll see, but I'm not hopeful.

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

Awww do you need a safe space to cry about dem SJW's?

Re: Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

If TOS were created today, people like you (and most others on this site) would fuss loudly that Nichelle Nichols' spot on the cast wasn't given to a white man. That's all anyone needs to know about the people complaining about Star Trek Discovery.

Re:Stinker

[TWX]

Also as a fan of the franchise, after what Abrams did to it I didn't bother watching any more Star Trek movies.

There's always been a lot of escapist space-opera. Star Trek usually offered something greater than that, even when using an episodic, rather than a serialized format. Granted, that something-greater isn't for everyone, as there are a lot of people that like the escapist space-opera stuff that don't like Star Trek, but that's OK, they've managed to create well over 500 hours of content and are arguably the most successful science fiction media franchise in history, so clearly there's enough audience for what Star Trek has offered to justify it.

The problem is that if one attempts to change it to make it appeal to even more people then that special-something that built the fanbase in the first place is lost, and I have no doubt that more fans would be lost than would be found in the new format, at least for something that requires as much commitment as a weekly TV series.

TV shows struggle to find the balance between character-interaction/development and the situations that the characters find themselves in. Too much of one or the other and the audience shrugs and tunes in to something else. From what little I've heard about this new series it was going to be far too much on characters and not nearly enough on big-picture situations. Hopefully someone at CBS or whoever manages the franchise will realize that unless they manage to walk a fine line, they're going to end up spending a lot of money producing a show that doesn't build an audience.

Re:Stinker

[0123456]

SJWs always project.

Re: Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a rather special one, aren't you? The 'sexist right' would want her outfit more skimpy, and more screentime because 'mah eyecandy'. Not a sausage-fest show.

If you're going to strawman, make it more credible e.g. "On the other hand, your side would be complaining she didn't identify as a Romulan Communicator with her pronouns in reversed tacyon pulses. Also, too thin and not a hirsute pansexual"

Re:Stinker

[zippthorne]

If there's one place where SJW's belong, it's Star Trek. Frankly, the reboot movies were kind of boring because they were generic action flicks with none of the social commentary that Roddenberry was all about. Speculative fiction in general is partly built on presenting social issues with some of the prejudices stripped away through the use of alien ideas.

Even if the positions are silly or the metaphors don't hold up under scrutiny, at least they could've tried, rather than done yet another safe-but-not-super J.J. "I know how to start a story but have no clue how to finish it" Abrams vehicle.

Re:Stinker

[Rockoon]

Social Issues effect society. SJW issues effect the 1%... the weird 1% that doesnt fit in

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

You're accusing non-SJW's of needing safe spaces. Very clever. We see what you did there.

Re:Stinker

[zippthorne]

Everyone is in some weird 1% that doesn't quite fit in.

Maybe I'm using the wrong definition of SJW; I have been assuming it's a term for people who are so enamored with the idea of fighting for civil rights, that they don't really examine whether they're helping things get better, but there's a kernel that they are fighting for that either was at one time an issue or still is at least somewhat of an issue.

And that's why I think Star Trek is a good home for them: Star Trek was sometimes overbearing in its social commentary and that's part of what made it Star Trek. With that, though, you can help get people thinking about what's really going on and what should be better.

Re:Stinker

[Boronx]

One problem with the late war was that we didn't kill enough Nazis.

Re:Stinker

[elrous0]

This whole thing has had "trainwreck" plastered all over it at least since Bryan Fuller left. Fuller has a great TV track record and solid Trek experience. When he doesn't want anything to do with a Trek project, you know it must be a piece of shit.

Re:Stinker

[Rockoon]

I have been assuming it's a term for people who are so enamored with the idea of fighting for civil rights

You shouldnt assume.

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

Complaints about "SJWs" are always more informational about the complainers than demonstrative about the complainee.

Re:Stinker

[denzacar]

Also as a fan of the franchise, after what Abrams did to it I didn't bother watching any more Star Trek movies.

Alex Kurtzman, one of Jar Jar's butmonkeys, is the "creator" of this upcoming shitfest.
You can also tell from the promotion material that it follows Jar Jar Trek design in everything from the style of the font used for the logo to in-show visuals like lights and special effects.

So it's no wonder they're having problems splicing it in between Enterprise and TOS.
It's neither visually nor thematically similar to either of those - but it fits just fine next to Jar Jar Trek.

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

^ found the jewnïgger

Re: Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree completely. You know what an SJW is. I know what an SJW is. It is a fully descriptive term. And they and their actions are worth calling out to shame and mock.

Re: Stinker

[fortfive]

>doesn't fit in

You mean, like, say, nerds?

Re: Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

> And they and their actions are worth calling out to shame and mock.

But not worth logging in for the karma +2 bonus to make sure that said "calling out" is actually seen by anybody.

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

You shouldnt assume.

Indeed. An actual SJW is anyone who can make nazis whine.
Master SJWs are able to make nazis proclaim that liberal tears are delicious.

Re: Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

Ours browses at -1

Re: Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ours?" You sound like gollum.

Re: Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

hfs. i stopped reading slashdot a couple years ago because it was all just idiots whining about SJWs. if they are such an existential threat then maybe you should do something more than just reactively bitch about them on every thread.

not coming back again

Re: Stinker

[Rockoon]

You mean, like, say, nerds?

20% of the population, so fits in.

Re:Stinker

[CaptnCrud]

yea, I'm keeping an open mind. I think the whole ancient klingon stuff is great. Just 2 issues for me from what I can tell.

One is strictly from a look standpoint (at least with the uniforms, ships and tech in the background of some production stuff, I actually like the alien designs including the ancient klingons...if that's what they are). One reason some stuff can't look like exactly like the predecessors is because the star trek license is split between two corporations.

The second issue is they were wanting to add much more internal soap drama and internal strife aboard the ship (ala destiny) which was something that roddenberry was totally against. I think his thought was to display a future to aspire too as a species.

The problem with this series might be to much changes make it seem like it could be any other sci-fi show without the trek branding....but keeping an open mind.

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

New Slashdot drinking game, go round in a circle and everyone reads a comment. When you reach a comment whinging about SJWs, you take a drink.

Good luck staying upright for more than 2 articles.

Re: Stinker

[BoogieChile]

You do know what website you've just posted this on, don't you?

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent definition of SJW as to what they are in practice versus theory. What they really are are useful idiots, pawns in a grand game.

Re:Stinker

[quantaman]

Too many SJWs, probably. Everything they touch turns to crap.

Another MRA, looking for any excuse to blame SJWs.

Re:Stinker

[rtb61]

More accurately SJWs clamber all over causes fighting for nothing else but the public spotlight the money that follows, when main stream media pumps up the issue for ratings and to divide and conquer the working class, who are invariably the target of SJWs. Those kinds of SJWs have been touched on in Star Trek episodes more than once, as the core problem of a society that the Federation either solves or blocks. Social Justice where social is entirely narcissistic and all about them and the Federation strives to free the SJWs foolishly loyal minions an oft repeated meme, which we were ignoring in our own societies but no longer are.

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

I would disagree with you 100%. The message of star trek was that race and sex don't matter. They had a diverse cast to show that everyone was the same. The world of Star Trek is a strict meritocracy.

The message of "Social Justice" is the complete opposite of this. SocJus declares that race and sex matter more than anything else. SocJus declares meritocracy to be racist and sexist.

Re: Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BBOWsWODX4

"In our century we've learned not to fear words." This is the opposite of the social justice mentality.

Re: Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet the reboot movies were wildly successful. Nobody cares about social commentary with strange-foreheaded aliens. TNG took off when they ousted Roddenberry. This is the reality of things. Babylon 5 and BSG did the social angle better than ST ever did.

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's the final frontier, so...

Re:Stinker

[ArmoredDragon]

I'm the 1% of the population who doesn't give a fuck about social justice. Not even four years ago I was living below the federal poverty level for the 10 years of my adult life with my crowning achievement being a 20 hour a week minimum wage job at Staples where I mostly just manned the till and stocked shelves. And according to this I'm now within the upper class, and I didn't need any stupid social justice.

I didn't have an inheritance of any kind, parents didn't pay for a thing that I needed, I didn't have any special privileges, and the only opportunities I had were ones I created for myself. I just went to college, got a job with a so-so but comfortable salary, then got laid off, then got another job with a very good salary. Both jobs were asking for much more experience than I even had, and the only reason I landed both jobs was because the interviewers were just impressed with the knowledge I gained from a no-name community college associates degree.

I honestly feel that somebody who thinks they're deserving of some kind of justice for whatever shitty situation they put themselves in is just being lazy. I know this because I've been there.

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

Alex Kurtzman, one of Jar Jar's butmonkeys, is the "creator" of this upcoming shitfest. You can also tell from the promotion material that it follows Jar Jar Trek design in everything from the style of the font used for the logo to in-show visuals like lights and special effects.

The bridge lighting is awful. Reminds me of another doomed-to-fail series, Stargate: Universe.

Re:Stinker

[91degrees]

9 months is probably long enough to make a show; not just fix it. At least assuming they have sets and a couple of decent scripts.

Re:Stinker

[AmiMoJo]

People seem to forget how bad all the other Star Trek series were at first. TNG had a really bad first season, and the original series had one failed pilot and a difficult start too. Even DS9 and Voyager weren't brilliant from the get-go.

Having said that, the trailer for Discovery looks okay. At most I'd say it's too early to pass judgement.

Re:Stinker

[AmiMoJo]

Star Trek Continues released a new episode at the weekend. It's another masterpiece, Trek at its very best. And it manages to deal with a modern social issue, migration and refugees, in a way that presents different arguments and views while creating drama and interest for the viewer.

Re:Stinker

[drinkypoo]

I thought DS9 was pretty well-written from the get-go, but some of the acting was severely painful, like worse than Babylon 5 in the first season painful. IMO Voyager took at least two years to really get going. I rewatched both not too long ago.

Having said that, the trailer for Discovery looks okay. At most I'd say it's too early to pass judgement.

I'd say it's too little footage to pass judgement. But if they're spending the next nine months fixing it somehow, then you couldn't make a call anyway because they might fix it or break it somehow.

