9th episode now filming.

Repeat previous queries about last January here.

The link also reiterates the first half/second half explanation. Eight episodes from September 24th to November 5th, the rest starting in January.

Why Discovery is so important

Starfleet officers wearing armor is not a new idea.

Apparently someone thought that it was.

"While its unclear if Discovery will reboot or retcon a ton of Trek canon..."

I'll just let that idiotic statement sit where everyone can see it.

More details about Burnham's character arc.

Okay, great. Now how about those dozens of other characters who have been announced? Or are they just going to be living props? Have we honestly regressed to the TOS era of "if you're not in the trinity you don't matter"?

Kurtzman talks Discovery:

Two quotes presented as written, you can all guess what my commentary would be:

"If you are a fan of Trek you are going to see a lot of things which hearken back to the original series and elements of the original series. I am not just talking plot, but the spirit of what that show was. We are going to be revisiting a couple of things on Star Trek: Discovery that I think people are going to find familiar. Without spoiling anything we are adhering to a timeline and sticking to the rules, but also I think finding some new areas and avenues that have only been alluded to, but never fully explored."

"You have to respect canon as it’s being written. You cannot say, “That never happened.” No, no no, you can’t do that, they would kill you. Star Trek fans would kill you. No, you have to respect canon. You have to understand the timelines and what the different timelines were and what the different universes were and how they all worked together. You have to keep very meticulous track of who, what, where, when and why. And we have people in the writer’s room whose sole job is to say, “Nope, can’t do that!”"

A CBS executive talks about Discovery

Salient points:

* All Access currently has a million subscribers, hopes to hit 4 million by 2020 (insert smirk here)
* CBS has 350 million social followers (how this equates to people willing to pay for Access or people who will be fans of Discovery is beyond me)
* Once again focus is on Martin-Green (to the detriment of the other actors, it seems)
* All Access will have value because older shows won't expire. (you have to get subscribers before the library means you keep them, FYI)

Another article from someone who thinks that Discovery must be its own continuity/another reboot.

As an acknowledgement to your loads and loads of characters complaint, they plan on killing a lot of them.

I'm not sure how to feel on this.

Another recap of known information.

Again they claim Prime Universe status. Again I laugh at the absurdity.

The new trailer which dropped at SDCC (lasts up until 2:33, then plays the first one; this was the only international copy I could find).

Ugh. No me gusta.

To paraphrase Picard in Insurrection, "Does anyone remember when we were explorers?"

And I'm back. Sorry, computer problems have prevented me from making detailed posts for awhile (my previous post was via iPad, you'll note the lack of links or anything fancy). Time for another news roundup.

An interview with several Trek actors regarding Discovery and Orville.

* Robert Duncan McNeill has already directed an episode of Orville and remarks that the crew over there is careful NOT to be too similar to Star Trek.
* Garrett Wang would rather guest star on Orville.

There will be 24 Klingon houses in Discovery, each with its own agenda, and the new makeup is only for members of one house.

Um, okay? I'd rather have these new Klingons be more like the Remans, a distinct offshoot in the same culture.

The Nicholas Meyer not-Discovery Star Trek project is a Khan-on-Ceti-Alpha-V miniseries.

I'll wait for more details, especially where it conflicts with the To Reign in Hell book that covered this material.

Someone on Twitter altered a screenshot from TAS to include Sybok and Birnbaum.

"With each new announcement surrounding Star Trek: Discovery, it’s become increasingly clear how intertwined it’s going to be with the original Star Trek."

Insert sarcastic barking laugh here. Does this mean we can expect a reference to Captain Pike? Yeah, I doubt it.

Birnbaum isn't Spock's half sister, she's just his adopted sister.

Cue the hecklers in the crowd shouting "why wasn't she namedropped in 'Amok Time' or 'Journey to Babel' or 'The Search for Spock' or 'The Voyage Home' or 'Unification' or..."

She's also the first human to attend the Vulcan Science Academy. Putting aside the novels saying otherwise (and there are some good examples of humans choosing to live among Vulcans among them), I find the notion ridiculous. Either the Vulcan Science Academy teaches things concerning the unique mental powers and spiritualism of Vulcans, in which case they would never let humans in since they couldn't participate fully, or else it's just a college on another planet, in which case humans would be asking to attend way before now.

Why Sarek adopted her.

So the Klingons killed her parents when they were Sarek's guests on Vulcan. The words "bad fanfic plot" keep appearing in my head, I wonder why...

Each season will have its own plot (i.e. the Klingon War won't continue in Season 2).

Huh? I thought the Klingon clans would be fighting each other and the Discovery was going to be a team ship to prevent a war.

