Alex Kurtzman: 'Star Trek: Discovery' Will Spark Debate And Adhere To Canon

[fireproof78]

I think if Kruge and Maltz went to Quarks and bellied up to the bar next to Martok and Worf and ordered some blood wine, no one would bat an eye. They would fit right in, easily recognizable as Klingons. As would the TMP and TUC Klingons. I agree that they should have established that among Klingons there are many ethnicities and "races" that show a range of phenotypical attributes, from skin tone, ridge height, and many other features. But one can reasonably assume that. The same goes for the Andorians.

The TOS-TMP change is the only really dramatic change for the Klingons. That was for understandable technical and budgetary reasons relating to a 1960s tv show vs a late 70s major motion picture. That doesn't apply to the Discoverse. This is just them saying they think it would be interesting and fun to reimagine the aliens. How many of them I don't know. We'll see. I love reimaginations and reboots. Viva Reboot! But we already know from their own mouths that they wanted to break from "fetishes" about how the various aliens look and reimagine them.

Great! But that's a reboot/3rd timeline for me. As for the Klingons, ENT decided (unnecessarily IMO) to explain the difference in story. Having done that, Discoverse should follow that, unless it's a 3rd timeline, in which case, it doesn't matter one way or the other. It's not a "fetish" though.

Let me see if I understand this correctly-from TOS to TMP is completely understandable because of technical and budgetary reasons, but a 2017 flagship show to increase CBS' streaming service doesn't mandate any changes?

I'm always amused that TMP's changes necessitated no explanation to the audience. They simply were Klingons.

We simply don't know enough about Discoverse Klingons to know the full story.

 

[cultcross]

I'm always amused that TMP's changes necessitated no explanation to the audience. They simply were Klingons.

Sadly, they did. Someone posted a scan of a fanzine from the time complaining about the 'unnecessary changes', it could have been a copy-paste from TrekBBS. Just as a few years later, the idea of Trek without Kirk and Spock was ludicrous and would never, ever work.

What gets me is how the childhood-destroying changes become the new hallowed canon over time. The 'Klingons in name only' of the movie era have become exactly what the next generation of fans are defending as the original, accept-no-substitutes Klingon.

 

[BillJ]

We have no context for the Klingons or any other changes going on. Until we do, we are just throwing darts at a dartboard in the dark.

 

[cultcross]

We have no context for the Klingons or any other changes going on. Until we do, we are just throwing darts at a dartboard in the dark.

Dartboards! Before DS9?!?! Not canon!

 

[fireproof78]

Sadly, they did. Someone posted a scan of a fanzine from the time complaining about the 'unnecessary changes', it could have been a copy-paste from TrekBBS. Just as a few years later, the idea of Trek without Kirk and Spock was ludicrous and would never, ever work.

What gets me is how the childhood-destroying changes become the new hallowed canon over time. The 'Klingons in name only' of the movie era have become exactly what the next generation of fans are defending as the original, accept-no-substitutes Klingon.

Well, I stand corrected.

The more things change...

 

[Christopher]

No one said it "lacked imagination". It just wasn't a reimagination. And it wasn't. There are no "radical" changes whatsoever from TMP onwards for the Klingons.

It's not a matter of degree, though. The point is that this is a work of creativity and imagination. Different artists and designers work on different incarnations of it, and they have the right to make their own individual creative choices about how they interpret the imaginary universe we call Star Trek. There's no single line you can draw to define "going too far." That decision is the responsibility of the people actually making the show. Different creators make different choices, and that is their prerogative. Some put a more individual stamp on their work than others. Did Picasso go "too far" in his creative interpretation of human anatomy? Some individuals may think so, but he still had the freedom to make that decision for himself, and it would be a terrible thing if today's artists were deprived of that same freedom of choice.

No, a change in actor is not a new continuity. But Vulcans with red skin, devil horns and pink mohawks? Maybe then you need to say what the Merlin creatives would about First Knight: derived from the same sources but not in the same continuity.

The continuity is in the stories. The plots, the ideas, the history, the characters. I've been assured that the show as written fits smoothly into existing Prime continuity. Star Trek is not just a bunch of pretty pictures, so it's premature to judge its continuity based exclusively on something like art direction. It's also nothing new. Four decades ago, a lot of fans refused to accept TMP and TWOK in continuity with TOS because everything looked different. These days, hardly anybody feels that way about them. If anything, TMP and TWOK have been more influential on the design of later Trek than TOS was.

