Star Trek: Discovery - Pre-release discussion [ NO SPOILERS ]

The_Valeyard · 19-05-2016 5:12pm

I liked it.

AMKC · 19-05-2016 5:20pm

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Combs was so great on DS9. I can't remember the name of the Ferengi character he played but I loved that, in one episode, he played both characters and the credits at the start just said: Jeffrey Combs as Wayoun. Jeffrey Combs as "What's-his-name"

As for the new series regarding this whole multiple timeline thing: I didn't look back through this thread but just wondering if someone brought up the whole temporal war thing from enterprise. Could have one crew shortly after enterprise timeline and one after next gen time and cross contamination of both timelines.
I would prefer an anthology series (With a very central story arc covering them all) but just wondering if they were thinking down that temporal war path (I hope not).

Possibly it's following that whole secret agency group from DS9 (Sector something-or-other) over years and years as they fight against a single thus-far-top secret enemy.

They are called Section 31.
I really hope its an anthology series as that will make everyone well most people happy anyway and if its successful maybe they will go further and maybe go a decade or two after the events of Nemesis too. Maybe they should let people vote how many decades after Nemesis they should start when they get that far into it.

ScumLord · 19-05-2016 5:28pm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Game of Thrones has a highly complex take on morality and a plot so convoluted it is sometimes challenging even for the very attentive. It is the most popular genre show in at least a decade, and that includes a huge US audience.

Game of thrones made it's audience away from TV so it was somewhat restricted, it's the same for many books that make their way to TV, the producers are held in check by the audience they're aiming for.

It's also made by HBO who have made themselves known for not following the trend when it comes to TV. Most TV shows are complete dross where you can see the entire episode laid out for you in the description in the TV guide.

I think the only reason standards are so low is that people have become accustomed to it. Even the likes of Breaking Bad came up against a lot of confusion, it took a while for people to get into it and many constantly complained that it wasn't fast paced enough.

It's certainly taken a swing in the other direction but I still feel like the majority of TV shows are only following trends and aren't really willing to make a story like breaking bad or game of thrones, they'll make a show that looks the part but the stories are still as safe as they can be.

Generally producers need to stop giving the people what they want because the peoples standards are so low they only know how to ask for shyte.

MarkAnthony · 19-05-2016 5:31pm

Section 31 and there's no way we're going to get as many tits as GoT :pac:

If anything they should mercilessly rip off BSG.

H3llR4iser · 19-05-2016 6:39pm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Game of Thrones has a highly complex take on morality and a plot so convoluted it is sometimes challenging even for the very attentive. It is the most popular genre show in at least a decade, and that includes a huge US audience.

I haven't watched much of Game of Thrones, I don't doubt it has its complexities; Keep in mind however that it doesn't have scientific (albeit fake) undertones which, alone, have been a powerful deterrent for general audiences in the last decade or so.

I personally find GoT boring and unappealing so I would be fairly confident it uses its complexities in a very different way than in the "classic" Star Trek, which I find very entertaining.

On the other hand, going on a limb I would say sex, nudity, violence and power struggle do attract a lot of the current audience to the show. What would happen if the complexities stayed the same, but all of the aforementioned was taken away? Would people still watch? Some would, some would not.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I don't buy the argument that audiences are dumber than they were in some far-off golden age. I don't buy the argument that American audiences are dumber than European ones. I don't buy the argument that critics don't "get" genre film and TV.

Just look at the stuff on TV - everything has to be "domesticated" one way or another, simplified, made to bite-size. They make comic-superhero based series and reshape the characters so much it's often impossible to recognize them if you are a comic reader. Maybe Game of Thrones isn't, but maybe is and it's just better than the rest.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

They "get" GoT just fine. They also loved Nolan's Batman films. If they hated Batman V Superman, I'm inclined to believe that's probably because it lacked the depth and complexity that modern critics and audiences in fact demand.

Sorry but no, just no. Some critics have very valid points, but many simply can't understand anything that is not explicitly stated. I mentioned that specific movie and quote because it's the most bright demonstration; A number of reviewers essentially couldn't understand that the opening scenes were referring to "Man of Steel". Nor they could understand the whole "Marta" scene - it's a simple, campy and a bit silly scene, yet loads of Internet review go on about "they just stop fighting because their mothers have the same name!". This is being unable to figure out even the most basic stuff.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We absolutely shouldn't make any excuses for a dumbed-down Star Trek.