Re:Stinker

[drinkypoo]

More accurately SJWs clamber all over causes fighting for nothing else but the public spotlight the money that follows,

There's plenty of poor kids who literally describe themselves as SJWs, in some kind of meta-ironic backlash against the sarcastic use of the term. It may well be about recognition, but it isn't necessarily about money.

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they just need 9 more months to add lens flares to scenes which still miss it.

Re: Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

I second your mockery, which is warranted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cruRyoo2xiE
No time for peaceful trucks.

Re:Stinker

[imidan]

I don't necessarily have a problem with the internal strife among the crew. I think that's one of the things that made DS9 great TV. Yes, it wasn't Roddenberry's grand vision of the utopian Federation, but it was a comfortable realism in which people didn't always get along and go along. The problem that I have is when that strife becomes "soapy" and the show is more about the crew's personal problems than it is about some interesting concept in science fiction.

Look at the TNG episode Relics, where Scotty comes back. There's a fair amount of personal mopery going on there, but there's also some interesting sci-fi. I think they were at times a bit ham-handed in that episode, but that's the kernel of the stuff I'd like to see--people dealing with being people as well as dealing with the crazy stuff going on around them.

Oppositely, look at the start of Voyager, where a Starfleet crew and a Maquis crew have to come together on one ship right at the end of the pilot. In the second episode (if I recall correctly) there is a bit of discomfort about merging the crews, and in episode three it's smooth sailing. (The issue comes up again, if I remember right, because of Seska, who turns out to be a Cardassian spy or something...). But they just chose to ignore all of the dramatic tension possible in the merging of the crews because Rick Berman thought it would be boring.

I want a Star Trek where a crew of real-seeming people encounter wack stuff they've never imagined and deal with the consequences both personal and larger-scale.

Re:Stinker

[AmiMoJo]

The headline is misleading. The September launch date is still going ahead, it was just supposed to be January, i.e. 9 months ago. The trailer is what it's going to be like when it starts next month.

Re:Stinker

[denzacar]

Maybe I'm using the wrong definition of SJW; I have been assuming it's a term for people who are so enamored with the idea of fighting for civil rights, that they don't really examine whether they're helping things get better, but there's a kernel that they are fighting for that either was at one time an issue or still is at least somewhat of an issue.

Ah, well... there's your problem.
Your definition clearly lacks the reference to snowflakes or use of the term "cuck", as is the parlance of times and society.

And that's why I think Star Trek is a good home for them: Star Trek was sometimes overbearing in its social commentary and that's part of what made it Star Trek. With that, though, you can help get people thinking about what's really going on and what should be better.

Personally, only overbearing episode I can think of was the one when space ISIS take over the Enterprise and start deleting files and blowing themselves up.
On the other hand...
I'm under the impression that the lack of examination you mention makes SJWs more... Star Wars fans.

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, what the hell are these people thinking?

Even the goddamn name is ridiculous: Star Trek: Discovery == STD.

Infectious and unpleasant, sounds about right.

Re:Stinker

[Salgak1]

I'm going to be a contrarian here: Justice is supposed to be about wrongs being righted. Period. Full Stop.

Every time I see a modifier to that (i.e. 'social justice', 'economic justice', 'environmental justice', 'racial justice', 'gender justice' are all examplars of this that I've seen), it's always attached to a specific political agenda. And each type that I've seen all advocate controls on some sort of behavior that usually has little, if anything, to do with righting the particular wrong addressed.

As far as I've seen, the "SJW" term originally did mean people who were earnestly working towards "social justice", but extreme outliers became more and more ludicrous from a mainstream point of view, and the term evolved, at least in common culture, to a perjorative describing activism that appears to have little anchoring in commonly-accepted realities.

This has been exacerbated by the ability of like-minded people to gather in communities on the net, reinforcing and driving the common beliefs of a given group to more extreme positions.

Until we get to things like 2017 America, pretty much divided in to two major ideological clusters, each self-reinforcing and demonizing the other side. . . .

Re:Stinker

[Chris Mattern]

In the long history of Star Trek, that knowledge has never stopped them before... and I say this as a fan of the franchise.

Obligatory Penny Arcade

Re:Stinker

[Chris Mattern]

Even DS9 and Voyager weren't brilliant from the get-go.

Voyager was brilliant? When?

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

I was just about to say the say thing.

The moralising in Star Trek bores me, but it never resorted to the vicious bullying, screeching and silencing of SJWs. It tried to show how it could be better... in a droney, boring and lecture type of way.

Re:Stinker

[Chris Mattern]

I thought DS9 was pretty well-written from the get-go, but some of the acting was severely painful, like worse than Babylon 5 in the first season painful

But some of it was very good. I could point out Duet was first season.

Re:Stinker

[GNious]

I thought our little group was the only one referring to it as the Jar-Jar Star Trek universe :)

But then, looking at your sig, I'm starting to think you're me .... much confuzzled.

Re:Stinker

[GNious]

ST:DS9 took about until the middle of 3rd season before it got good - sorta coincided with certain people having left DS9 to work on ST:Voy

Re:Stinker

[AmiMoJo]

Race mattered in Star Trek. Allowances were made for Worf due to being a Klingon, for example. And it wasn't quite as post-racial as people think, e.g. Riker's reaction when some Ferengi were invited to the Enterprise and he couldn't hide his disgust, even asking for them to be quartered well away from his own dwelling.

Where "social justice", or rather some of the movements that are labelled as such, say that race and gender matter they are just accepting reality as it is. In reality men and women are different, and have slightly different needs in some situations. In reality, some races are disadvantaged in some societies, and trying to ignore that and pretend that we are a perfect meritocracy is not very helpful.

Trek is mostly post-feminist though, at least by TNG times. During the TOS era women couldn't become starship captains for some reason, which today seems ridiculous.

Re: Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the first two books of Plato's Republic, you'll find six or seven contrasting definitions of Justice. Even the ancient Greeks knew that "justice" was a beautiful-sounding word promising some vague celesetial virtue whose earthly manifestation could be anything convenient to the person speaking at the moment.

Never fight for buzzwords. Fight for specific, quantified goals.

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

Race mattered in Star Trek. Allowances were made for Worf due to being a Klingon, for example. And it wasn't quite as post-racial as people think, e.g. Riker's reaction when some Ferengi were invited to the Enterprise and he couldn't hide his disgust, even asking for them to be quartered well away from his own dwelling.

Where "social justice", or rather some of the movements that are labelled as such, say that race and gender matter they are just accepting reality as it is. In reality men and women are different, and have slightly different needs in some situations. In reality, some races are disadvantaged in some societies, and trying to ignore that and pretend that we are a perfect meritocracy is not very helpful.

Trek is mostly post-feminist though, at least by TNG times. During the TOS era women couldn't become starship captains for some reason, which today seems ridiculous.

Mixing race and species much ?

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

Voyager was awesome. It's just that uber-nerds like you ruin everything.

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

In reality, some races are disadvantaged in some societies, and trying to ignore that and pretend that we are a perfect meritocracy is not very helpful.

You're conflating two issues here: what we are, and what we should strive to be. Star Trek, and the associated egalitarian ethos, dictate that we should strive to be a meritocracy: to treat everyone the same, regardless of their race or sex. Social Justice Warriors dictate that we should discriminate against one group or another to meet some idealised concept of justice.

On a (relatively) good day, the latter at least attempts to achieve parity of outcome, albeit at the cost of equal treatment: see e.g. discrimination against Asians in the university system. On a bad day, it attempts to exacerbate existing inequalities: see e.g. discrimination against men in the courts.

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

If there's one place where SJW's belong, it's Star Trek.

William Shatner disagrees with you. See

https://www.inverse.com/article/34854-william-shatner-sjw-twitter-star-trek-outrage-controversy

Re: Stinker

[GLMDesigns]

Ok. Then I'll say it.

You know what an SJW is. I know what an SJW is. It is a fully descriptive term. And they and their actions are worth calling out to shame and mock.

I fully endorse the above quote.

Re: Stinker

[GLMDesigns]

Which I had mod points for that.

Two thumbs up.

Re:Stinker

[Mashiki]

Another MRA, looking for any excuse to blame SJWs.

So which ones are currently being played up by the gatekeepers of media, politics, intelligentsia and so on? And have been played up for the better part of a decade now. Right. That's not a "excuse to blame" it's that there's a very heavy push by people living in a bubble trying to push their garbage onto everyone else. It wasn't the right that embraced identity politics, it isn't the right pushing segregation like someone in 1952. It's not MRA's pushing supremacist garbage, and it's not MRA's crying a made-up rape culture. Nor are they the ones crying that men using affirmative action policies will create a climate of fear and rape on campuses either...or ironically enough trying to get it removed.

I'll also point out that it isn't the MRA's standing in Berkeley with ban Free Speech signs either. Though it was social justice warriors, just like their little doxing and harassment bands. Or the numbers of them that have been caught and charged for faking hate crimes.

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

Race mattered in Star Trek.

You're confusing what's going on in the fiction with the message. The GP was talking about the message.

Worf getting allowances is what happens in the fiction. The message of Trek is that his status as a Klingon didn't matter. His belt thing didn't interfere with his work (meritocracy) so he can wear it. He might take some days off to do klingony religious things, but everybody (in both Trek world and much of the western world) can take days off to do personal things.

Riker, and many other characters, has some prejudice in the fiction. The message of Trek however is that such prejudices are often unwarranted, and if you can get over it and give each other a chance (maybe even a second and third chance!), you can actually coexist and might even find ways to cooperate and mutually benefit (remember, Star Trek started during the Cold War, and many of its messages of peace and cooperate is implicitly talking about the US/Russian relations... which is ironic given how it's mostly the left who is drumming up all the distrust and suspicions on Russia)

Where "social justice", or rather some of the movements that are labelled as such, say that race and gender matter they are just accepting reality as it is

Quite the opposite, the "social justice" movement hates reality for what it is.

For example, they hate how in reality most people only recognize two genders, and most of nature too, at least for humans. They want to force reality to change and make everybody recognize and accept and use special pronouns for all 42 different genders.