No, just one major change. The TMP to TNG era are all easily recognizable as Klingons, could mingle together and there is only the variation that you might expect within a single species. The Disco Klingons genuinely are a radical departure, on the scale of TOS to TMP but with none of the same factors that could apply to it.

Again, this is what fans say every time. It's not that the latest changes are greater than the old ones -- it's just that we've had more time to get used to the old ones, to rationalize them and learn to live with them. It's part of how human memory works -- our brains build a narrative out of an often discordant past, organizing it into a more coherent picture, smoothing out the gaps and irregularities. It's a quirk of neurology and psychology that affects how we perceive fiction too. Old Trek has tons of inconsistencies and contradictions, but our minds smooth them out into an overall picture that we imagine as more homogeneous than it is. So when something new comes along, we haven't yet had time to integrate it into our averaged-out model of the whole, so it feels more drastically different. That's why fans always react this way to the newest changes. Every complaint I'm hearing about DSC is practically verbatim like the complaints I heard about ENT and Kelvin, and even some of the complaints I've read in old magazine letter columns about TMP and TWOK. The newest changes always seem more radical. Which is why it's important to keep an open mind and give yourself a chance to get used to them.

 

[BillJ]

The continuity is in the stories. The plots, the ideas, the history, the characters.

I've heard more than once that TV is a visual medium, so I'm not sure it is as easy to wave away the look as it would be in a novel.

As far as other changes go, they were never done to an already established period of Trek history.

 

[Tarek71]

Let me see if I understand this correctly-from TOS to TMP is completely understandable because of technical and budgetary reasons, but a 2017 flagship show to increase CBS' streaming service doesn't mandate any changes?

I'm always amused that TMP's changes necessitated no explanation to the audience. They simply were Klingons.

We simply don't know enough about Discoverse Klingons to know the full story.

Yes, the TOS to TMP change was understandable for those reasons. I can buy that creating more alien, yet plausible looking Klingons was harder on the 60s TV budget than a late 70s major film budget. It would have been hard to have Mress on the 1960s show. Or many other creatures that just couldnt be realized in live action at the time in a completely satisfying and plausible way. But with a bigger budget and better effects and advances in technique maybe they can be done and re-done later.

But this isnt true of Disco Trek. It's not that "hey this movie is important that means changes need to be made!" It's "wow, we can do so much more now than on that little show back in the 60s!"

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

This looked gods awful, the TOS ship looked so campy and primitive next to the NX. I laughed and rolled my eyes every time the script demanded the TOS ship be powerful and more advanced when its clearly the older and less advanced of the two.

I wasn't sure whether to reply to this as I don't wanna get into a controversy, and you clearly have very strong opinions.

But, I'm curious, what exactly makes you think the NCC-1701 looks more primitive than the NX-01 in that image? Is it the smoothness of the hull? Because, a more futuristic ship might be precision engineered by 3D computer-aided design, and lack any seams, rather than having primitive panels and girders everywhere. The rule of cool on TV mandates that more surface detailing = realism. But that isn't necessarily true in real life - i.e. as seen by how an F-22 Raptor is smoother than an A-10 Thunderbolt.

 

[Tarek71]

I've heard more than once that TV is a visual medium, so I'm not sure it is as easy to wave away the look as it would be in a novel.

As far as other changes go, they were never done to an already established period of Trek history.

It's more than that. The clothing, hair, make up, music, art and architectural styles of a time period are as much a part of the continuity as any other event of that same time. That's why a period piece set in the 1920s doesn't have Kanye West coming out of the phonograph when a character puts the needle on the record. Instead it's 1920s Jazz you hear. That's why meticulous efforts are made to reproduce a time period in detail in historical period pieces. It is very definitely a "discontinuity" otherwise.

 

[Christopher]

But this isnt true of Disco Trek. It's not that "hey this movie is important that means changes need to be made!" It's "wow, we can do so much more now than on that little show back in the 60s!"

I don't see the difference. The changes in TMP were very much about taking advantage of how much more the film's budget and '70s makeup/FX technology allowed them to do. On TOS, they would always have been glad to do more than what they were able to manage, which was why Roddenberry jumped at the chance to do so when it finally came.

And I'm sure they consider Discovery quite important. It's relaunching Star Trek in series format for the first time in a dozen years. It's intended to introduce ST to a whole new generation, and to pioneer CBS's entry into a new broadcast medium in much the same way that Phase II was meant to do and that TNG (syndication) and VGR (UPN) actually did. (Although the delays mean that it's actually the second original show to debut on All Access, after The Good Fight, I think it's called.) It's also breaking new cultural ground, taking new steps in inclusiveness that previous series really should've taken already but didn't. CBS has a lot riding on this show.