Hopefully it's just a dodgy trailer.

Hopefully. However, I do have a feeling that a show with certain complexities, science-inspired, not featuring a lot of sex-nudity-maiming, not having a who-sleeps-with-whom chick flick vibe, won't survive at all on TV today. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be an "Us vs them" affair; But maybe they'll surprise everyone and pull a whole series of "In the pale moonlight" and similar...

H3llR4iser · 19-05-2016 6:43pm

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Section 31 and there's no way we're going to get as many tits as GoT :pac:

If anything they should mercilessly rip off BSG.

Absolutely! So I can root for the cylons <insert new villains> again!

MarkAnthony · 19-05-2016 6:45pm

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Absolutely! So I can root for the cylons <insert new villains> again!

A world with enough Tricia Helfers, Grace Parks and Lucy Lawlesses to go around... sign me up.

AtomicHorror · 19-05-2016 11:30pm

ScumLord wrote: »

Game of thrones made it's audience away from TV so it was somewhat restricted, it's the same for many books that make their way to TV, the producers are held in check by the audience they're aiming for.

It's also made by HBO who have made themselves known for not following the trend when it comes to TV. Most TV shows are complete dross where you can see the entire episode laid out for you in the description in the TV guide.

I think the only reason standards are so low is that people have become accustomed to it. Even the likes of Breaking Bad came up against a lot of confusion, it took a while for people to get into it and many constantly complained that it wasn't fast paced enough.

It's certainly taken a swing in the other direction but I still feel like the majority of TV shows are only following trends and aren't really willing to make a story like breaking bad or game of thrones, they'll make a show that looks the part but the stories are still as safe as they can be.

Generally producers need to stop giving the people what they want because the peoples standards are so low they only know how to ask for shyte.

But this is my point. GoT and Breaking Bad lead the audience instead of following them, whatever the motivation for that was (and GoT may have had the book audience to appeal to, but it needed to find a new audience as well to survive).

Star Trek should never be a show that follows the audience. It shouldn't be in the majority of shows that do so. It's predecessors took risks (well TOS, TNG and DS9 did) and in the case of TOS, fell foul of them. That's the Star Trek I love.

H3llR4iser wrote: »

I haven't watched much of Game of Thrones, I don't doubt it has its complexities; Keep in mind however that it doesn't have scientific (albeit fake) undertones which, alone, have been a powerful deterrent for general audiences in the last decade or so.

It's fantasy, which was just as unfashionable even after the LOTR adaptations spawned more fantasy on TV.

H3llR4iser wrote: »

I personally find GoT boring and unappealing so I would be fairly confident it uses its complexities in a very different way than in the "classic" Star Trek, which I find very entertaining.

Not really the point. The point is that there's a substantial audience out there for complex stories with complex morality- something that doesn't sit well with a "heroes and villains" worldview.

H3llR4iser wrote: »

On the other hand, going on a limb I would say sex, nudity, violence and power struggle do attract a lot of the current audience to the show. What would happen if the complexities stayed the same, but all of the aforementioned was taken away? Would people still watch? Some would, some would not.

Undoubtedly, but I think you'd win some of them back (and others) with that complexity married to the elements familiar to Star Trek.

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Just look at the stuff on TV - everything has to be "domesticated" one way or another, simplified, made to bite-size. They make comic-superhero based series and reshape the characters so much it's often impossible to recognize them if you are a comic reader. Maybe Game of Thrones isn't, but maybe is and it's just better than the rest.

I'm not sure of your point here. Look at how bad things are, therefore it has to suck to survive? To paraphrase GoT itself, it's easy to mistake what is, for what should be.

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Sorry but no, just no. Some critics have very valid points, but many simply can't understand anything that is not explicitly stated. I mentioned that specific movie and quote because it's the most bright demonstration; A number of reviewers essentially couldn't understand that the opening scenes were referring to "Man of Steel". Nor they could understand the whole "Marta" scene - it's a simple, campy and a bit silly scene, yet loads of Internet review go on about "they just stop fighting because their mothers have the same name!". This is being unable to figure out even the most basic stuff.