The last part is really concerning. It's one thing for you to believe in what you want to believe in, but it's another when you want to force your beliefs on other people. It's ironic as that is the same complaint they would have when the religious right wants to force their beliefs onto others.

In reality, some races are disadvantaged in some societies and trying to ignore that and pretend that we are a perfect meritocracy is not very helpful.

Strawman. In reality, almost nobody pretends we are a perfect meritocracy.

As to some races being disadvantaged, that's another thing about reality. In reality, life isn't fair. Not all races have the same advantages. Not all people have the same advantages. Nobody is entitled to have their disadvantages addressed. You could ask for help, but you cannot demand help and force others to help you. Alas, most soc jus thinks it's ok to compel and bully others. You refuse to use the 42 different pronouns that I demand you to use? FASCIST!

Re:Stinker

[drinkypoo]

Even so, the trailer doesn't tell us much beyond what some of the characters will look like. The biggest reason I'm skeptical that it will be worth watching is that it's going to be on CBS, not anything I saw in the trailer. I, for one, do not actually give a damn about the ethnic makeup of the cast and Trek is almost always preachy so as long as it doesn't spend all its time being preachy about the same thing, I'll be fine. On the other hand, I'm not actually going to subscribe to their service to watch it, either. That just doesn't make any sense. I could see waiting for the season to end, then getting it for just one month to watch it. But actually making recurring payments? Snort.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification. I haven't paid that much attention.

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh. Aside from Khan, all the movie villains were terrible. Laughably so. It didn't start with Abrams.

Re:Stinker

[denzacar]

I was never a fan of Jar Jar (Binks one too) but I didn't dawn on me it until all the hype regarding Cloverfield resulted in... warmed up Slusho with a side order of shit.
Which is when I've actually browsed back through things he was involved with, realizing that hype, geeking out, piling shit on top of more shit and inability to make both the story and/or plot work or even connect logically - is his modus operandi.
My guess is that he is really good at convincing people that he has passion about projects he's pitching.
That... and his fans tend to be of the "believer" kind... who don't catch on that the story is either not going anywhere or that it is going towards a pile of stupid cliches. Bad ones.

But it's not until he royally fucked up Star Trek that I've actively started calling him Jar Jar.
Cause he's to SciFi in general what Jar Jar Binks was to Star Wars.
An annoying, overexcited character out of sync with established tropes who manages to keep ruining the genre, directly or indirectly.
The fact that he launched (and keeps supporting) careers of incompetents like Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof makes him worse than Jar Jar.
He should be called Darth Jar Jar Abrams just to get it close to the level of idiocy he's responsible for, directly or indirectly.

Also... whether it's their common trait that brought them together or something one picked up from the other...
Both Jar Jar and Lindelof are passive aggressive assholes who blame audience for being too stupid to expect something other than their lack of vision.
Lindelof manages to passively bitch through entire Prometheus commentary while Jar Jar throws a "Star Wars is not a physics lesson" at anyone complaining about the Noo Death Star and the lack of any logic in how it works when it destroys planets, on his Noo Star Wars commentary.

Sure... it's not a physics lesson. But how about some half competent science fiction writing?
You want explosion of planets to be visible from the planet everyone is on? Put it in the same system. What's the issue with that? It also explains why Leia and the Republican rebels show up out of nowhere.

You want to make insta-kills with Noo Death Star, disregarding the time it would take beam to travel across space WHILE making it a threat to entire galaxy? Portals.
Have a portal-output ship hyperjump next to the planet you want to destroy, shoot the beam into portal-input (ship or portal somewhere on or under the Noo Death Star planet) - and you got the whole galaxy at the barrel of a gun. Which can be concealed anywhere in the galaxy.

There. It's that simple. It doesn't have to be a physics lesson. You can even still use that shot of everything getting dark as the sun is sucked up. Though it is stupid. But hey... heavy handed symbolism sure is cheap.

Re: Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

After Enterprise was dragged through the sewers setting a new low even for scifi .. how bad could it be...

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

Even DS9 and Voyager weren't brilliant from the get-go.

Voyager was brilliant? When?

When they cancelled it. That was brilliant.

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

Race mattered in Star Trek. Allowances were made for Worf due to being a Klingon, for example. And it wasn't quite as post-racial as people think, e.g. Riker's reaction when some Ferengi were invited to the Enterprise and he couldn't hide his disgust, even asking for them to be quartered well away from his own dwelling.

Idiot, that was the point. He was being racist. Hollywood puts that kind of shit in everything so that you can disagree with his actions. How the fuck do you not see this? It's called being heavy handed by most people that aren't blind.
Usually by the end that character is proven to be wrong and does a cheesy Hollywood "Golly gee, you folks ain't as bad as I thought".

Re:Stinker

[elrous0]

The headline copies a confusing mistake from the article headline. "Delaying" should have been "Delayed." Apparently, the headline author not do English so good.

Re:Stinker

[wideBlueSkies]

Indeed - a fantastic episode. If you're a TOS fan, this one is well worth checking out. A few 'holy shit' plot moments too.

Re:Stinker

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

And to pour over the color tables to get the sepia tones just...about...perfect.

Re:Stinker

[Wulf2k]

Remember when Janeway and Paris abandoned their lizard-babies on that planet without a second thought?

I always felt that was something special.

Re: Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

Good to know we're being effective, thanks for the confirmation! Threads like the one you created here really help us to keep going when the times are tough. Stay BTFO and keep crying. If you really want to help cry harder.

Re: Stinker

[sexconker]

Wut?

Who is Nichelle Nichols?
I would complain because ToS is largely trash with awful, hammy overacting by Zapp Brannigan. TNG is far better, even though it's got tons of soap opera episodes. (In general, I am not a fan of Star Trek or Roddenberry.)

I don't even know what Discovery is about. I only heard about it briefly during the SDCC media blitz. I'm merely commenting on the fact that the studio doing this is a clear sign that it's a fucking stinker.

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

So which ones are currently being played up by the gatekeepers of media, politics, intelligentsia and so on? And have been played up for the better part of a decade now.

Fox News is more than a decade old. It certainly got more popular within the last decade, during the Obama years.

Right.

Correct. It is the political right who started the blame game. Blame liberals. Blame the leftist fake news media. Blame Mexicans (oh sorry, illegal immigrants). Blame lack of prayer in the schools.

it's that there's a very heavy push by people living in a bubble trying to push their garbage onto everyone else.

Also a correct statement about the political right.

It wasn't the right that embraced identity politics

Only partially correct. It wasn't ONLY the right that embraced identity politics. The right embraced identity politics as much as any other group. Though the identity groups the right embraces are usually more vague (read: more collectivist and devoid of individualism), like being "white" "American" and "Christian"

it isn't the right pushing segregation like someone in 1952.

No, they're pushing deportation and exclusion like someone in 1882. That is, they want to kick those dirty scary foreigners out for stealing our low paying undesirable jobs, like building railroads or acting as strikebreakers.

Funny enough, the Chinese are involved both then and now. Only difference is the Chinese workers don't need to be physically in the US to be stealing all the low skilled labor jobs.

Re: Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

So now we know there's at least two dudes on here whose parents still pay for everything. I'm not sure what you want us to do with that info.

Re:Stinker

[supremebob]

Yeah... SJW's tend to be the kind of people who are complaining that there weren't enough blacks, women, and transgendered people represented in the new Dunkirk movie.

Umm... it's a military movie based in the 1940's. There weren't many blacks, women, and transgendered people stranded on that beach that needed saving from the Germans.

Re:Stinker

[orgelspieler]

I'm not a "poor kid," but I have described myself, proudly, as an SJW. It's not meta-ironic, it's just a literal acceptance of what the letters stand for. Nobody has ever been able to explain to me why being a warrior for social justice is a bad thing. I think Jesus, MLK, and Mother Teresa would qualify as SJWs. Somehow the phrase has come to be equated with "whiny twat on the Internet that doesn't agree with my racist, homophobic, religion-intolerant worldview." Maybe I'm ignorant of some Internet history on how the abbreviation became a slur.

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

They're also masters of redefining words to the point of uselessness. Like Nazi, for example.

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

It's meant ironically. Actual social justice is, of course, a good thing. But people rushing to judge people based on rumors they heard online that it's likely that no one can or will ever verify, especially if they're he-said/she-said situations that aren't provable are not advancing justice of any kind. The more cynical of us assume that whenever someone starts a media circus with a bunch of anonymous accusers instead of, say, going to court to address whatever was allegedly wrong, that someone is being blackmailed or otherwise sidelined so that others can control the companies they lead.

Re:Stinker

[Bobberly]

You want to make insta-kills with Noo Death Star, disregarding the time it would take beam to travel across space WHILE making it a threat to entire galaxy? Portals.
Have a portal-output ship hyperjump next to the planet you want to destroy, shoot the beam into portal-input (ship or portal somewhere on or under the Noo Death Star planet) - and you got the whole galaxy at the barrel of a gun. Which can be concealed anywhere in the galaxy.

There. It's that simple. It doesn't have to be a physics lesson. You can even still use that shot of everything getting dark as the sun is sucked up. Though it is stupid. But hey... heavy handed symbolism sure is cheap.

Unfortunately there were a few Stargate SG1 episodes that had that same theme with portals. It would probably be seen as copyright infringement to have a plot that similar, well, at least in this country.

Remind me again why two people can't reach the same conclusion if one of them patented/copyrighted/published theirs first? That's right! Royalties! A system designed to exaggerate the effort used to create a work by using more effort to administer the royalty system and enforcement.

Nah, I'm not bitter.

Re:Stinker

[drinkypoo]

Somehow the phrase has come to be equated with "whiny twat on the Internet that doesn't agree with my racist, homophobic, religion-intolerant worldview."

The phrase was coined for that purpose. Compare "White Knight".

Re:Stinker

[Marxist Hacker 42]

In this case too many capitalists- it's a Paramount produced show, CBS owns the original series IP, and Paramount owns the movies. This intellectual property fight has ruined the franchise, hiding behind multiple "alternate universe" story lines with sets, story lines, and costumes designed ONLY to avoid intellectual property issues.

Re:Stinker

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Social commentary in Star Trek, after the Viacom meltdown, is owned by CBS. Paramount *can't* do social commentary story lines.

