Star Trek TV Blog Archive

It is obvious that the Ten Forward scene has to be a nightmare, just as any appearance of Data in TNG uniform must be illusory. The trailers released so far are heavy on TNG references that may or may not be important for the story. In the worst case, they are just token nostalgia without a real impact.

I still expect that Picard will honor the classic Star Trek and that the alterations will be limited to visual effects and to the way that the story is told, although it is produced by the same people that made Discovery into a total reboot. In any case, fans who have turned their backs on the newer iterations of the franchise (I known many of them!) should consider giving this one series a chance.

The writers of the previous Short Treks show a good sense of continuity with Star Trek Discovery. Almost every one of the short episodes made sense in the larger context of the series. We can expect the same from the two animated Short Treks. And whether they are meant to be canon or not, they won't be just isolated stories with some kind of Star Trek flavor.

Yet, after seeing just two seconds from "Ephraim and Dot", it is clear that this is going into a silly and cutesy direction. A laughing tardigrade? Come on! I understand that the episode may be aimed at children, but some basic rules of Star Trek should still apply in an animation. Well, maybe this episode is a trial balloon of how something like Star Trek may work for a still younger audience than targeted with the already announced two animated shows?

I like the direction of Star Trek: Picard. The uniform looks in line with the style we know from TNG and DS9, and not retconning Picard's age is a further step of keeping the series in canon.

It is a bit of a disappointment that Patrick Stewart would not recommend Star Trek: Picard for children. TNG was definitely suited for kids (and popular among them), despite addressing serious issues, because it didn't need graphic violence and foul language to tell stories. While I'm not an advocate of (self-)censorship to achieve a TV-PG rating by all means, kindness was the general tone of classic Star Trek. Star Trek: Discovery set a new standard for profanity and violence in the franchise, and I'm generally fine with that aspect of the show, but I wonder if it couldn't be done differently on Picard.

Finally, I'm relieved that there will be no "Botox Data" on the show. But now that the word is out that Data will be changed, fans will have an even more critical eye on how he looks in the series.

The new Picard trailer keeps up the excitement about the upcoming series. Instead of revealing more about the direction of the show, this trailer evokes even more nostalgia than the first one: Riker & Troi, Data in TNG uniform (albeit just in a dream sequence or on the holodeck), Vasquez Rocks, the Enterprise-D, and even a Romulan BoP last seen in TOS. Star Trek: Picard clearly wants to cater to the needs of old-school fans like me, and I hope this will be more than only lip service in the form of a few details that we are believed to pay attention to.

On the other hand, as Patrick Stewart says in the narration: "I came here for safety, but one is never safe in the past." I appreciate that the series will move on because that is what Star Trek is all about. I hope it will not simply abandon its ties to the past though. I don't mind that the series borrows the view of Starfleet Headquarters and the shuttle design from Discovery, especially since the latter fits a lot better into the late 24th century anyway. Hopefully the makers of Picard are aware that too much Discovery in their series, whether it's in the story or "only" visually, will scare away many viewers. But I'm optimistic that Picard will look and feel like the next chapter of the very characters I love, and not like they are thrown into the action universe of Discovery.

The Discovery season 3 trailer too looks surprisingly promising. Although the Andromeda-like theme of restoring the Federation doesn't seem to bode well, at least Discovery leaves the beaten path. Perhaps the series finally lives up to its title, that it discovers a new time and space for the fans, instead of reimagining the existing Star Trek. Also, it is remarkable that there is far less action and visual overkill in this trailer than in the ones of the first two seasons, or even the ones for Picard. I'm cautiously optimistic about Discovery, although a great third season will not undo the damage this series has already caused.

Regarding the Short Treks, the situation has not improved a bit since last year, when CBS All Access subscribers could watch them months before they were available for the second-rate viewers on Netflix. No matter whether it's mainly the fault of CBS or Netflix, you don't build an international fanbase with a policy that keeps content away from worldwide viewers. And with geoblocking of trailers, while I'm at it.

Credit where credit is due for the things that Star Trek Discovery gets right! The Emmy for the makeup work is definitely a deserved prize because from a technical and artistic viewpoint Discovery is among the best that streaming TV has to offer. And since the Emmy explicitly goes to "If Memory Serves" with its respectful reimagination of the Talosians, it is a decision I am additionally happy with as an old-school fan.

I'm not sure whether Discovery is really the "Best Streaming Science Fiction, Action, & Fantasy Series" because I don't watch much else. And while I'm not always happy with Sonequa Martin-Green's performance in the series, even critics like me have to acknowledge she is the face of the new Star Trek, and quite convincing as such, whether we like the current direction of the franchise or not. At latest the Saturn Award for Doug Jones is an undoubtedly deserved honor. So congratulations to the crew and cast of Star Trek Discovery! Let's hope that this series (and the new ones that will launch in 2020) does not just garner awards but will also try harder to relay the core values of Star Trek.

It's a clever and fan-friendly move that McMahan sets his series in a time that is not yet taken, rather than the two latest reboots that created a clean slate by removing (Abramsverse) or ignoring (Discovery) the established historical context. Although there is a certain danger that Lower Decks will clash with facts established in PIC, I think the year 2380 is a good choice. The world of Star Trek of the late 24th century is a dear memory from their young days to many of the (adult) target audience, obviously including McMahan himself. They would much rather embrace a show set in that era than yet another attempt to reboot the 23rd century.

Regarding the canonicity of Lower Decks, I wonder if McMahan mixes up "making a canon show" and "fitting it into canon", or intentionally blurs the difference. It is obvious that the first question, whether the show itself is canon, is the decisive one. Regarding the latter, adherence to canon is something the fans expect from every new Star Trek movie or series, animated or not, as well as from the expanded universe of non-canon books and games. This should usually be a no-brainer, if it were not for the recent trend to reboot the franchise. McMahan speaks of his show being "in canon", which could mean both. So while the actual canon status of Lower Decks may still be undefined, it is a good start to make it fit with the established facts of Star Trek. For a positive decision, Lower Decks would have to measure up to the canon criteria of Star Trek as well as to TAS. Considering that the latter is widely regarded as non-canon and hence sets a precedent for animated shows, Lower Decks may have to outperform TAS in several regards, a mission that will be very hard to accomplish.

Wow. That's a lot of news. It appears CBS gets things moving despite all rumors to the contrary. I freely admit that now that we get Picard, a series that could save the franchise, I don't care as much for the other endeavors as I perhaps should. It doesn't seem to bode well that Mike McMahan, who heads the very silly (yet often very funny) show Rick and Morty, is responsible for an animated Star Trek series. I still believe that comedy set in the Star Trek Universe may work. But I can't tell yet whether the new show can be serious enough to add to the canon (or at least to the legacy), or whether the humor will be of the kind of Rick and Morty. The character art looks more like the latter than like TAS. But Lower Decks may still surprise me. And as already mentioned, with Picard taking care of the serious part of saving Star Trek, it may suffice if the other series don't suck.

For the first time in many years, I am truly excited about a new Star Trek series. And although objections and doubts may be justified especially in light of the failure of Discovery (Will they get the Borg right? What about Data, considering that Spiner was always opposed to playing the role again? Will Picard be contaminated by DIS?), the pleasant anticipation clearly prevails. We may just get genuine unrebooted Star Trek again, for the first time in 15 years.

It is no surprise that Alex Kurtzman does not take care of the day-to-day business of the new series, which definitely isn't a sign that he has been withdrawn or demoted in any fashion (although the rumor mill will probably make it look like their predictions are confirmed). Michael Chabon knows how to tell stories, and perhaps he has a knack for Star Trek. At least, I hope that his mostly well-received episode "Calypso" was more than just a lucky shot.

Discovery critics are almost unanimous about what we dislike about the series: bad writing, unlikable characters, lousy continuity, lacking Star Trek spirit. We pretty much agree that we don't care for Discovery in spite of the course correction in season 2, and that after sending the ship a thousand years into the future the series could just as well end for good. But we are divided in our opinions about how much has to change to give us better Star Trek. Some think that we don't need yet another series set in the reboot universe, and this is my opinion as well. Others have come to like the characters of Pike, Spock and Number One as they were introduced in Discovery's second season, so much that they would support a series set on the reboot Enterprise. Moreover, even many of those who are into Discovery have expressed an even greater interest in a possible Pike series than in Discovery's adventures in the far future.

