News Star Trek: Discovery Story Hints

[AutoAdmin]

A new news article has been published at TrekToday:

This has been a good week for Trek fans, with pictures and news about Star Trek: Discovery being released almost daily. Today’s...

Continue reading...

 

[dinzy]

It could go either way at this point. It's weird that they mention having to do Trek in episodic format, as if DS9 didn't exist. Heck even TNG had some mini arcs.

I wonder what the decision is that it could actually affect the universe.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

“When we meet her, she’s the first officer on the Starship Shenzhou. Burnham’s choice that we’re alluding to is the most difficult choice you can make – it affects her, affects Starfleet, affects the Federation; it affects the entire universe.

“That choice leads her to a different ship, the USS Discovery, and there we begin what Gretchen and I call our second pilot.”

We had figured this much.

 

[Michael]

They say all the right things.

Love the part about Michael Burnham “discovering what it means to be human and finding her individuality.”

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

One Trek. Two pilots. They're really making up for the 12 years off-the-air. :P

 

[Mudd]

It could go either way at this point. It's weird that they mention having to do Trek in episodic format, as if DS9 didn't exist. Heck even TNG had some mini arcs.

I wonder what the decision is that it could actually affect the universe.

DS9 didn't do arcs in the modern TV sense. It was just a little bit serialized.

 

[cultcross]

Lots to like in that summary, so it's positive as far as it goes

 

[GravityWell]

I'm genuinely worried that the early rumours are correct. That Burnham makes a life or death decision at the end of federation space that fractures prime into multiple dimensions. That the Klingons understand or control this force, that i has affected them in the past. Where Sarek is also in Balance of Terror as a Romulan and will be a Klingon commander in the Motion Picture.

 

[cultcross]

Sarek the impossible girl

 

[Michael]

I'm genuinely worried that the early rumours are correct. That Burnham makes a life or death decision at the end of federation space that fractures prime into multiple dimensions. That the Klingons understand or control this force, that i has affected them in the past. Where Sarek is also in Balance of Terror as a Romulan and will be a Klingon commander in the Motion Picture.

That was an early rumor where? In a parallel universe?

 

[The Nth Doctor]

^ This is the first I've heard that rumor, not that I've been following them closely. Either way, it's pretty funny.

As for the summary, it sounds pretty promising and gives me more hope for the show.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

It's from some YouTube channel with an apparently decent track record. They at least got a bunch correct about the 2016 Ghostbusters.

Something like that, anyway. I've watched their alleged Trek scoops over the past few months despite generally not being a YouTube user. I got curious. They paint some considerable doom and gloom over the production, although the supposed premise doesn't seem too bad to me.

Whether or not any of it's true, I dunno. I have faith in Gretchen, Harbert, Meyer, and Beyer. I think the first season will be rough around the edges but solid and enjoyable. I really like the things they're all saying lately.

 

[Campe]

I'm genuinely worried that the early rumours are correct. That Burnham makes a life or death decision at the end of federation space that fractures prime into multiple dimensions. That the Klingons understand or control this force, that i has affected them in the past. Where Sarek is also in Balance of Terror as a Romulan and will be a Klingon commander in the Motion Picture.

Multidimensional multiracial Sareks?

Uh, no professional writer would be stupid to come up with that idea. If they did, they would lose me as a viewer faster than you can say IDIC.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

Harberts went on to explain that Star Trek: Discovery is a “serialized telling of a tale; an exploration of one particular character, Michael Burnham, along the path of discovering what it means to be human and finding her individuality.”

“Those types of stories have been really well told in the Star Trek movies,” Harberts added, “but it’s been hard to do in the television iterations because episodes have been so closed-ended.

As usual, my interest in a project grows, and then someone says something so completely backward that I begin to wonder if they actually watched the show. Most of the movies have been about lunatics with doomsday weapons. Character development has never really been a thing. We had to rely on the TV shows for that. Yes, the episodic ones had to do so within the confines of an hour (or forty minutes if you're watching on PAL DVD), but that's where the narrative meat was at.