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice strawman you've got there.

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

Voyager had precisely one brilliant episode in its entire run (The Thaw). Otherwise it was the B-Movie of Star Trek.

Re:Stinker

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Well, I think the gays in the BBC who are trying to turn the next season of Dr. Who into a feminist transgender preach fest might give him a run for his money.

Re:Stinker

[MoarSauce123]

I think they are just making up reasons about quality. The real issue here is that they plan on publishing on a paid online service at a price that might only attract die hard Treckies. They should have put it on their regular channel, but there are likely some who think that they can milk this franchise to the max. I like Star Trek a lot, but not as much as that I would spend extra money on it. Rather wait until it is out on DVD or on Amazon Prime.

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

J.J. is good at pacing and posing interesting questions.
He's shit for actually answering questions or maintaining any kind of internal constancy. (and he keep making the same mistake about how far away planets are from each other)

He gets away with that mainly because by the time he's expected to deliver a satisfying conclusion to his adrenaline packed mystery/cliffhanger-fest the audience has already payed either by buying the ticket or by watching the fest couple seasons of a TV show and the ads therein so he has a good track record for making money which is what the people paying for the production care about.

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

It started as a slur.
The phrase exists to describe people who are the talking about racism on the Internet equivalent of PETA. There's some etymological roots in "eco-warrior" which described groups like greenpease and the people who chine themselves to trees to protest logging, etc, but it alludes to the negative connotations of that term not the positive.

Basilcy the whole "I've always wanted to be arrested for my cause" kind of attention-whoring activists who may or may not care about the issue, are not interested in a practical solution or a compromise, let alone understaing the complexies of why things are the way they are and how that impacts what needs to be done to change them without breaking more than you fix, and would rather photograph someone being oppressed than put down the camera and help. But again, applied to posting on Internet Forums and commenting on Tumblr blogs.

Re:Stinker

[Mandrel]

TV shows struggle to find the balance between character-interaction/development and the situations that the characters find themselves in. Too much of one or the other and the audience shrugs and tunes in to something else. From what little I've heard about this new series it was going to be far too much on characters and not nearly enough on big-picture situations.

Yes, that is a worry. Too much character just turns SF into a soap in space. SF also needs a good dose of tech, science, and sociology. Not fantasy — which is another worry if the main adversary is going to be especially dumb and brutal orc-like Klingons.

Re:Stinker

[denzacar]

a - Dude, it's Disney. You don't outlawyer the House of the Mouse.

b - Portals and various teleportation gates are older than dirt.
It's a generic concept of a magical doorway into another world. And you can't copyright that.
There's a reason Disney slapped a TM on EVERYTHING Star Wars once they bought it. Cause all the shit in Star Wars is generic.
Only thing they CAN do is slap a name on "Generic Storm Trooper" and add a TM to it.
You can still make your own "Generic Storm Trooper" - just not one which is called and looks like exactly like the one trademarked by Disney.

c - Trope of portals to another world is literally from pre-burial times.
Pick up When They Severed Earth from Sky when you find the time.
But not before you go through The Hero with a Thousand Faces if you haven't already and are planning to.
Cause while there are SOME useful things in Campbell's work, his basic premises are Jungian bullshit.
Thus, it sounds like ramblings of a loon after going through work which explains actual historical purpose of myths.

Re:Stinker

[denzacar]

Naah... That's not it. If you think that LGBTQ is a new thing to Dr. Who universe, you haven't been paying attention.
It's the other thing.

Money.

There's more Dr. Who than all the Star Trek combined.
I'm not sure if anyone knows how much of it is actually out there - with all the books, comics, audio books, lost episodes and whatnot.
Except, they've "wasted" 8 iterations of the character on a tiny UK market and modern market doesn't allow for Tom Baker-like actor tenures.

On top of it all, the canon of the show is that everything is canon.
Which on the one hand allows for !!!EVERYTHING IS AWESOME!!! every episode and every season - but on the other continuity is a mess and yesterday's fan fiction may accidentally become tomorrow's season finale.
And like I said, they've wasted half the IP long ago. So everything is OLD. Like black and white old.

A female Doctor allows them to have their IP cake and eat it too.
Females can get pregnant.
I.e. They can literally retire EVERYTHING and EVERYONE aaaaand then reboot it for however many iterations of new Doctors they want.
You want Gallifrey again? Pop some Doctor babies into a TARDIS and out comes a whole planet of their descendants. I.e. I'm my own Adam and Eve.
It's a dynamic multiverse timeline with VERY loose rules and all inclusive canon. Any shit flies.

Re: Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

It is, of course, wrong. Words are tools, tools for the expression of ideals, and they are quite powerful.

They can start the movement of armies, the destruction of cities, and the obliteration of worlds.

Re:Stinker

[rtb61]

Don't think whiny twat on the internet, they are completely acceptable, expressing their own opinion and striving for justice. Think narcissist with main stream media backing, you can tell the difference quite readily, one is about the cause and the other is about them and their championing their cause and their cause takes second place to them. So the abusers of SJW who took it over with main stream media backing in order to break up workers = left to the point where everyday workers are now deplorables according to the new left, that apparently cares not one iota about universal health care, a living wage for all, equal access to democracy for all (not just the SJWs) and equal access to democracy for all (not just the SJWs). The chief purpose now seems to be clambering all over the left to make the left look bad, to make it look selfish and narcissistic, to empty it of those deplorables (typical everyday workers of what ever the fuck race, colour, creed, religion or sex). Just the latest in a decades long media scam of dividing the workers = left to make them more exploitable by the bosses = right. What the fuck have SJWs been doing for decades when those common causes were purposefully abandoned. They were being sucked in by the pseudo celebrity SJWs to abandon core issues to chase empty flights of fantasy. Who uses what toilet, killing babies the right way versus the wrong way (abortion bad starving them to death with austerity good), hacking you genitals gives you special rights, endless race divisiveness (with racist SJWs leading the way), endless religious divisiveness(with prejudiced SJWs leading the way). Talk about real core issues and main stream works overtime to make you invisible, your not left, your the fake left, only the fake left supports those core issues that affect every worker.

Re: Stinker

[GLMDesigns]

Nah. Sorry. I'm a parent. My parents are gone.

So thinking that SJW are ridiculous indicates to you that I'm living in my parents basement?

I think defending rioting over Milo and screaming at people in studying in libraries for not joining their protest as an indication of supporters of SJW (like YOU) are still living in their parents basement.

Re: Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Choices and action can do those things.

Re:Stinker

[SandWyrm]

Akiva Goldsman (the worst writer/producer in hollywood) is the executive producer. That's all you need to know right there.

Well apart from that he's producing "The Dark Tower" too. Stay far away.

Re:Stinker

[Anonymous Coward]

Or when Janeway decides to go back after Chakotay's love child with Seska, which she knows almost certainly is yet another manipulation and a trap? Fine decision making from one handsome woman.

It needs to be on showtime as well. in Canada it's

[Joe_Dragon]

It needs to be on showtime as well. in Canada it's planed to be on basic cable.

Do they need make the 1st show kick ass with a big next week on Star Trek: Discovery to sell CBS All Access ???

Headline

[Thad Boyd]

I know the headline is Fox News's and not yours, but it really should be "delayed", past tense, not "delaying". The article is talking about the delays the show has already experienced, not a new delay. The show is still scheduled to premier on September 24, as the closing graf makes clear.

Re:Headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Came here to say same.

Re:Headline

[Noishkel]

Exactly. And at the very moment of me writing this the Wikipidia page still lists the release date as September 24th. Kind of begs the question. Do they mean 9 months from this new date in September or do they mean months from January. Because the article mentions a 'targeted January debut'.

At this point I don't know if anyone has any idea what's going on with this project. For all I know this turd burger could end up being so messed up that it's stuck in development hell until CBS just gives up on it.

Re:Headline

[uvajed_ekil]

Thank you. When I read the summary I thought, "Another delay?" This is old news, basically. Bad title, bad summary that isn't a summary but is instead an excerpt missing context. TFA mentions that the first episode will air next month, while the summary makes it sound as though we'll have to wait longer. Naturally I wanted to blame FOX news because they are the source for this non-news, but their write-up is fine.

Don't expect intelligent discussion here

[Anonymous Coward]

Criticism of Star Trek Discovery on this site is limited to whining that the cast isn't 100% white males. Nobody is actually interested in critiquing the show, only complaining about the casting decisions. Discovery will fail because the audience isn't ready to accept that people other than white males can serve in important roles and will do so in the future. Sadly the audience isn't ready for this show, and that will result in low ratings.

Re:Don't expect intelligent discussion here

[cunina]

Please link to one single comment, from anyone, whining that the new Star Trek isn't 100% white men. Just one.

Re:Don't expect intelligent discussion here

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey now, don't point out his bullshit is spurious. Facts are a hate crime now days. Smile and pretend no non-white or non-male or *gasp* not-white not-male has EVER lead a movie or tv show. Your childhood shows are a lie, embrace the new facts: everyone is but me is a sexist racist bigot, and here is why

Re:Don't expect intelligent discussion here

[DontBeAMoran]

A white klingon would look weird, but a green andorian would look completely alien.

Re:Don't expect intelligent discussion here

[Evil Kerek]

Well you certainly are trying to prove it. Do you think your post has anything but trolling?

The push for diversity, as Marvel has found, can't come at the expense of your target audience. I would also counter than ST:TNG, Voyager & Deep Space Nine had no diversity problem at all - I wasn't a fan of Voyager but I loved ST:TNG & Deep Space Nine. You can bow to the pressure of these fringe groups, but they are NOT the ones that are going to watch the shows. Look at GhostBusters. They got exactly what they asked for (plus a shitty script) and...those very people failed to support it. That's pretty much been the story. Look at Black Panther & The Crew. Quickly cancelled because...no one was interested. No one reads comics for that sort of political crap. I can watch the news if I want that garbage.

The bottom line: It's about the money. If comics/movies about [pick your favorite PC flavor of the month] made them money, I PROMISE you they'd be all over it. If they come on with a solid stories and good acting, ST:D (HAHAHAHHAHA) will do fine. I simply have no faith the scripts will also not be a bunch of political PC BS.