I don't know if Kurtzman could anticipate the strong desire for a Pike series. The production of the Short Treks episode with the existing characters and sets is a no-brainer, unless of course the new Short Treks are once again designed to foreshadow the things to come. So far we only know that Romijn and Peck are in the mini-episode. There is no mention of Anson Mount. My guess is that he won't appear, considering that each of the previous Short Treks too featured at most one or two of the principal cast.

Perhaps a Pike series has the potential to bring back some optimism to the franchise and to reunite the divided fandom to a certain extent. But seeing the further adventures of Pike and Spock would only unpleasantly remind me of everything that was wrong with Discovery and its depiction of the people and the history of the 23rd century. Rather than Pike, Picard is meant to be the old new spearhead of the franchise, and I still hope Kurtzman doesn't screw up Patrick Stewart's show. Discovery may have fun in the far future, and without the burden of explaining why it doesn't fit in I may even eventually come to like it a bit.

The trailer with the wine theme looks nice and evokes a genuine nostalgia as it has been absent from Star Trek in the past ten years. Yet, it also unmistakably ties in with the events from "Star Trek (2009)", the destruction of Romulus. Although I know very well that this was always meant to be canon in the Prime Universe, I dislike the crossover and I would have hoped for a setting that features Picard in an unspoiled timeline, in one that looks to the future instead of the past. I am definitely willing to give the series a chance though.

However, the sword of Damocles is hanging over Star Trek Picard (PIC). The inclusion of the Discoverse arrowhead logo in the actual footage (unlike the ones in the promotional art!) doesn't bode well. It is a detail I normally wouldn't care for. If it were not for the things that have happened in the franchise in the past few years, it would be a non-issue and a mere matter of style. It would be easy to make up reasons why the logo was split only in Discovery until 2258, and once again 140 years later.

But the PIC logos were most likely designed in DIS style on purpose and are an indicator that the producers may be unwilling to go back to a pre-reboot Star Trek.

The dilemma in the age of "visual reboots" is that we can't tell any longer what actually looks the way it does (if it differs from something shown earlier) and what is meant to be a "reimagination" of something familiar. Case in point: the uniforms seen in the PIC footage with Patrick Stewart. They resemble the DS9/VOY style, which could indicate, in an analogy to the anachronistic DIS-style Enterprise uniforms of season 2, that they are meant to be the very same ones that we know from DS9 and VOY, only "reimagined". In the spirit of a "visual reboot", this is a perfectly valid assumption, unless the difference is explicitly shown or hinted at.

I want to believe that the PIC uniforms are new ones and that the series is not a visual reboot. I want to believe in what my eyes see. I am very much looking forward to the next chapter in Jean-Luc Picard's life. But the series becomes far less relevant if Picard is put into another reboot series that does not feel bound by the continuity of Star Trek.

Star Trek: Picard is a good name for the new series, also because it has already been unofficially called so for quite some time. In any case, it suits Star Trek better than something invoking "Destiny". Regarding the uniforms, perhaps this is a first sign that the series avoids the gross mistakes of Discovery on the visual side, but for a real judgment we have to wait until we see the Klingons or the Starfleet technology of the new show.

CBS tries hard to sell the deal with Amazon as great news to international fans when in fact it is a major annoyance. Not because Amazon Prime is such a bad channel or too expensive at EUR 7.99 per month but because this adds to the EUR 11.99 we already have to pay to watch Discovery on Netflix. Especially in a country like Germany with high ISP costs and with compulsory extra fees for "public television" (EUR 17.50), many viewers will reconsider whether they still need Discovery and/or Netflix. If CBS wants to promote the further fragmentation of the Star Trek franchise, selling the rights to as many different streaming services as possible is clearly the right way. I bet that we are in for more unpleasant surprises regarding the international distribution of the two animated series (well, and of the Section 31 series if it is actually produced). Perhaps I should already begin to save some money for a Maxdome and a Sky subscription.

The new animated series brings the number of ongoing or planned Star Trek TV productions up to five, not counting the Short Treks. As with everything new, we should be cautiously optimistic whether or not it will look and feel like Star Trek (knowing that Alex Kurtzman, who supervises everything must have learned a lesson from Discovery). And as already with the previously announced animated series Lower Decks, we don't have an idea yet how such a format will be like, more than four decades after Star Trek previously appeared as an animated show. It seems very likely that the still unnamed show will not only be about teens but also have teens as the main target audience. It may be a good thing to get young people hooked, also and especially if it is about more than only pew-pew and fist fights. As I already mentioned regarding Lower Decks, Star Trek and comedy are not mutually exclusive, and a "casual" Star Trek for a young audience is just as well imaginable.

This is like a nightmare coming true. As if Discovery hadn't been villainous, violent and warlike enough, the new project focuses on these aspects. Even without knowing anything about the storyline, it is obvious that it will celebrate a genocidal dictator and a shadow organization that is not bound by the laws. Is that what we used to love Star Trek for? Is that the reaction to the criticism of the too dark first season of Discovery that didn't do more than pay lip service to Starfleet's principles? After easing Discovery a bit in its second season (such as with Pike as a model captain), is it justified to continue the disposal of Star Trek's assets in a Black Ops show? A show whose makers will probably pretend that the cookie-cutter villain Georgiou from the dumb Mirror Universe and the equally overused Section 31 are fan favorites.

Polemics aside, I can see Kurtzman's intention to create a number of new series that are as different as possible. It is easy to understand that the new animated Star Trek is made for a young audience and that the Picard show will be aimed at old-school fans like me. Georgiou may appeal to millennials and their assumed affinity to action, whereas Discovery, ironically the only show already on air, still needs to find its place somewhere in this increasingly confusing constellation. But what happened to the thread that was running through all Star Trek series from TOS to ENT? To common themes such as exploration (of the galaxy as well as of the human nature)? To the common tone of being set in a world that is better than the one we live in today (or, at least strives to be)? To a Star Trek that united the fans with a common idea, rather than pleasing one group at the expense of another one? To Star Trek as a franchise that set itself apart from television trends instead of setting itself apart from its own past?

Maybe the damage this planned "multiverse" will inflict on Star Trek's continuity isn't even the biggest one, considering that there is no clear picture any more what Star Trek is about, no common message, no common vision (except in the producers' affirmations). Beginning in 2019, Star Trek on TV may be bigger than ever as the number of current and upcoming projects is concerned. But it looks like it is being reduced to a mere franchise platform to sell all kinds of special-interest TV products that have very little still in common. The only positive aspect is that there is a good chance that the Picard series will be just what Kurtzman promises, a contemplative show that cherishes the legacy of Picard and TNG.

I thought that after Discovery's first season, which failed in almost all regards that matter to me, it couldn't become still worse. Yet, this honor will likely go to the new Georgiou/Section 31 series, a show that appeals to the lower instincts of the audience and that should not be made in the name of Star Trek. Everyone who has been following this blog knows I kept an open mind about Discovery for a long time. But that credit of trust is used up by now. I know that I will be called a basement dweller, a hater, a gatekeeper and a toxic fan (just as it happens every time when I disagree with the mainstream). Maybe this time I deserve it as I preemptively say that I don't need and I don't want this series. It will be covered at EAS only for the sake of completeness, just like everything canon, but not without the usual caveats to preserve the legacy of the old Star Trek. Well, I think the more often I am called a gatekeeper, the prouder I am of this role.

Considering that the destruction of Romulus in "Star Trek (2009)" is regarded as Prime Universe canon (and not as part of the Kelvin Timeline), it is only logical that it would not be ignored in a new series set after the catastrophe. Moreover, it stands to reason that the fall of the Romulan Empire may open new story opportunities, not only personally for Picard.

Kurtzman is probably aware that the new Picard show is considered by many fans, including myself, as the last chance to bring back the old spirit to the franchise. He should know that he walks a fine line with any attempt to "update" this show "for a modern audience". However, to put it bluntly, contaminating the series with Abramsverse concepts is the lesser evil, if it can be kept free of sluggish Discovery-style Klingons, of the silly spore drive and of one-dimensional Mirror Universe infiltrators lurking behind every corner. Still, there is a negative connotation that the Picard show is based on the premise that a supernova traveled at warp speed, completely obliterated a planet many light years away, was supposed to be stopped by a lonely old man, and was eventually swallowed by a substance whose properties are ridiculously over the top. Brannon Braga, who wrote "Threshold" and later regretted it, would gladly give Kurtzman the advice that bad science in Star Trek doesn't become more plausible by referring to it again.