It's more than that. The clothing, hair, make up, music, art and architectural styles of a time period are as much a part of the continuity as any other event of that same time. That's why a period piece set in the 1920s doesn't have Kanye West coming out of the phonograph when a character puts the needle on the record. Instead it's 1920s Jazz you hear. That's why meticulous efforts are made to reproduce a time period in detail in historical period pieces. It is very definitely a "discontinuity" otherwise.

But Star Trek is not a period piece in that sense. The 23rd century wasn't meant to look like the 1960s; it just looked that way because they were limited by the resources and perspective of their time. What they depicted was just the closest approximation they could manage of the 23rd century they imagined. And later productions in later decades -- TMP, Kelvin, DSC -- have more advanced tech and knowledge that they can use to make a somewhat closer approximation of what the 23rd century might look like.

This is how science fiction works. It's not a prediction of the future, it's just a best-guess conjecture, and it's always filtered through the biases and limitations of the era in which it's created. So it always ends up dated in retrospect, and later works of science fiction update their sensibilities and knowledge along with real-world advances in science, technology, and cultural values. So it's a series of successive approximations, improving over time. Writers update their assumptions over time, even within a single universe, because it would be disingenuous to cling to the assumptions and attitudes of the past while trying to postulate a potential future.

In short, that's why a historical-fiction analogy doesn't work for science fiction. A historical period is a fixed, definite thing. The future is a moving target.

 

[Tarek71]

It's not a matter of degree, though. The point is that this is a work of creativity and imagination. Different artists and designers work on different incarnations of it, and they have the right to make their own individual creative choices about how they interpret the imaginary universe we call Star Trek. There's no single line you can draw to define "going too far." That decision is the responsibility of the people actually making the show. Different creators make different choices, and that is their prerogative. Some put a more individual stamp on their work than others. Did Picasso go "too far" in his creative interpretation of human anatomy? Some individuals may think so, but he still had the freedom to make that decision for himself, and it would be a terrible thing if today's artists were deprived of that same freedom of choice.

They can make any changes they like. As do creatives in every other iteration of every other franchise, or classic character. I never said anyone went "too far" to be allowed. But there is such a thing as "too far" to be in the same continuity. It happens that the new Klingon design sucks. But it is not "too far" to do. I wouldn't mind seeing a much more radical change. It just isn't the same continuity. Trek has this issue in a way Arthurian Saga does not. We don't expect the different iterations to be in the same continuity. Marvel and DC allow different continuities between cinematic and comic universes and even within each, and it why they allow for a different continuity. With Trek there is an expectation that every iteration is always part of the same continuity in a way that is totally unnecessary.

The continuity is in the stories. The plots, the ideas, the history, the characters. I've been assured that the show as written fits smoothly into existing Prime continuity. Star Trek is not just a bunch of pretty pictures, so it's premature to judge its continuity based exclusively on something like art direction. It's also nothing new. Four decades ago, a lot of fans refused to accept TMP and TWOK in continuity with TOS because everything looked different. These days, hardly anybody feels that way about them. If anything, TMP and TWOK have been more influential on the design of later Trek than TOS was.

As I said above, the clothing, hair, make up, music, art and architectural styles of a time period are as much a part of the continuity as any other event of that same time. It's not just "pretty pictures". Nor is it stifling anyones creativity to say, "No, youre 1930s characters cant be listening to Hip Hop in the 1930s, or dressed like the 1980s". That's why period pieces generally strive for careful recreation. Not because they are refusing to "accept" change or have a "fetish" for a time period. Nor is it a matter of giving people time to "accept" it. It is a discontinuity to have Heavy metal in the 1890s. It has nothing to do with not having an "open mind". Lol.

 

[cultcross]

That's why period pieces generally strive for careful recreation.

Period pieces play fast and loose with the truth all the time. Downton Abbey wants you to believe in a world where servants are basically friends of the family, where they get time off, their scandals forgiven, their legal defence paid for, their troubles cared about and even get to marry into the family. It's not only as anachronistic as Kanye on the wireless, it stomps all over the real experiences of those who were all but trapped in domestic service. And yet, it is a hugely successful show. People prefer the history they think or wish happened in their fiction to what really happened.

 

[Tarek71]

I don't see the difference. The changes in TMP were very much about taking advantage of how much more the film's budget and '70s makeup/FX technology allowed them to do. On TOS, they would always have been glad to do more than what they were able to manage, which was why Roddenberry jumped at the chance to do so when it finally came.