 

[dinzy]

DS9 didn't do arcs in the modern TV sense. It was just a little bit serialized.

Over the entire series it did not do modern arcs, but it had at least 2 instances where 5-6 episodes were arcs in the modern TV sense.

 

[Wouter]

As usual, my interest in a project grows, and then someone says something so completely backward that I begin to wonder if they actually watched the show. Most of the movies have been about lunatics with doomsday weapons. Character development has never really been a thing. We had to rely on the TV shows for that. Yes, the episodic ones had to do so within the confines of an hour (or forty minutes if you're watching on PAL DVD), but that's where the narrative meat was at.

Allthough you may have a point about character development, only a few of the movies were about lunatics with doomsdag weapons.

TMP: no lunatic
TWOK: Khan wasn't planning to use the Genesis device as a weapon, IIRC?
TSFS: the Klingon captain may have been a lunatic planning to grab a doomsday weapon, but he never got his hands on it
TVH: no lunatic
TFF: no doomsday weapon
TUC: not really a lunatic and no doomsday weapon. A special cloak on an otherwise standard BoP doesn't qualify
GEN: Soran wasn't gunning for doomsday, and IIRC neither were Lursa and B'Ethor.
FCT: no lunatic
INS: no doomsday weapon, was a relatively small conflict by ST standards
NEM: granted!
ST09: granted!
ID: lunatics enough, but no doomsday weapon
BEY: sort of, allthough the doomsday weapon was actually less impressive than the already demonstrated capabilities of the "swarm".

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

Allthough you may have a point about character development, only a few of the movies were about lunatics with doomsdag weapons.


TWOK: Khan wasn't planning to use the Genesis device as a weapon, IIRC?

Kirk didn't know that. Remember McCoy asked what would happen if Genesis were used where life was already existed, and their first encounter with Reliant demonstrated Khan's thirst for revenge.

TFF: no doomsday weapon

Again we don't know the extent of 'God's' powers. Had the being escaped from the centre of the galaxy on the ship, it might have been lunatic & doomsday weapon all rolled into one.

GEN: Soran wasn't gunning for doomsday, and IIRC neither were Lursa and B'Ethor.

It was doomsday for the millions of inhabitants of Veridian IV. And a weapon that could shut down nuclear reactions in a star, it's not exacly a tactical nuke.

FCT: no lunatic

Beg to differ, the Borg Queen was as archetypal a screen villain as all the rest.

INS: no doomsday weapon, was a relatively small conflict by ST standards

Particle-of-the-week weapon threatening to wipe out the inhabitants of a whole planet... doomsday.

 

[The Grim Ghost]

As usual, my interest in a project grows, and then someone says something so completely backward that I begin to wonder if they actually watched the show. Most of the movies have been about lunatics with doomsday weapons. Character development has never really been a thing. We had to rely on the TV shows for that. Yes, the episodic ones had to do so within the confines of an hour (or forty minutes if you're watching on PAL DVD), but that's where the narrative meat was at.

I don't know, I think the TOS movies had a lot of good character development. TNG not so much.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

ID: lunatics enough, but no doomsday weapon

I'd say that the USS Vengeance, a 1500 meter warship armed to the teeth whose sole purpose was winning the war against the Klingon Empire, counts as the film's doomsday weapon. The same could be argued about the seventy-two advanced long-range torpedoes.

 

[Wouter]

I'd say that the USS Vengeance, a 1500 meter warship armed to the teeth whose sole purpose was winning the war against the Klingon Empire, counts as the film's doomsday weapon. The same could be argued about the seventy-two advanced long-range torpedoes.

If the Vengeance is a doomsday weapon, then every single episode of ST has doomsday weapons. All the titular starships, and the Defiant, and a random warbird or Klingon warship, have the capability to lay waste to entire planets.

The Vengeance was also not used in a doomsday scenario, it was used to disable another (lesser) warship.

As for the torpedoes: they didn't even have warheads. More like a long-range transport, used with motives that still elude me. The plot of that movie was a mess.