Whether or not the reference to the Abramsverse will harm the Picard series still remains to be seen. As already mentioned, it may be forgivable if otherwise the new show gives us authentic Star Trek.

The new trailer comes with a lot more action than the previous ones. On the bright side, I really like Anson Mount's portrayal of Captain Pike. I am willing to give Ethan Peck as Spock a chance, as much as I hate the idea of reviving the character. We see Klingons who fight like Klingons and real beauty shots of the Discovery for the first time in the series. The spectacular effects (rather than the silly ultrawide screen ratio) make the second season feel like a movie.

But speaking of movies, why is it that Discovery has to resort to the most overused over-the-top cliché in Star Trek movies, that some supervillain is going to kill entire civilizations and has to be stopped by all means? Is that what Star Trek on TV used to be about? And while not a surprise, the appearance of genocidal Emperor Georgiou as a shady Section 31 agent adds to the sentiment that in the second season Discovery will still not be anything like the Star Trek we love. It is depressing how this series focuses on war instead of peaceful exploration, how it always favors recklessness over considerate actions and how it celebrates mean-spirited characters, rather than virtuous ones.

It is just a trailer at this time. There is still hope that Georgiou and Section 31 will not set the tone of the show and that the "Red Angel" conflict will not last long. The people around Alex Kurtzman have fixed one or two of the most blatant visual mistakes of the show. But they may not be willing to tell stories about boldly exploring space without blazing weapons, and with friendship and trust among the crew, rather than with characters who pose as someone else, thinking of Georgiou and Voq-Tyler, who reappears as well.

Alex Kurtzman was involved in the creation of two radical reboots (Abramsverse and Discovery) of the TOS era, none of which fits with the pre-existing Star Trek, neither in their tone nor in their look. It may be worrying that Kurtzman now turns his attention to TNG and the 24th century, the undisputed core of Star Trek (at least in the eyes of most fans). However, as already in his previous statements on the topic, we can notice how anxious he is to get this one series right and not to turn it into another mushroom trip.

Whether it is the intention or not, the Picard series is on the way to become the flagship show of the franchise. Even if the revised concept of Discovery should be a success, most fans would rather identify themselves with the "contemplative" nature of the Picard show and the yet unclaimed era it is set in - if done the right way. I hope that Kurtzman is aware that it also needs the right look and feel to that end. So in addition to the writers coming up with thoughtful stories (preferably episodic), the production designers will hopefully avoid the two gross design mistakes of Discovery: the "one look fits all eras" Starfleet design on one hand, and the total reboot of Klingon biology and technology on the other hand. There is some evidence in the Discovery season 2 previews that the staff working on that show are going to fix some of their mistakes, so why shouldn't the people on the new show go all the way back to a pre-rebooted and authentic looking Star Trek?

I don't know what exactly Kurtzman means when he describes the Picard series as more "real-world" as opposed to Discovery, although the latter too is said to be "more grounded" in its second season. It almost sounds like an unwitting confirmation that he considers the new series to be the "real" Star Trek, the one that will persist. But I may be reading too much into his words. In any case, it is good to know that the series will continue the legacy, by deliberately picking up plot threads from TNG, thereby creating real continuity as opposed to the token references in Discovery.

It will be appropriate for Jean-Luc Picard (94) and for Patrick Stewart (78) to take a back seat when it comes to action. This is not a problem. However, I am worried that the writing may give us the impression of a man looking back at his life, like a swan song for Picard and TNG. The inclusion of the otherwise much-needed continuity may further fuel a possible intent to bring this chapter to an end. While I appreciate if the show is "contemplative", I just don't want this to happen in the form of an ailing or even dying Picard. Let us hope that the writers handle their character with care and resist the temptation to deconstruct him.

Many fans believe that Star Trek and comedy don't go together. And since the overall disappointing first animated series and its retroactive decanonization on Gene Roddenberry's behest, many think that Star Trek and animation don't mix well either. However, my impression is that the combination of animation and comedy may work in the Star Trek Universe, especially if the new series takes its own setting seriously, in which case it may also be a welcome addition to canon. Perhaps Alex Kurtzman has learned something from the success of Seth McFarlane's The Orville that follows the principle of being funny while still telling good science fiction stories. But I am relieved that, rather than trying to do something similar in a live-action series, Kurtzman uses a format that is not so much in a danger of looking like a parody of Star Trek (well, and that may more easily be declared non-canon if it should get too silly). I am also glad that the new animated show that we already knew would come sooner or later does not have a topic that would enter a direct competition with the dramatic Star Trek series, namely Discovery and the unnamed Picard series. So let's just hope that Mike McMahan will get the right feel into the new series (meaning, not the one of Discovery), and let's wait what the people in charge tell us about its canon status (although my clear expectation is that they will say "of course it's canon").

I think it is a good decision for Discovery to ease the serialized format. Too many plot threads were going on for too long in the first season, and they were overextended such as in the case of Tyler's true nature. I think the people in charge themselves were not really content with season 1 in this regard.

Mary Chieffo's explanation for the sudden appearance of Klingon hair does not make sense. Even if we pretend for a moment that the hair were the only discrepancy between classic Klingons and the drastic DIS redesign, we could see Klingons who were more or less at war not just in the 24th century, but also in ENT, in TOS and in the TOS movies. And always with hair. Moreover, the Klingons of the 22nd century were much the same culture they would still be 120 and 200 years later, with the caveat that the Augments (that Discovery totally disregards anyway) may have somewhat different traditions. This uninterrupted continuity invalidates the claim that traditions could have changed a lot from the time of DIS to DS9. The producers of DIS may have chosen to continue to ignore ENT and TOS, to win a few points with regard to continuity with 24th century Trek, also because of the upcoming Picard series. But no matter how hard we twist the facts, there is no place in canon Trek for a tradition of Klingons to shave their heads, except perhaps among a small secluded sect. So is it just something the Klingons do to honor T'Kuvma? Hardly. The Klingons in "The Vulcan Hello" were all bald without exception, even before T'Kuvma summoned them and came up with the surprising proposal to attack the Federation. Some argue that the baldness of the Klingons at this time could be meant as a sign of their inner conflict, rather than of a war against a common enemy. But then there would be even less reason for a tradition that symbolizes a homogeneous culture, and even less reason that (with the exception of General Chang) not a single Klingon of any other era would still cherish the tradition.

The 2.39:1 "cinematic" aspect ratio is a major annoyance. Every normal TV series is shot in 16:9 so the whole screen is used. Discovery's first season was 2:1, which wasted 11% of the screen. Now it's 2.39:1, which means as much as 26% loss! Kurtzman's justification for the aspect ratio that he wants the series to feel like a movie is not just lame, it's plain wrong. If you produce a TV series for a screen whose worldwide standard is 16:9, you have to stick to that ratio. There's absolutely no excuse for giving the viewers less resolution than they pay for and for making them squint to recognize details on the screen!

Glenn Hetrick already teased the new Klingons with hair, but so far it seemed unlikely that even established Discovery characters like L'Rell would undergo the metamorphosis. My quick Photoshop job of L'Rell with hair was meant more like a joke. We will probably have to wait until January for a possible in-universe explanation. Is it yet another genetic mutation? And is the "Red Angel" responsible in some way? Or can Discovery Klingons generally grow hair when they feel like that? Is having hair or no hair just a temporary fashion among them? Perhaps there will be no rationale at all on screen because otherwise the Klingon make-up is still essentially the same as in the first season (although L'Rell's forehead wrinkles seem to have changed)? It also remains to be seen whether the familiar battlecruiser is more than a one-off reference and whether its appearance is somehow related to the hair.

The new style of Discovery is most likely not a reboot of the reboot. I doubt that the revision of the Klingon style can be more than a cue that Discovery is supposed to be Star Trek in spite of everything. Overall, the visual alterations are still too extreme. But we can take for granted that constant fan feedback (like my own complaints) was the incentive to do something about the most criticized visual issues of the series. Discovery started off as a total reboot on the visual side, and especially its Klingon designs spitefully disregarded the canon looks. The makers of the series, and in particular Bryan Fuller, apparently didn't want their creation to look like Star Trek. If the original intention had been to respect canon, Discovery wouldn't have introduced the bizarrely different biology and ships in the first place, only to replace or supplement them with more canon visuals in the later course of the series. They would not have created the impression that the new Klingon look is the only one that exists in their universe, and justified the baldness with sensory organs running down the back of their heads. They would not have used legacy names (Bird-of-Prey and D7) for their totally different Klingon ships. So the revision of the revision of the Klingons is a victory of reason over the obsession to change everything for change's sake, albeit just a small one.