The Nolan Batman films had plenty of assumed knowledge in there too, but they somehow didn't lose the more casual critics, and the stories weren't in any way debased in order retain the audience.

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Hopefully. However, I do have a feeling that a show with certain complexities, science-inspired, not featuring a lot of sex-nudity-maiming, not having a who-sleeps-with-whom chick flick vibe, won't survive at all on TV today.

Better to go out like Firefly than stick around like some of the bland dross we see renewed for 12 seasons. But that said, if Firefly had launched with the pre-existing brand recognition of Star Trek, it would have lived far longer. The producers of Star Trek can choose to see that huge legacy as a burden or risk and play it safe, or as an opportunity to take a risk... and lead.

24-05-2016 11:18am

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Well, they need to cater for today's, how to say, less-mentally-engaged average TV audience, especially stateside (remember, the ones who can't find the US on a world map), so I suspect it will inevitably be a bit more "black & white" morally speaking, than the incarnations of the past. You actually see this more or less anywhere in ultra-mainstream media...

I mean, we live in an era where "movie critics" can't understand the concept of "flashback" and write vitriol-filled pieces about the "speceship from the beginning of the movie disappearing and never being menitoned again" when reviewing Batman Vs. Superman...

Wow I couldn't disagree anymore with your assessment of what is currently being produced for TV. We are now in the golden age. The dawn of TV on demand has shifted writing away from episodic style where everything has to go back to normal at the end of each episode. Unfortunately almost all of Star Trek falls into this category. People now watch a series the whole way through without missing any episodes, as such the writers can create far more complex characters with story arcs spanning over 10 hours with enormous crescendos (red wedding?) rather than being restricted to 2 hours of film or 1 hour bottle episodes. This existed before (Sopranos, The Wire, Twin Peaks) but is thankfully becoming more prevalent. The amount of A-list actors moving towards TV is reflecting this. I just hope to god this new series follows the trend of a continuous evolving story-line. It will be the difference between me watching this or ignoring it. I watched firefly recently and was massively put off by its episodic nature. All the tension is removed when you know a newly introduced character will be gone by the end of the episode.

Beefy78 · 24-05-2016 4:29pm

Even in the 90s that shift to sweeping, long-term plots had happened. Voyager very deliberately chose not to go down that road because of the syndication model. They just wanted people to be able to switch on, watch an episode and not necessarily understand at which point it lived in the span of the continuity.

The_Valeyard · 31-05-2016 5:16pm

Speaking of Voyager....

http://screencrush.com/cbs-star-trek-kirsten-beyer-writer-voyager/

Not sure how I feel about voyager writing staff involved in new show.

Myrddin · 31-05-2016 5:40pm

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Not sure how I feel about voyager writing staff involved in new show.

It seems she wrote some novels, I can't see it mentioned she was part of the Voyager writing staff...

The_Valeyard · 31-05-2016 11:06pm

Myrddin wrote: »

It seems she wrote some novels, I can't see it mentioned she was part of the Voyager writing staff...

How in the name of all that is Q, did I miss that!!

Good catch dude.

AMKC · 01-06-2016 9:27pm

She could be good especially if they are going to do an anthology series, changing time, setting and focus from season to season which could be good as she has a knack for Quote Beyer is also well known for “her knack with tying disparate bits of Trek continuity together,”

malcy · 04-06-2016 3:37pm

And 2 more http://trekmovie.com/2016/06/03/breaking-trek-vet-joe-menosky-and-heroes-writer-aron-coleite-join-star-trek-all-access-writing-staff/

AtomicHorror · 04-06-2016 8:19pm

malcy wrote: »

And 2 more http://trekmovie.com/2016/06/03/breaking-trek-vet-joe-menosky-and-heroes-writer-aron-coleite-join-star-trek-all-access-writing-staff/

The writer of Darmok... that's very promising!

FutureGuy · 04-06-2016 10:39pm

So there is talk that Gillian Anderson and Bryan Fuller will be working on an unconfirmed show together on Twitter.

My brother commented that it would be amazing to see her in a TOS movie uniform.

Fuller favourites the tweet. :-D

Make what you will of that. I think she would be an amazing choice.

malcy · 04-06-2016 10:54pm

She's in the Neil Gaiman show Fuller is working on.

AtomicHorror · 05-06-2016 12:10am

malcy wrote: »

She's in the Neil Gaiman show Fuller is working on.