Plus there's the whole thing where "Errand of Mercy" should've had a line like "this war could be even worse than the one ten years ago" if such a conflict existed.

Prime Universe, my foot.

Kurtzman teases spinoffs.

Um, dude? You were hired to make DISCOVERY a good show, and it hasn't even premiered yet. Focus on DISCOVERY, remember that show? Spinoffs aren't your job, unless you want to announce that someone else is taking over your job on DISCOVERY!

Discovery has been rated TV-MA.

I'm saving my lecture for a few days to see if the production responds by reediting the pilot for re-submission to the MPAA.

Showrunner Aaron Harberts:

“[W]hat’s important to the creative team is the legacy of the show which is passed down from mother to daughter, from father to son, from brother to brother. We want to make sure we’re not creating a show that fans can’t share with their families. You have to honor what the franchise is. I would say we’re not going much beyond hard PG-13.”

Star Trek shouldn't even approach a "hard" PG-13. A "hard" PG-13 shouldn't have been the goal at any point. In situations like this where different groups have different standards you don't aim for "what we get away with", you draw another line to give yourself a buffer zone!

Does anyone else wonder how many All Access subscriptions they just lost with this fiasco?

You guys know I try to avoid politics at the forums... but man, with them both going on concurrently, it is impossible to look at the ST:<a></a>D production process and not wonder if it's being run by the Trump administration. Both of them are making every unforced error they possibly can.

I'm still gonna hope this is good, of course. It always could be, despite everything. But I'm preparing for the worst. Every franchise that goes on long enough will eventually lose its unity, even for the most dedicated fan. There's a personal breaking point where the "real" franchise ends and what comes afterwards is more like fanfic with a license. I'm not sure if I hit that point with the reboot movies, but this show may make it official.

What has me worried is that the studio hasn't come out with a statement yet along the lines of "we're going to reedit and resubmit the pilot to reduce the rating". I wanted to give them a day to do damage control. They failed me. Not even a "please stand by while we consider our options", just a "we're surprised, we weren't aiming for that."

Quoth a fan comment:

I quote now from CBS and Paramount's own guidelines for Star Trek fan films:

7. The fan production must be family friendly and suitable for public presentation. Videos must not include profanity, nudity, obscenity, pornography, depictions of drugs, alcohol, tobacco, or any harmful or illegal activity, or any material that is offensive, fraudulent, defamatory, libelous, disparaging, sexually explicit, threatening, hateful, or any other inappropriate content...

It's good to know that CBS is so hypocritical. I had looked forward to watching Discovery with my daughter but unless CBS starts listening to the fans and stops trying to make Star Trek into Game of Thrones, I will most definitely pass.

Shame on you CBS for ruining such a great franchise!

A roundup of upcoming Discovery merchandise

The one that confuses me is that the first novel will be ready in time for the premiere, but you'll have to wait until next year for the second. It's not like CBS would want to strike while the iron's hot and take every dollar that they can from the viewers coming off of the premiere...oh, wait...

Someone weakly attempts to defend the TV-MA rating

"If you take a look at shows carrying TV-MA rating, it’s a broad category. Sure, Game of Thrones is on there, but so’s The Crown, and it’s not like John Lithgow’s parading around nude in that one. TV-MA is, essentially, TV shows that perhaps adults don’t want kids to see for any number of reasons, and that’s always been Star Trek to some degree. Not because it showed Vulcans Gone Wild: Pon-Farr Out or Worf proving tribbles are best eaten alive, but because of the franchise’s efforts to be socially relevant."

Huh? I mean it, huh? Since when was Star Trek unsuitable for children? Yes, a few scenes or episodes aren't suitable, but using the word "always" is really asking for guys like me to refute it as a blatant lie.

"Over time, though, people have gotten touchier about the politics of their entertainment, real or perceived. It doesn’t matter what the show is, no matter how innocuous, there are people on the internet offended by it, even if they have to contort themselves into a mental pretzel to make that happen. So, networks turn to a simple ratings system: Don’t blame us, we told you it was TV-MA."

That's called "cowardice." I don't doubt that this has happened, but Star Trek should be held to a higher standard, that was kind of the entire point of the show. Besides, last time I checked the studio wasn't assigning the ratings, the MPAA was.

And they repeat the Aaron Harberts quote I already posted. It almost seems to be him saying "I don't think it's worth a TV-MA, I think it should be TV-14, so just pretend that it is."

Jason Isaacs dares the doubters to watch the show.

He doesn't care to cater to fans because we're going to watch anyway. He thinks we're going to pay money just to nitpick?