Discovery still has numerous issues, on the visual side as well as with regard to the scripts (that some have begun to focus on as the "real canon"). With every new episode the series did introduce and will probably continue to introduce elements that hardly fit with established facts. As exciting as the idea of the red lights across the galaxy and Spock's encounter with the "Red Angel" is, this life-changing story likely leads Discovery further away from canon.

Regarding the characters introduced in the trailer, I really like the look of Rebecca Romijn as Number One. I'm not yet sold on Ethan Peck as Spock. He doesn't give me a Spock vibe. The beard may be a visual aid to underline that this Spock is another new interpretation of the character, possibly a rather emotional one. It may be hard to reconcile this new Spock with the person he was in "The Cage" and will be in TOS.

This is not just a huge disappointment for worldwide fans, it is a slap in the face. CBS set up the Short Treks format to bridge the time until the new season but apparently only for their own subscribers. And since outside the USA there is no CBS All Access that we could subscribe to, it has a totally inappropriate national bias as well. I will personally have to find illegal ways to view and review Short Treks.

So far we know mini stories set in the Star Trek Universe only from fandom. In traditional TV schedules there were no slots for anything shorter than a regular episode, at least none that were attractive enough to justify the effort. This has changed with the move to the streaming service. Here, Short Treks is clearly intended to be more than only an appetizer for the upcoming full episodes, its principal purpose may be to keep viewers from unsubscribing or to get them to resubscribe sooner.

But we also have to consider the backlash Discovery received from many fans, not only for its lousy continuity but also for its serialized story that didn't feel like Star Trek because it was reluctant to come to the point. Short Treks seems like the other extreme because each story has at most 15 minutes to relay its message. I have little hope that the continuity of these stories will be any better than the one of Discovery (also because the sets and other visuals will likely be the same). But the descriptions of the Short Treks stories sound more interesting than those of most Discovery episodes. So Short Treks is a chance to redeem some of the lost Trek spirit.

I only wonder what the conspicuous note that it will "fit into Discovery and the expanding Star Trek universe" is supposed to mean. More canon connections? Some storyline that will continue in the Picard series? Or just the implicit reaffirmation that, in spite of everything, Discovery is just as canon as everything that came before and will follow?

This is the casting news that I knew in advance I wouldn't care for. We don't need a Spock 3.0. The idea of getting the Enterprise, Spock and Pike into their show is something the Discovery producers only imagine the fans long for. We already have one active Spock in the Abrams films, played by Zachary Quinto. Yet, the character was simply doubled (just like Pike and Sarek too) for Discovery. The makers of the Abramsverse will abstain from recasting Chekov, so why don't the CBS people follow the example? Why do we have to get yet another Spock? The universe is big. Isn't it possible to create a Star Trek series without all the usual names? Or is Discovery so desperate to "prove" that it is Prime Universe canon and to demonstrate that it can have likable characters that it needs to include these assumed crowd-pullers?

While the very idea of recasting of Spock doesn't meet my approval, I think Ethan Peck is a fine choice, perhaps just because of his resemblance to Zachary Quinto. Let's just hope the character won't be butchered the way it happened to his father Sarek in the first season. Since Ethan Peck's grandfather was one of my all-time favorite actors, I have high hopes that he can make "his" Spock someone special. Still, I doubt that it can be done without harming the uniqueness of Leonard Nimoy's legacy.

Although Hetrick leaves no doubt that the Klingons will be different yet again and that at least some of them will have hair, there are a lot of open questions right now. Hetrick makes it sound like even established characters will change, saying "it has been [a] while since we have been with our characters." On the other hand, he refers to the genetic differences between the houses as the reason for just some of them (that we arguably haven't seen yet on Discovery) being different and perhaps more familiar. I think rather the latter is true.

I'll have to reserve my judgment whether Discovery tries to reconcile a few of its visuals with classic Star Trek until we actually see one of the "new" Klingons and ultimately until the second season airs. In the best case, Discovery will build a visual bridge to the established canon that is deemed to free the series of the so far well-deserved "total reboot" stigma and that may permit to engage in speculation why we have never seen any first-season DIS Klingons before. Speculation that was impossible until now. In the worst case, Discovery will just show some more variations of the first-season Klingons that don't look like the iconic species at all and thereby only deepen the rift, because besides looking completely different anyway, Klingons were never such a diverse species.

The announcement that the Klingons will change yet again comes as a surprise, but it fits with the current image campaign for season 2, after the lay-off of Gretchen Berg and Aaron Harberts. It fits with Kurtzman's promise that he is going to reconcile the series with canon. Perhaps this includes the visual side from now? Is it a paradigm shift? Backpedaling? Or just damage control? In any case it is pleasant how the people in charge seem to listen to and to talk to the fans again. This is quite a contrast to the first season, whose media campaign aimed to offend and marginalize old-school fans like me. And don't get me even started on the whole "toxic white male fans" debate that additionally gave us a bad name. But as I already wrote, we will have to wait and see whether the people in charge really listened to us.

One key problem of the Discovery production since the beginning seems to be that (higher-ranking) people meddle with things that they shouldn't have much business with. The CBS execs (who arguably have no idea what Star Trek is about) told Fuller to create yet another prequel, although Fuller wanted to do an anthology. Fuller, in turn, went to the designers and told them to flatten the ships and totally redesign the Klingons, instead of relying on their talents to come up with *reasonable* updates. I suspect that the whole idea of the "visual reboot" was a dictate by the producers, who wanted to leave their mark on the show, rather than the result of a real creative process. I know I have been harsh on John Eaves, who created the "new" Starfleet ships, and on Glenn Hetrick. Five months ago, I still complained about how Hetrick defended the new Klingon look with the non-arguments that the complete redesign was an "evolutionary imperative" and that they were meant to be a "cross between reptilian and avian". Perhaps he has a bit more creative freedom now that Fuller, Berg and Harberts are gone, and he should use it. Here's hoping that despite its desolate first season, Discovery may become an acceptable Star Trek series, both in terms of the stories and of the look.

I don't know whether I should rejoice now. It is true that the return of Captain Picard and the return to the 24th (and maybe early 25th) century is what old-school fans have been hoping for since Nemesis sadly failed at the box office and with the critics in 2002. But Star Trek has changed radically in all those years that have passed since Patrick Stewart left the franchise. The people in charge didn't bother to move on any longer in the past 16 years. After the prequel Star Trek Enterprise and its only moderate success the franchise was rebooted twice. While Enterprise tried (and largely managed) to preserve the legacy of the golden years of Star Trek that started with TNG, the Abrams films and Discovery got away with the positive vision, with the profound ethical debates and ultimately even with the established look of the franchise. The reboots were rated as successful and their recipes are not likely to change easily. And so Patrick Stewart will return to a Star Trek that only cites from the franchise's legacy, without feeling bound by it. He will return to an action-driven franchise that strives to be as different as possible than the old Star Trek and more like "modern" TV series.

I hope that the new series will be better than Discovery, but I doubt it can ignore or even undo many of the harmful changes that were brought about by Discovery, not only on the visual side, purportedly to appeal to a "modern audience". If Michael Dorn were to appear as Worf in the series, he would have to look like a Fuller-Klingon-lizard. No familiar starships would show up in the series because everything has to be much bigger and cooler now. And whether Starfleet would be depicted as the benevolent organization we know from TNG is doubtful as well. There are not many reasons to assume that the new series could carry on in the spirit of TNG, which may not be Kurtzman's intention anyway. Stewart himself hinted at Picard being "a very different individual" now. I admire his work and I trust in the actor that he will not allow his character to be vandalized the way it happened with Sarek in Discovery. Anyway, irrespective of the direction it is going to take, Sir Patrick Stewart will be the main draw and the quality mark of the show. His presence in the series gives Kurtzman's new Trek a stamp of approval (and creates huge media attention) just like when Leonard Nimoy appeared in the first Abrams movie.

We don't know anything else about the new show. It may be just a mini-series that will never have the potential to change anything about the state of Star Trek. I keep my fingers crossed that Kurtzman and his team are able and willing to create something like a TNG 2.0, rather than a 24th century Discovery. But there are currently few reasons to believe that.

It somehow was to be expected that the production of the first season 2 episodes would take longer than just six months. The announcement of the "Short Treks", however, comes as a surprise. I will keep an open mind about this format although I doubt that 10-15 minutes is enough time to tell a story. Considering that Discovery had enormous trouble to deliver the spirit of Star Trek in its long convoluted character arcs, it may be a chance to get a few things back on track though.