Yes, she's playing Media in American Gods. Perhaps the Fuller connection might lead to some work on Star Trek though.

She'd make one hell of a captain.

malcy · 06-06-2016 12:54pm

http://trekcore.com/blog/2016/06/rumor-new-trek-2017-production-designer-chosen/

Interesting if not slightly worrying concept art for the new series...

AtomicHorror · 07-06-2016 11:37pm

malcy wrote: »

http://trekcore.com/blog/2016/06/rumor-new-trek-2017-production-designer-chosen/

Interesting if not slightly worrying concept art for the new series...

Taken down pretty much everywhere it was posted, so I guess that says a lot!

Still visible on Google Images though.

The production appears to have been codenamed Green Harvest (by Mark Worthington at least).

AMKC · 24-06-2016 12:55am

Big interview here with Bryan Fuller about the new series

http://collider.com/new-star-trek-series-details/

From what I have read I take it that it will not be in the Abram verse but it will be different from whats gone before. I really don,t mind as long as it has good writing,special effects and offers lots to think about like moral dilemmas, social issues, the state of the human condition, and good character development oh and also cool new starships with proper engine rooms that have a dilithium chamber and a warp core of course.

Myrddin · 24-06-2016 8:53am

Star Trek has always use current sociopolitical issues as its base...so with the British exit now seemingly decided, perhaps a story like Andoria or Vulcan feeling discontent with the Federation, and leaving it...would be a good place to start

AMKC · 24-06-2016 12:22pm

Myrddin wrote: »

Star Trek has always use current sociopolitical issues as its base...so with the British exit now seemingly decided, perhaps a story like Andoria or Vulcan feeling discontent with the Federation, and leaving it...would be a good place to start

I agree this could be a great story but it should be done in the late 24th century 25th or 26 century not too early during the federation as we all know its includes hundreds of worlds by the 24th century. After that yes maybe. I don,t think it would be Vulcans that would do it do. Maybe the Andorians or Telerites might or one of the other races.

24-06-2016 1:41pm

Bwen done in the books by the way, with Andoria

Kiith · 24-06-2016 6:12pm

If anything, they should have earth look to leave. Have a political faction on earth pushing for more rights for humanity (section 31 style), and have it lead up to a civil war type thing. Something along the lines of Homefront in DS9. Maybe too dark for Star Trek though.

AMKC · 24-06-2016 7:51pm

Kiith wrote: »

If anything, they should have earth look to leave. Have a political faction on earth pushing for more rights for humanity (section 31 style), and have it lead up to a civil war type thing. Something along the lines of Homefront in DS9. Maybe too dark for Star Trek though.

Been done already in Enterprise season 4 last two episodes "Demons" and "Terra Prime" It did not lead to a civil war but was more about Xenophobic humans saying humans are the superior race and should not let other aliens mix with us but it basically what your saying about a political faction that wants out just slightly different. Could be done another way I suppose.

Myrddin · 24-06-2016 7:57pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Bwen done in the books by the way, with Andoria

I'm sure seven of nines long lost cousin, was able to contact admiral Picard, who got the whole tng crew back together again, and with the help of mirror universe chakotay, the traveller, one of the prophets, and shrans great great grandson (who is the leader of Andoria), they were able to save the day

Kiith wrote: »

If anything, they should have earth look to leave. Have a political faction on earth pushing for more rights for humanity (section 31 style), and have it lead up to a civil war type thing. Something along the lines of Homefront in DS9. Maybe too dark for Star Trek though.

Yeah good idea. If the show was an anthology series they could do something like that for the post-voyager era. As you say though, it kind of has been touched upon with ds9s Homefront

26-06-2016 7:33pm

Myrddin wrote: »

I'm sure seven of nines long lost cousin, was able to contact admiral Picard, who got the whole tng crew back together again, and with the help of mirror universe chakotay, the traveller, one of the prophets, and shrans great great grandson (who is the leader of Andoria), they were able to save the day

Yeah good idea. If the show was an anthology series they could do something like that for the post-voyager era. As you say though, it kind of has been touched upon with ds9s Homefront

You mean like how Kirk's daddy's ship fights the big bad but Kirk escapes to be in the same bar as Uhuru, where he fights so that Pike can see him and recruit him and Spock travels back in time and gets stranded on a random planet, where young Spock happens to strand Kirk.
They happen to meet on this planet then find a random station which just amazingly has Scotty there... You mesn like that?