The other death knell is hijacking it to their streaming service. I don't plan to watch it regardless of where it broadcasts but I certainly am not going to sub to CBS to see it.

Re:Don't expect intelligent discussion here

[Anonymous Coward]

Please link to one single comment, from anyone, whining that the new Star Trek isn't 100% white men. Just one.

Ah, but you forget, the remark was that "Criticism of Star Trek Discovery on this site is limited to whining that the cast isn't 100% white males." therefore to disprove it, you must link to one single comment, from anyone, whining over anything else. Just one.

Re:Don't expect intelligent discussion here

[Rockoon]

The push for diversity, as Marvel has found, can't come at the expense of your target audience.

Marvel found that "pushing for diversity" isnt a good business model, that those loud people that think something is wrong unless every single box is checked... are a minority.

Re: Don't expect intelligent discussion here

[Anonymous Coward]

No one reads comics for that sort of political crap.

Yeah, I just want to see Captain America punch a Nazi, something serious like the plight of mutants, the difficulty of regulating safe use of super-powers, or even making a deal with the devil, I don't want any of that.

And I sure don't want to look at what it is like to experience the burden of fighting a struggle for what's right,and getting nowhere.

Re:Don't expect intelligent discussion here

[91degrees]

Hey, I want to be outraged! Don't bring your facts into this!

Re:Don't expect intelligent discussion here

[Anonymous Coward]

the new Spiderman begs to differ, black MJ, black Flash, Hispanic best buddy for Peter Parker, they went out their way to accommodate the SJW's out there.

Re:Don't expect intelligent discussion here

[DreadPiratePizz]

Well, one of the biggest selling franchises has an ensemble cast composed almost entirely of minorities. That's actually one of the reasons The Fast and The Furious movies do so well.

Re:Don't expect intelligent discussion here

[AmiMoJo]

I did a post comparing the number of white male to non-white or non-male characters in Discovery a while back. Can't find the link now but basically it's 50% of the cast is white male.

TOS was over 70% white male. TNG was more balanced, about 50% depending on who you count as being part of the main cast.

Picard - white male
Riker - white male
Troi - white female
Crusher, B. - white female
Crusher, W. - white male
LeForge - black male
Worf - black male
Data - white male

So really Discovery is not at all radical or unusual for Trek, in fact it's the same as it was back in 1987, 30 years ago. I'm not saying that's bad or anything, just pointing out that Discovery isn't some "PC bullshit" or whatever, unless you also consider other Trek series to be the same in which case maybe Trek isn't the franchise for you.

Re:Don't expect intelligent discussion here

[Anonymous Coward]

I could have fucking told them that and saved them millions. It is painfully obvious, never confuse volume for quantity.

Re:Don't expect intelligent discussion here

[Anonymous Coward]

Bold emphasis mine

I simply have no faith the scripts will also not be a bunch of political PC BS

I did a post comparing the number of white male to non-white or non-male characters

He was talking about the script. You brought up counting characters by their superficial appearances

I really wonder who's the racist/sexist/bigot here?

Re:Don't expect intelligent discussion here

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, one of the biggest selling franchises has an ensemble cast composed almost entirely of minorities.

Interesting. What makes a car a "minority" car?

(read: I'm saying the "cast" of a car-fu action movie is the cars as much as it is the people)

Re:Don't expect intelligent discussion here

[Voyager529]

I don't think the issue is the diversity in itself, for the very reasons you specify. Roddenberry had Uhura as a bridge officer, and she was treated as the part of the senior staff she was, well respected by her fellow officers. Chekhov might have been a white male, but having a Russian pilot the ship in the 60's was still a bold statement since everyone was scared of the Russians at the time. Right behind that was having a Japanese man in charge of tactical with WWII, Pearl Harbor, and internment camps all having been in living memory at the time. The fact that these people having roles were treated as non-issues was arguably the boldest statement he made. The interracial kiss was one episode, the "white on the left side" situation was one episode, but the respect shown by Kirk to people who were arguably unemployable in the time period they were shown as senior officers was illustrated throughout the series.

I'm holding out to see what they do, because it can go one of two ways. In Doctor Who, Martha was an excellent companion - well written, strong, caring, independent, and incidentally a black female. They went through several seasons where neither her race nor sex were a point of contention. She just galavanted around the universe with The Doctor, taking down Daleks and Cybermen, and overall being awesome while being treated as an equal by the Doctor and most of the people he interacted with. Vastra and Jenny, same deal - lesbian married couple, dealt with in an effective manner, but a great example of being 'characters first' since every episode with them is great. Bill, by contrast, had some highly memorable scenes (I indeed got misty eyed when she said "I waited for you"), but they spared few opportunities for her to point out that she was black and/or lesbian and that people in the past might have an issue with that, and how terrible it was that hundreds of years ago, this was a problem.

If the characters are written closer to TOS, or with the mindset of how Martha was written, then I don't think it will be that big of a deal. If Discovery has its characters and stories focused on how a lack of perfect diversity in every possible arena makes one worse than a puppy killer, I think its appeal will be more limited.

Re:Don't expect intelligent discussion here

[Anonymous Coward]

The key is to have a diverse case, but not make the thing ABOUT the diversity. Yes, you can nod to issues faced by the various factions, but you need to make sure that you are telling a story about people, not peoples.

Re:Don't expect intelligent discussion here

[Anonymous Coward]

>Look at Ghostbusters.

Alright - $230M revenue against budget $145M. Try again.

Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a bad show problem.

Re: Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I think all Star Trek fans are pedophiles and that's the problem

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[freeze128]

The original Star Trek only ran for 3 seasons, but created a *HUGE* following, and led to several movies, a few of which were actually good. TNG was a reboot and it lasted for 7 seasons, and also had a HUGE following. It followed the same formula, and it did great!

Deep Space Nine - Star Trek on a space station. When the commander points his finger and says "Engage", nothing happens. That's why halfway through it's run, they brought in the Defiant.

Voyager - Gilligan's Island in space. I didn't care that the Captain was a woman, but apparently the rest of the demographic did. Halfway though it's run, they dropped Kes and got Seven of Nine for eye candy.

Enterprise - Star Trek with the guy from Quantum Leap. They deal with species that we never see in any of the other shows, and are missing the species that we WANT to see. Only lasted about 4 years.

There is only one formula that works. That's what the viewers want to see. CBS is *NOT* going to do that, so Discovery will suck.

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[drinkypoo]

The original Star Trek only ran for 3 seasons, but created a *HUGE* following, and led to several movies, a few of which were actually good.

The original Trek had an amazing cast, presented a new view of the future, and pushed the boundaries of television at the time.

TNG was a reboot and it lasted for 7 seasons, and also had a HUGE following. It followed the same formula, and it did great!

TNG had an amazing cast, amazing writers, and generally high production values.

Deep Space Nine - Star Trek on a space station. When the commander points his finger and says "Engage", nothing happens. That's why halfway through it's run, they brought in the Defiant.

All true, but DS9 was still a well-loved show. That's why its run was long enough to have a halfway worthy of the name.

Voyager - Gilligan's Island in space. I didn't care that the Captain was a woman, but apparently the rest of the demographic did. Halfway though it's run, they dropped Kes and got Seven of Nine for eye candy.

Seven of Nine was not only better eye candy than Kes (although she had her own substantial following of fanboys) but also a stronger and more interesting character in every way, not merely mammarian.

Enterprise - Star Trek with the guy from Quantum Leap. They deal with species that we never see in any of the other shows, and are missing the species that we WANT to see. Only lasted about 4 years.

They should have spent more time with the Andorians. If they were going to do their stupid time travel thing they should have either made it last a lot longer and spent a lot less time with it, or wrapped it up a year earlier. But who didn't love the Andorians?

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[rtb61]

A 9 month delay on a TV series mean scrapping a lot of stuff. At a guess Days of our Lives in space, day time soap opera for broad, more accurately female appeal, bombed really badly with test audiences, day time soap opera viewers hated it and sci fi aficionados absolutely loathed it. SJWs loved what was in it but hated to watch it and believed they could force other people to watch it, it's their self serving nature. It seems to be all they can produce now, the last series of Dr Who was crap, just went stupid, dropped sci fi to go day time soap opera, stopped watching half way through the season, likely the same crap done to Discovery. This weird attempt to normalise their disturbed personal behaviour and force it on the rest of us, genital mutilation and arbitrary sexual relations, the narcissists must be served, the entirety of society must be warped to make fit their personal insanities, normalise the abnormal and call the normal, what was it again, oh yeah deplorables, white male privilege deplorables.

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[elrous0]

DS9 was the best Trek show ever. It was the only one where the characters acted like anything remotely resembling real people.

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Rockoon]

The original Star Trek only ran for 3 seasons, but created a *HUGE* following, and led to several movies, a few of which were actually good. TNG was a reboot and it lasted for 7 seasons, and also had a HUGE following. It followed the same formula, and it did great!

A season when TOS was made was 26 episodes with a new season every year. A "modern" season is 13 episodes with a new season every year and a half.

Re: Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Inverse rating indicates truth

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Antique Geekmeister]

> day time soap opera for broad, more accurately female appeal,

May I congratulate you on the number of levels in that comment? It caught my eye.

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Anonymous Coward]

DS9 was my favourite of the trek shows.

It didn't start out that way though. I initially thought it would bomb horribly, and it did start slow..... but then suddenly years had passed and I couldn't imagine the trek universe without Sisko, Kira, Jadzia, Odo, Julian, etc.

Re: Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The original Trek had an amazing cast, presented a new view of the future, and pushed the boundaries of television at the time.

But even then, there were stinkers of episodes, and moments that seem quite perplexing. Not to mention numerous egregious depictions that are rather over the top, like the population episode.

TNG had an amazing cast, amazing writers, and generally high production values.

Well, maybe. I will grant some of the cast was good, but that first and second season had severe writing problems. A lot of the writers jumped ship, and they were the better ones. And Denise Crosby was right to leave, they really had nothing for her, until well, they killed her off.

I'll skip Ds9, Voy, but note the lack of Animated Series mention. Hmm.