Speaking of getting things right again, I could take Kurtzman at his word, that he "guarantees" to answer how Discovery connects to canon. But since visuals are excluded from canon in this reboot series that pretends to be none, the worst canon violations will not be fixed or explained in any fashion anyway. And even regarding the many other continuity problems of Discovery, it is safe to predict that Kurtzman and his staff will only care for minor things (such as why Michael Burnham has never been mentioned in canon Trek), the ones that are character-related and that they personally feel are fun to work with. They will probably skip any tough issues such as why the spore network, holodecks, Klingon cloaking devices and fleets of oversized ships do not exist in the 23rd century we know.

Yet, I appreciate that Kurtzman addresses fan concerns at all. So far the promotion campaign for season 2 is pleasant. It is marked by relatively little self-adulation and refrains from complaints about critical fans. Discovery presents itself as more "inclusive" now, in a sense that it doesn't want to repel the fanbase any longer with a dark and depressive atmosphere. This new trend is visible in the teaser trailer. Although the crooked nostalgia with Pike and colorful shirts in an otherwise radically different universe doesn't work for me, the trailer promises a more spirited and more humorous second season. It almost seems that Discovery has learned a lesson from The Orville. So far I successfully avoided to use "the other Star Trek series" as a yardstick, but it is just too obvious that The Orville has many things that Trek fans love and didn't find in Fuller's creation, so obvious that the people now in charge of Discovery can't ignore it either.

Regarding the return of Wilson Cruz as Hugh Culber, I am looking forward to seeing him again because I liked the character and I was dissatisfied with how needlessly he was killed off. But although it is a tradition in Star Trek that characters may return from the dead in some fashion, I don't think it bodes well that in a series that desperately strives to be taken seriously everyone is always resurrected. My apprehension is that we will even see Lorca again. Discovery may not only jeopardize its credibility as a TV drama with its lack of consequentiality but could ultimately come across as a parody of Star Trek (or worse, could let appear Star Trek itself like a parody of science fiction).

Just four days ago, I wrote that we shouldn't judge people based on merits we don't know enough about and that we just have to wait and see if the team around Kurtzman has learned a lesson from Discovery's many errors. I was mistaken. I'm not saying that Kurtzman and his staff aren't willing to improve a few things that didn't work in the first season of the series. But the deal with CBS to develop even more TV content based on Star Trek indicates that the network gives him carte blanche to carry on regardless, to complete a mission that many perceive as being too focused on "reintroducing the world of Star Trek to new audiences" while putting off old-school fans like me. The movies he produced together with J.J. Abrams, as well as Discovery, were successful on the financial side. But the new Trek is marked by mindless action, by unlikable characters, by a lack of moral and philosophical issues, by overall little respect for the tone and the look & feel of the pre-existing franchise, and by a continuity with the former Star Trek that ranges between non-existent and mere lip service.

If Star Trek doesn't need something right now, it is the Marvelization of the franchise, the urge to squeeze more dollars out of short-sighted and unrelated concepts that may appear fashionable right now but that just beg to be re-rebooted another ten years in the future because no one still cares for them. However, it is too late anyway to prevent that from happening. The damage was done when the old Star Trek from TOS to ENT was decried as "nerdy" and replaced with (or supplemented by) two action-driven prequel/reboot universes, the one of the Abrams films and the one of Discovery, that both neither respect the old Trek, nor even each other. Given that Kurtzman doesn't seem to mind the fragmentation of the once strong creative base and canon of the franchise, my apprehension is that the Star Trek "multiverse" (as a somewhat euphemistic moniker) will grow under the new contract. Star Trek would have deserved to be handled with care, to be further fleshed out in a genuine way, with sequels, rather than with still more prequels or reboots. Just as I am writing this, fans are excited about it nonetheless and are already speculating which era of the existing Star Trek history will be rewritten next.

Another rumor is that Patrick Stewart may return. Well, that might be a chance, but only a small one because Patrick Stewart may be the only familiar remnant of the old Star Trek, a sad figurehead like Leonard Nimoy was one in the Abrams movies. Kurtzman may still surprise me and create a new series that is not only recognizable as Star Trek but also brings back meaningful stories and a respectful treatment of the history of the franchise. But right now, with the prospect of still more series that are not sustainable and are not made for people like me, I'm going to embrace the old Star Trek more than ever.

It is unlikely that CBS will issue an official statement about the reasons why Berg and Harberts had to go, and whether such a statement would tell us the whole truth anyway. So unless this affair has legal repercussions, we will never know what happened in Discovery's writers' room. It isn't the first time in the series that the producer staff changes, and Discovery is no first time in Star Trek, thinking of Chaos on the Bridge. So I will not join the speculation game, neither on the reasons, nor on what happens now. Some fans have very definite opinions about the beneficial or detrimental influences that certain people behind the scenes have on Discovery (or on any previous Star Trek series), although they know very little about those people and on the inner mechanisms of the show.

I dislike most aspects about Discovery, but Berg's and Harberts's departure is neither a reason to look back at the first season in anger, nor to expect considerable improvements in the upcoming season. Let's just hope the people who were, are and will be in charge have learned a lesson and bring us more relatable characters, more intelligent story arcs, more respect for the legacy and a more optimistic vision of the future.

We don't know yet whether in Discovery's version of history Starfleet will adopt the style of the colorful uniforms and the solid badges for all ships and crews, or whether it is rather a one-off exception for the Enterprise that creates a small visual link to TOS (because we can take for granted the interior of the now larger ship will be very different than we know it). In the first case, it would be backpedaling, because so far Discovery did everything to be as visually different as possible from the rest of Star Trek. The costume designers certainly wouldn't be required to come up with strange looking uniforms and badges in the first place, if the plan was to later discard them in favor of more familiar ones. In the second case, it would be another mindless homage (or another "olive branch") that evokes Trek nostalgia without an obligation to honor its history.

That said, even if we ignore the differences between the Discovery-style Enterprise uniforms and the original costumes of TOS, they shouldn't be around as of 2257. Captain Pike never wore a golden shirt as the captain of the Enterprise, at least not in the Prime Timeline. If the intention was to let the series appear "more canon", we should rather be shown a new interpretation of the style with the pale colors from "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before". The uniforms are not a big deal in light of the more drastic canon violations of the series, but they fail to be more than just tips of the hat.

Notwithstanding the fact that the redefinition of the ship's proportions and dimensions has evidently nothing to do with the progress in VFX technology, the "25% rule" affair leaves a bad taste. Let me start my comment with a disclaimer. For me, it always was and still is plausible that CBS does own and makes use of its rights, including all visual designs, to produce Star Trek for television. There is no real evidence to the contrary, although rumors about CBS not being the actual production company are still floating around. I don't subscribe to theories that Discovery is made under some sort of "alternate license" or that it is a part of the Abramsverse, technically speaking. But - I have a suspicion that once Discovery is sufficiently different from the rest (don't ask me whether it has to be 25%, I'm not a lawyer), it may be sold as a separate entity in case the ownership of Star Trek were to change. Again, for me as a layman this is a theoretical possibility at this point. I'm not saying that CBS plans to abandon either Discovery or the rest of Trek, but the questionable creative decisions have laid the foundation for such a move.

It is only fair that CBS hurries to rectify untrue claims and that they ask their employees and contractors to stop publishing anything that may harm their business. As sad as it may be, non-disclosure overrules the freedom of speech in a case like this. I can understand the company very well in this regard. But - there is still a shade of doubt. Would production people posting at Facebook lie about something they heard about in the company? Isn't it a perfectly plausible assumption that the "25% rule" was indeed cited by some superior at CBS at some point, as some sort of justification for the design changes in Discovery? I don't think anyone is consciously lying to the fans. But the whole truth may be more complicated, and not meant to become public.

It is noteworthy that Anson Mount bears a resemblance to Jeffrey Hunter, who played Captain Pike in "The Cage", rather than to Bruce Greenwood, who appeared in this role in the Abrams movies. This casting choice reclaims a little bit of the otherwise discarded visual continuity with the old Star Trek. On the other hand, it sort of invalidates the visuals of "Star Trek Into Darkness", a movie that is barely five years old. Just like Mudd or Sarek too (not to mention the Klingons or the USS Enterprise), the character is apparently deemed "flexible" so he can be re-interpreted by a new actor any time the producers feel like throwing in a familiar name from the legacy.