Myrddin · 26-06-2016 7:37pm

Deleted User wrote: »

You mean like how Kirk's daddy's ship fights the big bad but Kirk escapes to be in the same bar as Uhuru, where he fights so that Pike can see him and recruit him and Spock travels back in time and gets stranded on a random planet, where young Spock happens to strand Kirk.
They happen to meet on this planet then find a random station which just amazingly has Scotty there... You mesn like that?

So we're agreed then that the new films are non canon garbage?

26-06-2016 7:45pm

Myrddin wrote: »

So we're agreed then that the new films are non canon garbage?

Very much so. At least the books know that they are cheesy pulp (admittedly with some good material within)

26-06-2016 9:39pm

On the books, they tried to go it with new crew on their own, with Excalibur... No one read them even though highly reviewed.

They learned that they have to work within the boundaries of the audience expectation and do glorified Fan-fiction, does not mean that there are not some good sotries there however

squonk · 27-06-2016 3:42pm

Well I'd be happy to step away from the Enterprise for a few seasons on the new show. I think if fans are put off by a crew on a ship other than the Enterprise being the focus of a book or a series then those fans need to be asking themselves some serious questions. On the other hand, if they go post-voyager into the timeline of the Enterprise F, G or H, then I really, really want to see that ship and crew. Maybe I need to be asking myself some serious questions too

Myrddin · 27-06-2016 3:48pm

They really do need to step off the Enterprise. Look at how good DS9 was, they don't need to fall back on burned out assets.

27-06-2016 3:54pm

The prequel which everyone wanted was Excelsior but no.... Reboot instead

AMKC · 27-06-2016 8:40pm

Deleted User wrote: »

The prequel which everyone wanted was Excelsior but no.... Reboot instead

Yes it is such a shame that this never happened. Would and could have been a great show with a cool ship and a cool Captain.

I would love to see the Beta Quadrant explored more as we do not know much about that sector of space. We have been to the Gamma Quadrant and the Delta Quadrant but never to the Beta Quadrant so hopefully the new series goes there. I think some more insect like species too and other unique species.

malcy · 28-06-2016 10:34am

AMKC wrote: »

Yes it is such a shame that this never happened. Would and could have been a great show with a cool ship and a cool Captain.

I would love to see the Beta Quadrant explored more as we do not know much about that sector of space. We have been to the Gamma Quadrant and the Delta Quadrant but never to the Beta Quadrant so hopefully the new series goes there. I think some more insect like species too and other unique species.

Beta quadrant was home to the Klingons, Romulans & loads of other known species. if I remember right was not that far from Earth either.

28-06-2016 11:30am

malcy wrote: »

Beta quadrant was home to the Klingons, Romulans & loads of other known species. if I remember right was not that far from Earth either.

Earth is the demarcation between alpha and beta. Federation is situated, for the vast majority, in alpha.

The beta is relatively unknown precisely because of Klingons and Romulans blocking meaningful exploration there

AMKC · 28-06-2016 5:56pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Earth is the demarcation between alpha and beta. Federation is situated, for the vast majority, in alpha.

The beta is relatively unknown precisely because of Klingons and Romulans blocking meaningful exploration there

Yes true the Klingons and Romulans do occupy a large part of the Beta Quadrant but 90% of the Beta Quadrant is still unexplored. Its not like starfleet have never sent ships to the Beta Quadrant before they have the Olympus and the Excelsior being two such ships. The former was on an 8year mission in the Beta quadrant and the latter a 3 year mission. I think having a ship on an 8 year mission to explore space not yet explored would and could make for a great show no jumping back to a starbase every week either like TNG did far to often.

Myrddin · 28-06-2016 6:10pm

AMKC wrote: »

Yes true the Klingons and Romulans do occupy a large part of the Beta Quadrant but 90% of the Beta Quadrant is still unexplored. Its not like starfleet have never sent ships to the Beta Quadrant before they have the Olympus and the Excelsior being two such ships. The former was on an 8year mission in the Beta quadrant and the latter a 3 year mission. I think having a ship on an 8 year mission to explore space not yet explored would and could make for a great show no jumping back to a starbase every week either like TNG did far to often.

