After CBS brought Star Trek back to television for CBS All Access with Star Trek: Discovery, it soon followed it up with an innovative series called Short Treks, each of which ran for 10-15 minutes and which featured stories from all over Trek’s vast timeline. (Check out Keith R. A. DeCandido’s coverage of all of them here.)
CBS renewed the tiny anthology series for a second season, and now following a nomination for this year’s Prime Time Emmy Awards (in the Outstanding Short Form Comedy or Drama Series category), CBS has opted to put up all six episodes from that season on its platforms, including YouTube.
According to the press release, viewers can see the episodes on CBS.com, the CBS Mobile App, and on YouTube. They’ll remain there until August 31st. This season featured tie-in episodes to Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Picard, following characters like Spock and Number One, Captain Lynne Lucero, Tribbles, Michael Burnham, and more. This season also broke away from just live-action shorts, too: the episode “Ephraim and Dot” is animated, while “The Girl Who Made the Stars” is animated with CGI.
You can watch all six episodes below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j6s_zfgv4c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx0Eg5NvDbw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHAEBJ7xKv4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGOsa4Ojiss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72w6-qP0Ve0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hot0uT8c3ys
All show “video unavailable” — is this only available in the US perhaps?
If you’re in Canada, they’re available on Crave. I don’t know about other jurisdictions.
“Ephraim and Dot” is a delight. More animated Trek like that, please.
And…it’s not available in Australia.
Because of course it isn’t. :(
Unfortunately they’re not viewable outside North America as I read because CBS does not yet have international distribution deals for these programs. So the only way to see them is to purchase the DVD/Blu-Ray sets they’re included in.
If the merchandising folks do not manufacture a official plush Ephraim, they are making a big mistake.
Sigh.
I have an incredible, admittedly idiosyncratic, dislike of women being called ‘sir’. I’ve had the rationale explained to me but what I hear is ‘authority is masculine and woman with authority must be masculinized’. I do not like this reasoning.
Just had to get that off my chest.
Also what’s this with elevator space? It’s like the capsules and rails are in some kind of void, not inside the ship.
It’s cute to see Spock and Number One bonding. Now I’m wondering just how big an influence she was on him.
@8
Many years ago I was reading through an RPG rulebook, I think it was the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Player’s Handbook. In an inset paragraph, it said “we use male gender pronouns throughout this book, because over the years, he/him/his have been rendered gender neutral” or something to that effect. That was how I always saw it.
@8 & 9
Yeah, I can’t say it ever occurred to me that Sir would be considered masculine.
@9 – “Sir” is derived from “sire”, a synonym of “father”.
@8/princessroxanna: We were shown a more emotional Spock in Discovery as well as in “The Cage” and Number One was described in “The Cage” as being emotionally-repressed and cold by the other characters, I believe. So perhaps due to her influence over time, Spock became more of the emotionless character we all became accustomed to on TOS.
@9, that assumption of generic defaults easy to say for white males, and difficult for the rest of the world. What would your emotional reaction be to a generic ‘she’?
For that matter, RPG books might have an easy way out with female pronouns for players and male pronouns for GMs, or vice versa.
@princessroxana
Thank you for your comment.
@11/Crusader75: ““Sir” is derived from “sire”, a synonym of “father”.”
“Sire” can be a synonym of “father,” but it originated as a French term of address for a lord or superior, derived from Latin senior.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/sire
So fundamentally it just means someone older or higher up in a hierarchy. It’s masculine by tradition, but not by etymology. So I can see it going either way.
The pretense that “he/him/his” is gender-neutral is ridiculous, though. The people who are included always assume their own defaults are neutral, but nobody else sees it that way. It’s the old double entendre: “‘Man,’ embracing ‘woman.’”