The "big part" of Alan Van Sprang as a Section 31 agent is more evidence that Discovery is fond of recycling concepts of the old Star Trek, especially if they are alleged fan favorites. But rather than creating genuine continuity, frequent appearances of "top secret" people or organizations further undermine the credibility of the series. So are we up for a Section 31 arc in season 2 that will have to be erased from the history books just like the spore drive and the Mirror Universe of season 1? And what's next? The Borg (heavily reimagined, of course)? Romulans? Or even Khan?

I could go into a long rant about how hypocritical it is to call the new Klingons an "evolutionary imperative" that "honors the integrity" instead of admitting they were changed for change's sake, and about how telling it is to speak of "the world of our Discovery" as a new universe. It is clear that the makers of Discovery didn't care for visual canon at all, and only selectively for story canon or for the preservation of the optimistic spirit that pervades all old series. The latter may still change in season 2. It is the last chance for Discovery to become a worthy part of the franchise. It is too late to do anything of note about the former now that the damage is done and no one seems to feel bad about it. I find it grotesque that Aaron Harberts would place importance on the Enterprise uniforms in light of the otherwise extreme deviations from canon in Discovery.

I have strong misgivings about one or even more Discovery episodes set in the Mirror Universe. I generally dislike the Mirror Universe since it was done to death in DS9 and ultimately became a kinky and comical throwaway version of the "serious" Prime Universe. ENT: "In a Mirror Darkly" visited a still unspoiled era in which the Terran Empire still existed. Although it turned out better than the last DS9 iterations, it couldn't overcome the firmly established clichés. A Mirror Universe story may be fun in spite of everything, as it allows to change familiar characters and concepts, even to the exact opposite whenever desired. But since Discovery itself is sort of a parallel universe in which things look and work very differently than in the old Star Trek, the mere idea of doing a Discovery Mirror episode is paradoxical.

We can take for granted that with the simplification "no hair", Neville Page and Glenn Hetrick tell us nothing less than that all Klingons of the new series will look like T'Kuvma's species and hence totally different than any Klingons in Star Trek so far (the lack of hair being just one of several issues). This is of utmost significance, because at least in this very important regard (the Klingons being the arguably most often used and most popular alien species) Discovery will be a total reboot, with a deliberate absence of visual continuity to the existing Star Trek.

The insistence that Discovery adheres to canon in spite of the extreme visual changes can only mean that, beginning with Discovery, visuals are exempted from canon. In other words, it is of no significance any longer how someone or something used to look before Discovery. This is a dramatic paradigm shift in the history of official Star Trek productions. Star Trek was visually updated several times in its history, but at latest since TOS and TMP Klingons appeared together in DS9: "Trials and Tribble-ations" or the NX class and the Constitution class side by side in ENT: "In a Mirror, Darkly", there is a firmly established rule: Visuals must not be altered, unless it is only cosmetic (like the new feather pattern on the D7 cruiser in the already mentioned episode "Trials and Tribble-ations"). This will change in Discovery, because we are compelled to ignore that Klingons ever looked different than in the new series. (Well, that or they all lose and regain their hair as well as gain and lose two additional nostrils in the course of less than one generation.)

Berg and Harberts apply continuity standards of novels to a production in which the visuals were always an essential part of the stories. In a TV series, visuals are facts, and as such at least on par with teleplay contents. In Star Trek as it existed until today, it mattered that TOS Klingons looked different than the TMP ones. In Discovery, this difference will no longer exist. Moreover, the redesign is in direct contradiction to DS9: "Trials and Tribble-ations" and ENT: "Divergence" and hence more than a matter of style. Ironically, after getting rid of the old Klingon looks and styles, Discovery adds a new diversity to the Klingon houses in the form of different clothing and ship types, a diversity as it neither existed visually nor in an allegedly "more factual" form in previous Trek iterations.

The new information from Sullivan confirms what has been speculated about for months, that T'Kuvma's Klingons with their heavily decorated costumes and their cathedral-like starship, are some kind of forgotten sect, rather than "regular" Klingons. Whether the idea of "clerical" Klingons in a flying graveyard (the coffins of revered warriors affixed to the hull as easy targets?!) makes any sense is something up to Discovery to prove. In any case it doesn't make sense that Ted Sullivan refers to hairless Klingons as an exception, although Kol, member of the House of Kor, doesn't have hair either and overall looks like T'Kuvma, just with gray skin. My apprehension is that all Klingon houses in the series will look like this species (and may have weird technology and designs never seen before), by which Discovery will ultimately set itself apart from the rest of Star Trek as a total reboot.

Regardless of the still existing slim chance to reconcile T'Kuvma and the sarcophagus ship with canon, I just hate the style of everything shown so far related to the Klingons. It is easily the worst production design ever conceived for an alien race of Star Trek. The sarcophagus ship from the outside and from the inside, the costumes of T'Kuvma and the "Torchbearer", the coffins and other Klingon props are all awfully overdesigned. The designs are purely decorative. There are ornaments everywhere, different kinds of ornaments side by side and ornaments inside ornaments inside ornaments. Rather than alien, much of it looks like pieced together from various Earth's artistic periods such as Gothic, Baroque and some ancient Chinese, in a cut-and-paste fashion without an aesthetic or artistic eye. I can't take those overblown Klingons seriously. I hope that the other houses, even if they should be the same new species as T'Kuvma's, will have more tasteful, more practical and perhaps recognizably Klingon styling.

Regarding the ongoing debate on the hate posts against the diversity of the series, I'm tired of reading about it almost every day. It's a fabricated controversy because Star Trek has always been diverse, and there was never a need to justify it or even to emphasize it as a special quality of the series. I don't blame the actors for giving their opinion on racism in interviews. I wholeheartedly agree with them. But the mainstream media totally overrated a few isolated intolerant statements in the first place and made it a big deal that some people are opposed to the series for racist motives. When I google "star trek discovery criticism" I find pages full of outrage about one or two racist trolls, but almost nothing about justified criticism about the series.

As much as I otherwise appreciate Aaron Harberts's insight, his views on the continuity of Discovery continue to surprise me. He cites Enterprise as the main limiting factor for storytelling in Discovery. Why is Enterprise (set 100 years in the past) limiting, rather than TOS (set 10 years in the future)? According to his words, Enterprise retcons Star Trek "in certain ways" and Harberts makes it sound gracious that he still considers it canon. Says the producer of a series that turns Star Trek on its head, as far as we can tell! While this all sounds quite presumptuous, between the lines Harberts essentially complains about the very premise of his own series, Discovery (that he may not have been able to influence though).

The problems only exist because Discovery alters established looks and because it forcibly squeezes its story into Star Trek's history. It is a blend of a reboot, a reimagination and a prequel that is unconfident about its own nature. On one hand, extreme alterations such as the new Klingons are deemed acceptable. On the other hand, the writers are purportedly anxious not to disappoint the fans regarding minuscule details, and they blame Enterprise of all series for being bothersome in this regard. Why? Enterprise retconned the Klingons by explaining the difference between variations A and B. Discovery introduces variation C and will probably pretend A and B never existed. So the problem is solely with the very idea of Discovery, and not with Enterprise that Harberts cites as a scapegoat! I don't get it, and I'm afraid Harberts himself may not have a better concept of the continuity standards of his series.

The sets we could already see in the trailers were all "cinematically" dark, as if Starfleet did not have enough power on their ships for appropriate lighting. The Discovery bridge does not seem to be an exception. Still, I like the bridge design of the lead ship. Its puristic style is a nice contrast to the very playful command center of the Abrams movie Enterprise, as well as to several overblown designs of Star Trek Discovery itself. It may work for me as a Starfleet bridge of the 2250's.

Yet, the all-dominating blue on the bridge monitors is a nuisance. Well, there is no reason why Starfleet shouldn't switch to a monochrome color scheme, and if only on an experimental basis. But neon blue user interfaces in scifi movies or series are so dreary and stereotyped, they strain the eyes (especially in low-light environments) and I would personally hate to work on them all day. As if the designers had anticipated my criticism, they announce that the displays will evolve to more colorful designs similar to the ones we know from TOS. A good decision, not just for the sake of what is left of Trek's continuity! The mystery is what Timothy Peel meant by "other reasons I can't repeat" in this regard. Does he refer to real-world reasons (someone made up their mind to try to adhere to canon) or to an in-universe rationale?