I agree, but they'd need to distance the concept from Voyager (a Starfleet ship, alone with no backup). TV has come on a long way since then though, so I'm sure if the motivation was there they could do it.

28-06-2016 7:02pm

AMKC wrote: »

Yes true the Klingons and Romulans do occupy a large part of the Beta Quadrant but 90% of the Beta Quadrant is still unexplored. Its not like starfleet have never sent ships to the Beta Quadrant before they have the Olympus and the Excelsior being two such ships. The former was on an 8year mission in the Beta quadrant and the latter a 3 year mission. I think having a ship on an 8 year mission to explore space not yet explored would and could make for a great show no jumping back to a starbase every week either like TNG did far to often.

That's exactly what I mean

28-06-2016 7:05pm

Myrddin wrote: »

I agree, but they'd need to distance the concept from Voyager (a Starfleet ship, alone with no backup). TV has come on a long way since then though, so I'm sure if the motivation was there they could do it.

Voyager was always trying to get home so it made no sense that they kept coming across the same people at the start. Kazon should have been left behind within an episode FFS

The counter of that is that they could not keep interesting characters as recurring for that very reason.

Criss-crossing the Beta Quadrant, in exploration, would easily mean that they could bring back characters (friend or foe) while keeping it fresh too

Josey Wales · 18-07-2016 10:06pm

Does anyone else find it a bit strange that filming is only scheduled to begin in September but the premier is January 2017? Seems like a very short turnaround.

Zillah · 18-07-2016 10:14pm

Josey Wales wrote: »

Does anyone else find it a bit strange that filming is only scheduled to begin in September but the premier is January 2017? Seems like a very short turnaround.

It's all a bit weird. Fuller says they'll probably be shooting until March is this interview: http://collider.com/new-star-trek-series-details/ Wikipedia says they were still talking about meeting potential cast members in July, so God knows how they'll be shooting by September.

All strangely accelerated.

Also Starring LeVar Burton · 18-07-2016 10:48pm

Josey Wales wrote: »

Does anyone else find it a bit strange that filming is only scheduled to begin in September but the premier is January 2017? Seems like a very short turnaround.

Zillah wrote: »

It's all a bit weird. Fuller says they'll probably be shooting until March is this interview: http://collider.com/new-star-trek-series-details/ Wikipedia says they were still talking about meeting potential cast members in July, so God knows how they'll be shooting by September.

All strangely accelerated.

Not especially - a lot of TV shows that start back in September don't start filming until July, so by that logic they're actually starting fairly early for a January debut. The only difference with this and most new shows is that they didn't need to film a pilot, it was ordered straight to series.

Zillah · 19-07-2016 10:41am

Also Starring LeVar Burton wrote: »

Not especially - a lot of TV shows that start back in September don't start filming until July

I don't understand how this is possible. How on Earth do they get it edited in time?

Beefy78 · 19-07-2016 10:54am

They won't have the whole season done in that time, obviously. They'll probably shoot a show a week then six weeks to go through post-production into broadcast.

24's first season was only originally commissioned for 12 episodes and they got the renewal for the full 24 shows as those first dozen episodes were being broadcast to great ratings.

Kiith · 19-07-2016 11:52am

Beefy78 wrote: »

24's first season was only originally commissioned for 12 episodes and they got the renewal for the full 24 shows as those first dozen episodes were being broadcast to great ratings.

I guess that explains why Kim and Terri got so much bloody screen time :pac:

Also Starring LeVar Burton · 20-07-2016 1:56pm

Zillah wrote: »

I don't understand how this is possible. How on Earth do they get it edited in time?

Magic!

Beefy78 wrote: »

They won't have the whole season done in that time, obviously. They'll probably shoot a show a week then six weeks to go through post-production into broadcast.

Pretty much this.

Slydice · 23-07-2016 11:12pm

We have a name!

https://twitter.com/StarTrek/status/756974026686205952
https://twitter.com/CBS/status/756974094688460801

AND a Trailer!!!
https://twitter.com/startrekcbs/status/756974219322273792

Star Trek: Discovery - Pre-release discussion [** NO SPOILERS **]

Comments

Star Trek: Discovery - Pre-release discussion [ NO SPOILERS ]