But who didn't love the Andorians?

Vulcans, Tellarites, Romulans, Klingons, Orions, Betazoids, Cardassians, the Borg, Ferengi, Breen, and the French.

Re: Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on how you define "modern" as while there are shows like Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad that run short (even under 13 episodes), there are others such as Agents of SHIELD or Gotham that run up to 22.

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[93 Escort Wagon]

I love DS9. The characters have depth, and the writers didn't treat each one as if they existed in a vacuum. They might have focused more on a particular individual for a specific episode, but the rest of the characters would still be believably intertwined in the story.

Also, it had well-written and well-acted antagonists - that tends to make a show stronger (just like how the best Bond movies always had strong villains). Gul Dukat was complicated, conflicted, and amazing. Weyoun wasn't quite as deep, but Jeffrey Combs sold it (he also may have been the best thing about Enterprise). The Founders were evil and awful, but as you learned more you could see how they were driven down that path.

I also really liked the way they wrote Benjamin and Jake Cisco. They weren't just father and son for the sake of the occasional plot line - they had a relationship which felt real (something TNG couldn't manage with Worf and Alexander).

It seems like the main complaint I hear about DS9 is that some people just don't like long story arcs... but I'm not one of those people.

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Shorter sentences, and break them into multiple paragraphs.

Insert "never-ending sentence" joke here.

It hurt to read that.

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Deep Space Nine - Star Trek on a space station. When the commander points his finger and says "Engage", nothing happens. That's why halfway through it's run, they brought in the Defiant.

I'm not sure about that. The very best episodes such as "In the Pale Moonlight" of Deep Space Nine didn't have starship battles at all. In fact, I can't think of any episode of DS9 that focused heavily on the Defiant and some stupid space battle.

What I liked best about DS9 (and what I suspect people who disliked DS9 hated) was the politics and intrigue. Garak (the Obsidian Order spy) and Quark (the underhanded wheeler-dealer) were two of the most interesting characters on the show. It helped that the show had good writing (especially after Season 3) and good actors.

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Noishkel]

I've been trying to be positive and be somewhat opened minded about Discovery. But at the end of the day I just can't give a damn about another prequel as is. But I also just don't care about this period of the Federations history. And while I'm not upset at the idea of some re-imagining of how species look I have to say the new look for the Klingon's is just terrible. It makes me think so much of the really bad Wing Commander movie and how the Kilrathi looked nothing like how they did in the games.

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Anonymous Coward]

TNG was not a reboot; it was a sequel.

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[CaptnCrud]

They didn't drop Kes, she left the show and came back for one or two episodes.

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Rockoon]

DS9 got good when it stopped being a show peddling simplistic morality.

In a way some might argue that this new show is starting off on that same foot given the SJW involvement. After all, simplistic morality is what the SJW's claim to represent (they dont know that what they think is simplistic.)

Consider the phrase "it goes without saying"

The SJW's feel the need to say the things that go without saying, constantly. Every waking moment is dedicated to projecting those things that go without saying.

If someone walked around saying "you can trust me" all the time, are they trustworthy?
If someone projects that they arent racists, sexists, or homophobes all the time, are they really?

Its the same thing. A false front.

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Anonymous Coward]

something TNG couldn't manage with Worf and Alexander

Worf saying "I am having problems with Alexander" is a straight-up disqualifying line for my willingness to watch an episode of TNG. I couldn't stand the little feeb.

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Anonymous Coward]

something TNG couldn't manage with Worf and Alexander

The large take away I got from Worf and Alexander is that Worf viewed things like his responsibility as a father as a duty. In that, he viewed Alexander as an obligation and frequently would push the kid off on other people in part because he didn't feel like he could fulfill that duty and in part because he was rejecting that duty--he felt it conflicted with the notion of a lone warrior.

Or put simply, Worf was a great office, a great warrior, and a great husband. But he was a horrible father.

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Voyager - Gilligan's Island in space. I didn't care that the Captain was a woman, but apparently the rest of the demographic did.

I had no problem with a female Captain. My main problems with Voyager stem from horribly twisting of the Prime Directive that strands Voyager, a planet where it magically can no longer rain, accidentally "breaking through" a singularity and not noticing, etc. In later episodes, it got better but often in ways that constantly made you aware of just how bad the beginning was.

Halfway though it's run, they dropped Kes and got Seven of Nine for eye candy.

True. And except for a fleeting aspect of Dark Frontier it's never explained how Voyager survived in the Delta Quadrant, which is why the whole show was one large butcher of a thing from Season 5 on. Add to this we have not just technobabble but now "Seven of Nine's nanoprobes" to solve every problem, except when they magically can't. Honestly, the real issue is how it shows the man behind the curtain: Star Trek technology is so advanced that most problems would be immediately solvable with a replicator or a transporter.

In any case, I think what Voyager got so wrong is taking some of the worst of Star Trek TNG and magnifying without realizing where and when it could actually work. So we get a scientist as Captain who never really grows beyond that to fulfill what's needed. *shrug* That's probably the biggest flaw of all: Gilligan's Island in space is correct because Voyager was so two dimensional (except for a few characters (the Doctor who grows to be a person and Seven who almost grows to be a person)).

Re: Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of the bad TOS episodes were in the third season. Sure, the first two seasons of TOS had a few subpar episodes, but for the most part were quite good. The population episode you're mentioning was The Mark of Gideon, which was in the third season. In the third season, I really liked The Enterprise Incident, which was a quite entertaining episode about deceiving the Romulans in order to steal a cloaking device. I also enjoyed All Our Yesterdays, which was the second to last episode. There are a few other solid episodes like The Tholian Web, but overall it was pretty lousy.

Pretty much all of the great episodes like Balance of Terror, Space Seed, The Devil in the Dark, The City on the Edge of Forever, Amok Time, Mirror, Mirror, The Doomsday Machine, and The Trouble With Tribbles, were during the first two seasons of TOS. The first two TOS seasons are as good as any two seasons of any show in the Star Trek franchise.

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[91degrees]

22-26 episode seasons seems to be an aspect of the US production model though. And while it works fine for episodic shows, when there's a degree of continuing storyline, they tend to drag a little during the mid-season. I prefer it when they have shorter seasons and a more compact story. If they can give us more variety, I'm happy with that too.

Re: Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of the bad TOS episodes were in the third season. Sure, the first two seasons of TOS had a few subpar episodes, but for the most part were quite good. The population episode you're mentioning was The Mark of Gideon, which was in the third season.

I didn't say it was bad. I said the depictions in it were over the top.

I'd have to look through more episodes to get some sense of the others, though in the case of the episodes you mentioned, Space Seed had me a bit perturbed by the reaction of the historian to meeting the tyrant, Amok Time kind of bothered me with how it depicted Vulcans, and the Doomsday Machine was really impractical, and even that business with the planet that was fighting a war with computers.

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Deep Space Nine - Star Trek on a space station. When the commander points his finger and says "Engage", nothing happens. That's why halfway through it's run, they brought in the Defiant.

All true, but DS9 was still a well-loved show. That's why its run was long enough to have a halfway worthy of the name.

DS9 was once my least favorite of the StarTrek shows. But with each an every new production my love for it grows.

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Anonymous Coward]

In your opinion ...
In mine, it's was an abomination.
The acting of the first season was abysmal but improved from season 2.
There were less than 10 good episodes on the 7 seasons runs (one of my favorites was the one where O'Brien seems to be fighting against a system-wide conspiracy).
The whole serie was about faith and religion.

As for the best Trek show, in my opinion, would be either TNG or OS. I would go TNG as I prefer Picard to Kirk but a lot of the stories from TNG are variations of the ones from OS. Also, I find TNG is more insightful than OS in its delivery).

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[DarthVain]

You liked Jake Cisco? All of you other points are now invalid.

Nog at least had some interesting roles to play. The whole Prophets story arc was painful. They did have some good character development, probably because they had to given the space station environment. Anyway I didn't hate DS9, but there were a lot of episodes I could pass on, namely anything to do with the Prophets or that had Jake as the central character.

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, there was a Wing Commander movie?!?

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Anonymous Coward]

No one cared that Janeway was female. They cared that she was psychotic. See SFDebris for more explanation.

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I liked the long story arcs. It was starting to be tried out on TV and I think B5 started the trend. I think DS9 is the height of Star Trek and everything since then has been downhill. And I liked the Prophets arc.

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[hsthompson69]

I think you hit the nail on the head - the whole DS9 series was about faith and religion.

That's both the reason why it alienated a bunch of strictly secular trekkies, and why it was so much more interesting and deep that any of the other ST franchises.

Now, to be clear, I'm a full-on god-does-not-exist atheist, but understanding that a vast majority (sadly) of humanity does believe in supernatural dogma, means that when you exclude faith and religion, you lose a great part of the human story.

TNG had a better actor, OS had a better captain :)

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[barc0001]

> There is only one formula that works.

Oh I must protest. TOS and TNG followed the same basic formula and were great and I love both of them, but DS9 is my favorite series over and above that, and it's not because of the Defiant. It's because of the scope and what happened when the rubber of Federation ideals hit the road of a hostile frontier that pushed back hard. TNG was great but if I had one criticism of it, it would be that idealism pretty much always won out, with a few scattered exceptions. DS9 showed how under true pressure how fragile that idealism really was, especially the latter seasons, and that made for more realistic storytelling IMO. It also made it that when idealism did win, it seemed to mean more.

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, great show. Like the episode where security officer pursues awkward romance with co-worker. Or the episode where the senior staff plays a game of baseball. Oh and don't forget the episode where the trill-person talks, unprompted, about what it is like to be a trill-person (wait, that is all of them).

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Anonymous Coward]

This reads like the preamble to a manifesto explaining _why_ you had to bomb that yoga studio.

Just some advice, might be the way you think, commas by themselves don't provide structure, have to work on subjects and predicates, doesn't really make much sense otherwise, sort of difficult to read, losing your prior thoughts in the noise, but a twisted rant you plopped out all the same.