I like the details about Michael Burnham, although her back story includes Star Trek clichés that we already know too well. She is orphaned, like so many other characters. She's the first or only human to study on Vulcan, an exception that is very common in Star Trek where we frequently meet people who have been the only one of their kind among aliens. And she has a very personal unfinished business with the Klingons, which is a familiar theme too.

The new trailer is somewhat less warlike and more pleasant to watch than the previous one, although it starts with a quite uncompromising statement.

Regarding Jason Isaacs's statement about die-hard Star Trek fans, I am sorry that he was misquoted about the "throwing away the legacy" part. Bad journalism. I am sorry that he was attacked for it. But the statement about those fans "going to watch anyway" and him "having the fun of them being outraged" appears to be authentic. At least Isaacs didn't deny it. I am grateful for the apparent honesty in a public relations campaign for Discovery, which so far used to counter possible and actual criticism of the series with distraction tactics and appeasement. Still, I take exception to his obvious disrespect for fans like me and for our expectations. We have to keep in mind, he is talking about the core group of customers, and he expresses joy over them being dissatisfied, even angry, with the product he is working on!

Well, on a positive note about the Discovery Klingons (my probably first one), Kol has clothes that are in line with Klingon style in the old Star Trek, and definitely more reasonable than the totally overblown Klingon costumes of the series seen so far. The fact that there are 24 houses was taken by some fans as a hint that old-style Klingons exist in the Discovery universe. This is only wishful thinking in my view, since the decision about the radical redesign dates back to the very early stages of the Discovery production. At STLV, it was confirmed that indeed Bryan Fuller came up with the idea that Klingons should look very different. The repeated emphasis on the fact that the Klingon speak authentic Klingon, the exact language that Mark Okrand created, sounds like an attempt to appease traditional fans in this regard. But how many fans really understand Klingon well enough to notice possible mistakes? A hundred? How does that compare to the millions of people who will ask "Why did they change the Klingons and will they ever explain it?"

Regarding the USS Discovery that could have been, I like it. I was never a fan of the "Planet of the Titans" ship that the Discovery was based on, quite possibly in an attempt at fan service. But especially the design of the saucer and of the Bussard collectors feels right in the test shots, and the hull finish is absolutely convincing. It is a pity that someone felt like cutting through the saucer (Vengeance-style) and extending the nacelles to a ridiculous length.

It is sad to learn that Discovery creator Bryan Fuller was effectively fired by CBS. There is no doubt Fuller was committed to revive the spirit of Star Trek, which in the eyes of many fans, including myself, would have worked a lot better in the anthology he pitched than in the serialized prequel/reboot we will get. It was not Fuller's first choice to create the series that CBS wanted from him, which seems to have been the first of many events that hampered his work on Discovery and may have forced Fuller to narrow down his points of special interest. I personally only wish Fuller had cared as much for Star Trek's continuity as he did for politically correct character and casting choices. It would have been awesome to see Fuller's re-imagined "The Cage" costumes on Discovery on one hand, but we also have to keep in mind that he is said to have been the driving force behind the mutilation of the Klingons. And as I already commented just after his departure from Discovery last year, it is impossible to work on two big projects in parallel, the way Fuller quite obviously tried. So irrespective of the reasons that led to the apparent estrangement, I can understand the CBS executives were miffed that Fuller didn't give Discovery his full attention.

Regarding the PG-13 rating of Discovery, I am confident that violence, nudity and profanity will be handled in an appropriate fashion. Aaron Harberts correctly noted that nudity would feel weird on Star Trek, unlike it is the case on many other streaming shows that don't have a legacy. There is no need for worries.

Finally, a note on the Shenzhou (Walker class) design. The ship looks okay - for use in a post-Nemesis series. I was so busy that I never had a closer look at it until a few days ago. I watched out for details that, like on the "Akiraprise", insinuate that this could be an older ship despite its overall sleek appearance. I found none. The saucer superstructure, the countless tapered shapes and odd angles are totally 24th century. The Shenzhou design is utterly ignorant of the established evolution of Starfleet's ships and technology, and its huge size at a length of over 400m adds insult to injury. Even the production designers of the Abrams films created some reasonably older looking (yet way too big) ships besides the Enterprise. But Discovery obviously goes the whole way towards a total visual reboot of Star Trek. Or to a generic series that is supposed to look somehow like Star Trek, for which all eras and timelines of the franchise are free to be plundered. Sorry for the rant, but this is my contribution to the ongoing fan debates that otherwise seem to focus on rather easily explicable issues such as how Spock can have a stepsister.

The new trailer doesn't get me more interested in Discovery. It is all about battles and explosions. It totally relies on Abramsverse aesthetics: ships popping up from warp and stopping immediately a few meters away, machine gun like phasers, way too much motion and way too little light everywhere. It is a visual overkill that lacks the feeling for the vastness of space, not to mention the fascination to explore it.

There's so much news that I'd like to comment just on the most obvious issues. The first is the statement by Aaron Harberts, which has been labeled by some fans as an "explanation" for the enormous dilemma the total redesign of the Klingon species has caused. But he provides nothing like a rationale, not even a motivation. Let us recapitulate: "In the different versions of Trek, the Klingons have never been completely consistent." So mistakes were made before, and other people are to blame. Now that is the lamest excuse ever! "We will introduce several different houses with different styles." This sounds like "we don't care how Klingons looked, we simply create our own ones, and as many different ones as we want." "Hopefully, fans will become more invested in the characters than worried about the redesign." In other words, "Shut up and watch the show. We still hope the characters will work despite the thick latex masks."

The next point I would like to comment on is the designs of the Starfleet devices: the phaser pistol, the phaser rifle, the communicator and the tricorder. They are wonderful! They follow the lines of the classic devices as closely as possible, while the update to the user interface maintains their credibility as futuristic technology. These devices would be perfect for a series that remains true to the continuity and spirit of TOS, if Discovery were such a series.

Discovery's production design, however, is overall a chaotic blend of styles that don't fit together. Communicator, tricorder, phasers: TOS retro style. Starfleet bridges: Abramsverse. Discovery exterior: based on a sketch discarded for good reasons 40 years ago. Shenzhou exterior: 24th century. Shenzhou transporter: steampunk. Klingon ship: Gothic cathedral. Klingon costumes and props: ridiculously overdesigned. Klingon make-up: anything but Klingon.

The production design is good in the details (even the Klingon design has its merits although I hate it) but overall arbitrary. It is like many people with different agendas are working on the show, and just don't talk to each other. Or like people who boldly try to defy the principle that you can't have everything at once. I miss the old days when Matt Jefferies or Herman Zimmerman were in charge of the Art Department, who gave their shows a signature look, a feeling that it all belongs together. Even Enterprise had one, with the Akiraprise being the only slight annoyance.

I don't think that the widescreen format is a good decision. I just like to watch television on the full screen, without having black bars anywhere. That's why television is produced in 16:9 today, and used to be 4:3 until a couple of years ago when TV screens had that ratio. The almost unnoticeable "cinematic" effect of 2:1 does not compensate for the slight annoyance of the black bars. On the contrary, I don't like widescreen very much anyway, it does not fit my visual field. I would personally reduce the aspect ratio to somewhat less than 16:9 (to be precise, to the golden ratio) if I were to re-invent HDTV. In my view, TV producers should leave the widescreen format to the cinema. Trying to compete with the Abrams movies is not good for Discovery, although it is still one of my smaller gripes with the series.

The news about Jonathan Frakes directing an episode, on the other hand, is a very pleasant surprise. Another big name, and another chance to get the right feel into the series.

I'm not so excited about Discovery any more and I haven't subscribed to Netflix yet. But it's good to know that the launch date "this fall" was finally fixed, and that it's rather the beginning of fall than the end.

I can accept the Starfleet and the Vulcan styling in Discovery for the most part. Well, the design of the Starfleet ship (apparently the Shenzhou) is another bland Akira rip-off and the bridge is too modern (as could be expected). But there are at least some cues to TOS such as in the style of the captain's chair. I only wish the series had abstained from using obnoxious blue on transparent displays and bridge windows as in the Abramsverse. And I wish they had avoided lens flares. Most alien characters look great in their make-up. But those ugly creatures that Discovery tries to pass off as "Klingons" and that fly through space in a Gothic cathedral are almost impossible to put up with. Even if Discovery provides a really good explanation (the "sarcophagus ship"?), I still hate the Klingon make-up and set design.

The trailer shows that otherwise Discovery has outstanding production values, and the potential to become an exciting, "lifelike" series set in the Star Trek Universe. The people in charge shouldn't ruin it with short-sighted design decisions that are so much more than just a matter of taste.