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Anonymous Coward]

IMO it is extremely unfair to call 7 of 9 "eye candy"

Yes the "implant" jokes write themselves, but there is a lot of depth to her character and as a role model for girls she's a solid example of a woman with advanced techical skills, no need for a romance to define her but also no fear of experimenting with them, and no implication that you can't be both smart and conventionally pretty. Her story ark also explores the balance between individualism and conformity.

Claiming that any of that is invalid "because boobs" IMO juts proves that she is yet another example of Star Trek's ahead of it's time casting as we're apparently still working on the idea that being pretty and being competent are not mutually exclusive in females.

Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Every series had it's own model really.

TOS was Horatio Hornblower in space mixed with "write about a planet that lets us use a set the studio has lying around".
TNG was primarily about how working towards a better future requires letting go of past injustice.
DS9 was about how just because everyone agreed to let go of the past and build a better future together that one time doesn't men everything is fixed.
Voyager was about family, and how your ideals are meaningless if you only hold to them when it's convenient.
Enterprise was a coming of age story for humanity.
JJ trek was an "and then ninjas appeared. Why? Who cares, NINJAS!" action movie.

Re: Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I would assume that Rockoon is merely acting like a paranoid loon if not for the encounters I've had with people like him in real life.

Pushed back to when? October?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is anybody even going to care about it at this point?

Maybe it is just me, but if I needed a Star Trek fix anymore, I would just hop on Star Trek Online, which coincidentally has added a TOS era worldmap so you can spend all your time roleplaying as a classic trek officer in a classic trek universe.

doomed

[desdinova 216]

even if it is released I don't see it doing well. There's only so much money available to be spent on streaming services, and Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu.

Re:doomed

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Exactly. The notion that we're all going to subscribe to tens of monthly streaming services at 12$ or so a pop (particularly just to watch a single exclusive series) is ludicrous. CBS was counting on this series to be their flagship for why you should subscribe to their service. The fact that the showrunner is now gone tells you that a) he quit because there was too much interference, or b) they fired him, thus proving there's too much interference.

Re:doomed

[Anonymous Coward]

It'll be pirated as much as Game of Thrones, I'd bet.

Re:doomed

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way I'd subscribe is if Douglas Rain voiced the computer.

Re:doomed

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if it end up being just as good, which I guess won't be the case.

So no.

Bigot moderators

[Anonymous Coward]

The bigot moderators are modding down anyone who is defending the casting of Discovery. It's a shame that so many people have decided the show will be awful without seeing a single episode of it. And it's all because the casting wasn't full of straight white men. This is shameful and your intolerance is apparent in your censorship of any point of view that disagrees with the racism and misogyny that are rampant on this site. Bigots aren't a protected class, and it's time to blacklist you bigots from having jobs or participating in society.

Re:Bigot moderators

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know who has been cast in the show. I believe the captain is a woman, and that's about all I know about it. I expect it to suck, but not because of a lack of straight white men. I think CBS has failed to understand what Star Trek really is and why it was successful in the past. They want to make it into another show that they do understand, and in attempting that transformation, they continue to fail.

Enterprise sucked for much of its run for a variety of reasons, and why in the world was the last episode embedded within a framework where it pretended to be a TNG episode? Because they wanted to transform it into a show that they understood and that didn't suck. It was a terrible idea, and Rick Berman actually apologized for it afterward.

That's just one example of the kind of blunders they make when they're trying to make Star Trek these days. It's crap like that that makes me believe this new show will suck. But I'll give it a chance to prove me wrong.

Kurtzman and Goldsman ARE serious fucking problems

[denzacar]

Whatever either Alex Kurtzman or Akiva Goldsman touch - it turns to shit.

Though, granted, they did find a worse combination than joining Kurtzman with Orci, Jar Jar and Lindelof, as usual.
I'm guessing that adding that "From the writer of "I Am Legend", "The Da Vinci Code", "Angels and Demons", "I, Robot", "Lost in Space", "Batman & Robin" and "Transformers: The Last Knight"" credit clinched it.

But hey! At least they've gotten rid of the guy who worked on DS9 and Voyager!
That'll make the Noo Trek so much better!

JJ ruined Star Trek

[Anonymous Coward]

No way this is going to be as good as Enterprise.

Re:Stinker -- because of SJW's

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a surprise to absolutely no one. The SJW's who were never interested in Star Trek (or science fiction, for that matter) screeched their way on board, and they've created a steaming pile of sh*t.

9 months isn't going to help. This is already dead. Move along. There will be no new Star Trek series worth watching.

Too much change...

[Zurkeyon3733]

From what I saw, they are trying to change too much. We typically don't appreciate "Re-imaginings" of such an established universe... Klingons should look like Klingons. Seems like they are trying to sell it to a new generation too much, and ignoring the existing fan base, which is IMMENSE. This is probably going to backfire.

Re:Too much change...

[rerogo]

But what do Klingons look like, anyway? There are already several good answers.

Re:Too much change...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, to appeal to the millennials I guess Klingons will sport stylish beards and hair, and generally have a more hipster overall appearance.

Re: Too much change...

[Anonymous Coward]

We typically don't appreciate "Re-imaginings" of such an established universe... Klingons should look like Klingons.

That's your go-to example? Just fucking stick a disrupter in your face and kiss your ass goodbye.

You might as well be complaining that Jon Stewart replaced Hal Jordan as Green Lantern, or that Magneto was a child during WW2

Re:Too much change...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, to appeal to the millennials I guess Klingons will sport stylish beards and hair, and generally have a more hipster overall appearance.

They will all sport iphones and communicate using whatsapp

Re:Too much change...

[AHuxley]

New uniform colors and different sets so more people will find the show accessible?

Re: Too much change...

[Anonymous Coward]

The existing fan base is an embarassment to the production, hence the reboot which brought in a wider, cooler audience. Nobody in show business wants to be associated with weirdos and outcasts.

Re:Too much change...

[Zurkeyon3733]

Completely different appearances for WELL ESTABLISHED character types and alien races = BAD

Re: Too much change...

[Zurkeyon3733]

Your pretty much 100% attacking post, means you suck at debate... I Repeat Completely Altering the Appearance of WELL ESTABLISHED alien races and character types is dumb... It will likely backfire. WARRIOR Klingons don't look like feminized cowards. But the new ones sure do...

Re:Too much change...

[AmiMoJo]

It's hardly new for Trek - TNG re-imagined a lot of stuff, including the look for the Klingons. In any case, in the established universe (which this is part of, it's not a reboot) the Klingons did look different back then. There were the augmented Klingons and various other groups with different appearances.

Re:Too much change...

[cmdr_klarg]

It's hardly new for Trek - TNG re-imagined a lot of stuff, including the look for the Klingons. In any case, in the established universe (which this is part of, it's not a reboot) the Klingons did look different back then. There were the augmented Klingons and various other groups with different appearances.

Actually, the 're-imagined' Klingons first appeared in the first TOS movie.

Re: Too much change...

[Anonymous Coward]

The all caps "WELL ESTABLISHED" makes me think you've got a few screws loose, but I looked at three versions of Klingons (are there only three) and TOS ones look the most feminine to me, but we may have different definitions of that word, because I don't see it as the insult you do. Female is not the same as coward in my book.

With luck...

[Anonymous Coward]

they will delay it into a sequel. Fuck prequels.

Best way to Maintain Quality of this dud

[sproketboy]

is just to not release it.

Browsing at -1

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh they browse at -1 too. They just like to pretend they don't, but otherwise they wouldn't be able to hunt for things to become outraged about, and take some helpless little frustrated action like "downvote", which does absolutely nothing.But it *feeeeeels* like something. Which is exactly what armchair activism is all about.

They might as well just highlight the post and say "+10000 This Basically Raped Me".

Re:Browsing at -1

[Anonymous Coward]

> Oh they browse at -1 too

Nobody said "they" don't. But you do seem to be highly invested in being offended by "them." Ironic, given that your complaint is basically that 'they' are aggressively thin-skinned. Its almost like vox.com.day's manifesto was really about his own tribe.

Re:Browsing at -1

[Anonymous Coward]

Sending you a spiritual +1, because I haven't had a worthwhile reason to create an account here in over 10 years.

Re:Browsing at -1

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet you keep coming here.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

To Boldly Go

[Anonymous Coward]

Star Trek

Quality

Pick one.

/.stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad almost fake news,

It's a right up on why it didn't air in January 2017 but will air on 2017.09.24.

I can't believe this made it here.

Lol.

Pretty sad when

[drewsup]

the fan made series are better than glossy network produced shows. The latest episode of Continues was spot on with a plot that left Kirk between a rock and hard place holding to the prime directive, or saving an entire race of people, well worth the free. (as in beer), viewing.
https://player.vimeo.com/video...
This labor of love is by far the best spin on the ST universe.

After first episode it goes behind the CBS Stream

[Anonymous Coward]

It will FAIL big time in the USA due to nobody in large numbers is going to sign up for the CBS ALL ACCESS Stream just for Trek. It has almost nothing else in it worth watching either. DOOMED it is.

Still coming out in September.

[91degrees]

Is this news about the fact that it was delayed until September? Surely we knew about this back in January.

Terrible article - no additional delay in reality

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

The article is awful but if you trudge through it, they are talking about the previously announced delay that got made known some months ago. There is no additional delay at all. The show will still debut in late September as scheduled. My understanding is that there will be a split season with something like 7 or so episodes shown this year, a gap of some months as they do special effects and such on the remaining episodes, and then sometime in 2018 they will show the final episodes of the season.

What CBS should have done..

[Anonymous Coward]

Hired the Star Trek Continues people. They really showed talent for a fan made TOS production. Those people KNOW Star Trek.

But...

[MitchDev]

Why do they keep calling it "Star Trek returns to TV" when it's an internet streaming show, rather than on the actual broadcast network?

Attracting a new crowd?

[maxrate]

From all the comments here, seems like I'm not the only one who feels Discovery will suck. Maybe the execs at CBS/Paramount are trying to attract a different crowd - trying to rope in new viewers that would have not originally viewed the previous television series, and at the same time capture to a limited degree the older/true ST fan base because we have no choice. Nothing has happened in over 10 years so "we'll accept anything". I too feel the same way about Abrams ruining the feel of ST with the movies. Seems like this show is emulating that. The loyal fan base is with TOS, TNG, DS9, some degree with Voyager and maybe Enterprise. I've only read a little about the show and viewed the trailer and I felt really let down as a fan. It's seems to me perhaps it would be a tough thing to resurrect a TNG/DS9 style of show because "it's been done" - but frankly with all the television I've witnessed for the past 15 years, I would welcome having this style brought back - as nothing much has really captured my attention besides, Breaking Bad. Hopefully I'm wrong about the show.

Re:Attracting a new crowd?

[Anonymous Coward]

They tried this before with Enterprise (which didn't fully get the title "Star Trek" added to it until the final season) trying to grab a new demographic.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, I feel that Star Trek started becoming less about Sci-Fi storytelling and more about Star Trek storytelling somewhere in DS9/TNG, which is awfully limited, and went downhill pretty fast.

They were supposed to break out of that with Enterprise (but yikes mission failed there).

I wish them well, I hope they can challenge us with ideas while being entertaining. I also hope there's some kind of grounding factor, ToS did it well, as did TNG.

Re:Attracting a new crowd?

[Nikkos]

I think you're spot-on. Consider this like music. Assuming you're above the age of 30, nobody cares about the music you used to listen to, and the music that is produced now isn't for you, it's for the 13-24 year old age group that actually spends money on music.

Each iteration of Star Trek isn't about the 'old guard' so much as attracting a new generation of viewers. The old guard isn't enough to bank a show on, unless their kids get in on it.

Re:Attracting a new crowd?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're spot-on. Consider this like music. Assuming you're above the age of 30, nobody cares about the music you used to listen to, and the music that is produced now isn't for you, it's for the 13-24 year old age group that actually spends money on music.

Each iteration of Star Trek isn't about the 'old guard' so much as attracting a new generation of viewers. The old guard isn't enough to bank a show on, unless their kids get in on it.

Yeah, they could hardly have made it clearer when they tilted "The Next Generation".

I outright laughed when I read "quality".

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a long-time Star Trek fan and have watched, time and again, as they've pumped out movies and shows that have fallen well short of the already admittedly flawed quality of TOS. But they were always still fun, and in some cases even reasonably decent with decent writing, so I've gone along with it.

The reboot of the show via the original move of the new set was pretty good. There were some ridiculous plot holes and nonsense, but they did a great job with casting and characterization and the show had a lot of the right components, so I rolled with it. Then there was the Khan disaster in the next movie and then there was "Fast and furious in space..." and I was done.

It took a lot of hits in the face for me to give up on Star Trek, and that includes me surviving through every single episode of Enterprise... which is the series that literally gets me angry when I start talking about it... but they finally managed to knock me out cold.

Quality... frankly... in the Star Trek space... is absolutely laughable.

Unless you mean WHOOSH BANG CRASH EXPLOSION FAST ZOOM... in which case... meh. I guess they've continually gotten better CGI lined up to make it more so... but Star Trek's value has never been about that, and there's plenty of other shows where I can get that. (and occasionally get better writing as well)

Re:I outright laughed when I read "quality".

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you mean WHOOSH BANG CRASH EXPLOSION FAST ZOOM... in which case... meh.

It's funny you mention that, it's more or less what Doctor Who has become also: EXPLOSION EVERYONE SHOUT AND RUN SOMEWHERE WHILE EXPLAINING NOTHING! POINT THE SONIC SCREWDRIVER AT IT! Problem solved, join us next week...

Re:I outright laughed when I read "quality".

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking that the other day while I was watching. I don't have the long-standing history of those shows from the 70s, so I don't know what the DNA is, but the "reboot" seasons seem to have started as mildly schlocky and gotten more so, so it hasn't affected me too much. Kinda like when eating at Friendly's and the food gets slightly worse over 10 years.

Delayed not delaying, clickbait.

[Anonymous Coward]

Clickbait title, the article talks about how it was delayed 9 months, not that they are going to delay it nine months. It premieres next month.

What quality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its the third one; the quality was out the window with the last one.

This is a good move, Maybe delay until 2025-2030..

[JudgeFurious]

Seriously does anybody want this? I don't see the demand for a new Star Trek series at this time and particularly not a new Star Trek series that is going to be on a new pay service without any other content worth paying for to speak of. I'm 52 years old. I was born in 1965 and from what I've been told I have been watching Star Trek since I was in the cradle. Now to date I think I've watched upwards of 720 episodes of Star Trek and I've watched 13 feature films. I loved it at times, cringed at it here and there, and basically I've had my fill of Star Trek. Sometimes it's enough already and like the security guys at the end of "The Truman Show" you want to know what else is on. I'm tired of Star Trek so I wasn't going to watch this anyway.

Hubris

[fyngyrz]

Your capacities, path, opportunities, drives, and circumstances are not universal constants.

So your "I've been there" is bound to be inaccurate for others, and any general conclusions you draw about those other people from such a presumption are bound to be flawed.

Re:Hubris

[ArmoredDragon]

Your capacities, path, opportunities, drives, and circumstances are not universal constants.

So your "I've been there" is bound to be inaccurate for others, and any general conclusions you draw about those other people from such a presumption are bound to be flawed.

Accuracy of my situation to others is completely irrelevant. No two people are alike. And so why do we need justice for this? Justice means being impartial or righting a wrong. If we're truly being impartial, then all people will need to succeed or fail on their own merits, which includes everything you just mentioned above rather than being given special favors, which is by definition NOT impartial.

But if you're talking about righting a wrong, then who wronged whom?

Was the 16 hours a day for 8 years world of warcraft player wronged by society for him making a decision to do that with his time? Do I deserve justice for being so risk averse that I likely won't ever have a director or executive position compared to other people who take just the right amount of risk and therefore are more qualified for those positions? Does somebody else deserve to take my 401k and my house that I paid cash for when I die instead of me being able to choose what person I pass it to, even though I sacrificed much for this by aggressively saving money far more than other people in my position do? Or in other words, do I need to be punished for having the forethought to guarantee my own retirement in the likely event that I will be disabled and unable to work due to my chronic kidney disease, and does the lesson need to be that I shouldn't save money and should spend it all in the short-term instead?

Re:Hubris

[fyngyrz]

I didn't say a word about "justice." I simply observed that your presumptions about other people are invalid. Because they are.

Result of a Divorce

[Anonymous Coward]

Paramount got the rights to the TOS (old school Trek) and all the designs.

CBS got the rights to use the (name only) forbidden by Law from using any of the old characters, designs or images

Essentially CBS has to follow its (own) Fan Film guidelines.. except they get to make a "limited" series

If CBS effects sales of the old school TOS, Paramount has the right to sue for damages

CBS really wants out.. but Netflix paid for a series

New strategy is to sell it off as An American Horror story anthology.. each season will be like a "Different" Fan Film

Thats what Fuller didn't want to do.. he "wanted" to do a real series.. Paramount forbade it.

Re:This is a good move, Maybe delay until 2025-203

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Good science fiction (maybe intermittent at times) is what fans want. If you can pump it up with season arcs and more social development (no relation) all the better.

I can forgive barking Klingons in skeleton zoot suits if the stories are good. (The golden glow sepia stuff needs to go though.)

When's Orville starting?

For Kahless' sake!

[Anonymous Coward]

For Kahless' sake!

That is a part of Klingon history we DO NOT TALK ABOUT!

Looking forward to two premieres

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait to watch the Fox show called Orville. The previews of Orville offer aspects of what Star Trek used to be. Interesting, funny, provocative and applicable to real life, among other things. What's the point of even talking about Star Trek if Discovery disposes of all of Star Trek's best qualities. I'll give Discovery a chance and watch its premiere. But unless the show proves itself right away and in a very useful and meaningful way just as all the other Star Trek series did, they can shove the rest of their All Access episodes up their shaft.

Re:This is a good move, Maybe delay until 2025-203

[JudgeFurious]

I understand and I continue to watch and read science fiction as well but I just no longer feel like that must include Star Trek. Granted nobody else is getting much done right now but Star Trek, whether it's the new movies or the trailer for this series just strikes me as something I've already seen. It's time to look for something different for me at least and if I'm any indication of what the older fans are thinking then they may have realized that it needs a longer hiatus than they thought. Admittedly the new movies aren't helping matters. Those things are flat out idiotic.

Time Travel is Possible

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a bit behind the times with this, aren't you Slashdot?? This delay occurred in January, the delay was until September, which is still when the show is set to premiere. At least attempt to very information.

Read! Understand! At least try!

[Anonymous Coward]

The art of reading is, unfortunately, a dying one. Actually understanding things is as well. Just read a headline here and there, maybe read a sentence or two of the actual article, and you're apparently now informed on the subject, at least enough to pontificate on the subject. Welcome to the Post-Trump world. Say anything you want, write anything you want, facts are pointless, create your own little bubble of reality.

Odd..

[Ronin Developer]

Last night (8/2), CBS was still advertising and promoting a Sept 20th date.

Maybe, that's just for the series premier with the series itself being delayed?

Re:Odd..

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not odd. It's just that your reading skills seem to be sub-par.

The effing story says that it was delayed from its originally planned January release. From January to September 2017 is about nine months give or take.

Star Trek TNG Was EXTREMELY RACIST

[MarcusOutrageous]

Black Chair Racism. None of the characters of color could sit down in their own space. Geordie? No Chair. Guinan? Forced to stand all day. Worf!? The ONLY character on the bridge not to have a place to sit down. The Federation Plantation. That's all I have to say.

Meh...

[MerlTurkin]

We need another Star Trek like we need a hole in the head. I'll watch "The Orville" this fall instead. It'll be far more entertaining. Guaranteed.

Star Trek Continues -- migration & refugees

[Paul Fernhout]

Just watched Episode 9 "What Ships Are For" based on your comment and -- wow -- well done!
http://www.startrekcontinues.c...

I agree -- Trek at its very best.

old news

[crashinbrn]

The series premiere will broadcast on CBS Sept. 24. 2017 Immediately following, the first and second episodes will stream on CBS All Access. New episodes going forward will be available on Sundays.

this news is soooooo old, they have come out with 2 trailers since the delay