And one more thing for CBS to remember, for their advertising campaign: Geoblocking sucks! The video released by CBS doesn't work in Europe, which makes it extremely bothersome to try to share it.

It is great to know that they finally started filming, and that they obviously went into great lengths creating the world of the 23rd century anew. It was clear that the series wouldn't show Pike-era uniforms as in "The Cage", and I won't comment on it or jump to conclusions before we can see more of the series. The currently most important open question is when they eventually plan to go live.

I look forward to seeing Sarek on the show, and I hope that his inclusion is not gratuitous in a way that it could be used to insinuate continuity where otherwise none exists. It seems unlikely though that he may become a permanent character.

Regarding CBS's statement on the launch date, this most likely means a further delay. If it's best for the show, I will be flexible.

This all sounds very good. I like the idea of having a lead character who is not on the top of the ship's rank structure. My only concern is that the series may establish even more alien races, phenomena and technology (in addition to what could be seen on Enterprise) that will fall into oblivion until the 24th century.

Now the guessing game has begun which incident in Star Trek history Fuller may have alluded to. My guess is that it's an event we only know from a passing remark and we wouldn't really think of.

The revelation of the series title and the new ship is great news. Because we can assume the name "Discovery" was not chosen by mere chance. It sounds like it is supposed to reflect the plot and maybe even the philosophy of the new series.

I am also pleased that the series does not take place in the desolate Kelvin timeline, but in an "unspoiled" era of the Star Trek Universe. And while I was never a big fan of the Ralph McQuarrie design, I think that with the tweaks that went into the design of the Discovery (and perhaps some more to come) it has the right style for the early 23rd century. It all looks like 2017 will be a great year for fans who want to see genuine Star Trek.

This is good news because fans in other countries don't have to wait forever (for a free TV broadcast or DVD release) to view the new series. I don't have a streaming account and would normally never get one. But as long as the new Star Trek series is running (and I hope it will be for a long time) the money for Netflix is well invested.

The idea that the new series could be set in the time after "The Undiscovered Country" was never more than wishful thinking, nourished only by the participation of Nicholas Meyer. I think every time will be fine, as long as it's not another reboot.

The announcement that the first season will be one single story (arc) over thirteen episodes is a major letdown. I have a strong dislike for serialized television series. Actually, I don't remember following any serial until the finale in the past ten years or so. I used to give up watching either because I lacked the time, or because after a long work week it was too difficult for me to find my way back into the story.

While this may be different with the new Star Trek series (I will definitely follow it attentively), it puts me off for still another reason. I want to see the crew boldly go where no one has gone before, for which the traditional self-contained format of Star Trek episodes was perfect. A serial, on the other hand, is predetermined to show ongoing conflicts (personal, political or military). Star Trek switched to a serialized format in DS9's sixth and seventh seasons (Dominion War), and in Enterprise's third season (Xindi Arc). Each of those seasons did have a couple of episodes that took a break from the respective arc, and that felt out of place. I don't want a whole series to focus on generic character conflicts (or on an Abramsverse-style villain hunt) and to include Star Trek themes only in the form of added value.

I'm open-minded about the possible inclusion of a gay character, and I'm confident that it will be done in a decent fashion, by looking at the roles through a "gender-blind prism", just as Fuller mentioned it. It should be and will be a character that happens to be gay, and not one that is defined by being gay. I am only a bit worried that the mere existence of a gay character will distract from more important issues of the new series. We should ignore those who will hate it just because someone is gay. But I also hope that the "progressive" fan base understands that it is a science fiction show in the first place, and not a service to fulfill political demands.

Mark Worthington will follow in the footsteps of Matt Jefferies and Herman Zimmerman, and that's quite a challenge. I'm not familiar with Worthington's previous work (among which there doesn't seem to be any science fiction), and I hope he knows how to create the right look for a Star Trek show.

Joe Menosky wrote some of the most thrilling and most imaginative episodes of modern Star Trek so this is definitely great news. At this point I hope that the new show doesn't only boast big names but that these people will also have a positive influence on its direction.

It is interesting to note that another expert for the old Star Trek (the Prime Universe) joins the staff. I wouldn't overrate this observation though. Alex Kurtzman may have just been watching out for people with knowledge of previous Star Trek (story- and production-wise). Notable people with Star Trek experience are sorely missing from the production staffs of the Abramsverse movies, so even if the new series continues in this universe it may profit from Kirsten Beyer, just as from Nicholas Meyer and Bryan Fuller.

This first trailer is very generic and reveals practically nothing. Only the announcement of "new crews" may be seen as a hint that it's not about Kirk and Spock yet again. But I wouldn't go as far as taking this as a cue that the new series will be an anthology. I personally hope for original adventures that don't rewrite established history or characters. And I hope that those "new villains" won't be anything like the ones in the latest Star Trek movies.

As for the logo, I'm quite sure it isn't the final one. Teaser trailers almost never show anything that is already set in stone. Also, naming the new show just "Star Trek" would be an extremely poor choice.

It is great that a classic weekly schedule was chosen for the new Star Trek series. This brings back the weekly anticipation that I loved so much about the old TV series. It is definitely a big bummer that the access to the new Star Trek will be so restricted, quite probably outside the U.S. as well. Personally, I don't know if and how I will be able to watch the episodes in time.

So Star Trek is moving away from California. This could mean that alien planets in this series may look like boreal forest, rather than familiar landscapes such as Vasquez Rocks or Bronson Canyon. But we'll have to wait and see if and how location shoots will be arranged. In any case, I think the series can only profit from the availability of North America's purportedly biggest soundstage and a large backlot.

We certainly can't complain about a lack of big names among the staff of the next Star Trek series, but we'll have to wait and see whether Rod Roddenberry can live up to the expectations. He is the preserver of his father's heritage, yet he has never been closely involved with an official Star Trek production. He is a filmmaker, but so far not on a such a big scale. Anyway, I keep my fingers crossed that Rod Roddenberry can positively influence the new series, in the sense of "upholding the tenants of Star Trek's legacy".

The first part about the new Star Trek going into a different direction is much the same phrase that was used to describe any new series (or film) of the franchise that was released since TOS. What Meyer says about "The Undiscovered Country" being a touchstone is a bit more revealing. It could mean that the new Star Trek will put more emphasis on the military theme than we are used to from previous series. Or it could hint at interplanetary politics as the backdrop of the new series (in which case it should be better compared to DS9 though).

This is a big surprise. Nicholas Meyer has not worked on Star Trek for a very long time. Many fans seem to be very excited about Meyer's participation, but I wonder how much influence on creative decisions he will really have. Also, while I definitely like his work on three Star Trek films that are among the better ones, Nicholas Meyer stands for a departure from the style and spirit of The Original Series that I am not totally happy about. In particularly, I would love to see a TV series without the militarism that Meyer established (and that TNG abandoned again).

Bryan Fuller's addition to the staff is good news. He has been involved with the franchise for two decades, and he seems to have a more than only commercial motivation to bring Star Trek back to the small screen. Any speculation whether or not Fuller would rather return to old-style Star Trek or would embrace the Abramsverse is definitely premature.

It is awesome that Star Trek will return to the small screen, after an absence of as long as twelve years. Television is not only the origin of the franchise but is also the medium to relay the message much better than a multi-million dollar blockbuster movie. The Abramsverse movies may have revived the franchise in an economic sense but they failed to promote the philosophy and provide a vision of a future, of the kind it was present in all TV series (including Enterprise). So I am definitely looking forward to a new Star Trek TV series.

The fact that Alex Kurtzman will run the show is a first hint that it may be set in the Abramsverse, rather than in the Prime Universe. Well, it is said not to be related to "Star Trek Beyond" but this may merely mean that it has a different main cast. The odds that any of the highly paid actors of the Abrams films will appear in a permanent role in a TV show are slim anyway.

Rather than the perhaps premature fear that the tone of the Abramsverse may be carried over to a TV series, the fact that the new Star Trek will be shown exclusively on CBS All Access, a streaming channel that is still seeking its place in the market, is somewhat off-putting. At least for many people who either don't have the time or the money or the bandwidth to see all kinds of series on all kinds of pay channels. While being the crowd-puller for the new channel may be flattering for Star Trek, vice versa the show is also dependent on the success of the channel. And quite unlike the TV shows of the past (and the Abrams movies) it may not be laid out to become a mass phenomenon in the first place.