That's literally what I just said. We are in complete agreement.

And I'm sure they consider Discovery quite important. It's relaunching Star Trek in series format for the first time in a dozen years.

I'm sure they think it is very important! And it certainly is. Once again, couldn't agree more.

But Star Trek is not a period piece in that sense. The 23rd century wasn't meant to look like the 1960s; it just looked that way because they were limited by the resources and perspective of their time. What they depicted was just the closest approximation they could manage of the 23rd century they imagined.

I covered all this in a previous post a little ways up the thread. Period piece vs Sci Fi. Yes, I said it's a projection into the future, and so unlike a period piece the sets, consoles, tech, etc have to be updated periodically. We are 50 years closer to Kirks time. A 1960s conception of the 23rd century and a 1980s conception of the 24th century have to be revised accordingly.

That however has nothing whatsoever to do with Disco Klingons. Kurn, Worfs and Martoks makeup look just fine. Even today. This isn't about being "futuristic". They said it would be fun and interesting to reimagine the aliens. That's it. It's not about new techniques or technology or creating a more realistic creature effect.

I mentioned the period piece again to put to bed the silly idea that clothing, art, music, hair, make up styles are not "discontinuities" it is only the stories that are. No, it's a discontinuity for all of it. All of those cultural creations are part and parcel of the time that produced them and are every bit a part of that time as the other events.

 

[Christopher]

It happens that the new Klingon design sucks.

People always say that about new things they haven't had time to get used to yet. At least wait until you see it in context, rather than just for a few seconds in a trailer. Tastes can be acquired.

There have been a number of times when I've initially disliked something only to become quite fond of it later. When I saw the first character designs for X-Men Evolution, for instance, I thought they were ugly. But when I actually saw them fully animated, they were gorgeous. Heck, come to think of it, I hated Batman: The Animated Series's character designs at first, until I saw them in motion. Context is important. You can't really judge how well an ingredient will work until you taste it in the finished meal.

It just isn't the same continuity.

Yes, it is, no matter how much you claim otherwise. It is written to be in the Prime continuity. It is being treated entirely as a story in the Prime continuity. Future novels and comics set in the Prime continuity will need to be consistent with its events. The official policy of CBS and the intention of its creators is that it is set in the Prime continuity. It's just an interpretation of the Prime continuity that has a different art style.

Okay, by strictly literal definition, you can say that the designs lack continuity with previous designs. But that's a different use of the word "continuity" than the one you're asserting. Even with the design discontinuity, the stories are still intended to take place in the same universe, the same history. That is how they will be officially treated despite the design changes. That's just something that fans are going to have to get used to, the same as with previous discontinuities of design in TMP, TNG, ENT, and Kelvin (literally the Kelvin, a ship that was meant to originate in the Prime timeline).

As I said above, the clothing, hair, make up, music, art and architectural styles of a time period are as much a part of the continuity as any other event of that same time.

Again, that argument applies to historical periods, not to historical periods' extrapolations of the future. It is illegitimate and oversimplistic to treat them as identical. In the former case, there's only one chronology to consider. In the latter, there are two, because the prediction of a future period is being filtered through the past period in which it was made. But that real-world filter shouldn't be mistaken for part of the in-universe period.

Consider another aspect of real-world period filters, as an analogy. TOS was very sexist, in retrospect. It never would've featured a female Starfleet captain. Should DSC be required to be "authentic" to the sexism of TOS because it's part of that period? No, because that sexism wasn't part of the 23rd century. It was part of the 1960s that imposed a limitation on the show's ability to depict a future society, and modern depictions of that same future society are able to strip away those outdated period assumptions and thereby offer a better version of that future, something closer to what the original creators intended but were hampered in achieving by their own unconscious biases. Updating the portrayal of a future period is not getting it wrong, it's getting it closer to right than it was before.

 

[Tarek71]

People always say that about new things they haven't had time to get used to yet.

No, they don't. LOL. Some new things we see and go "Wow! That is awesome!". And Warp 10 Salamanders? Still sucks!

Yes, it is, no matter how much you claim otherwise. It is written to be in the Prime continuity.

They can say whatever they want. It's still a discontinuity. It would be better if, like other properties, they simply allowed different continuities.

 

[Jesse1066]

The Klingon prosthetics I can accept quite easily, though my initial reaction was negative. Without the bushy eyebrows and goatees though, they're hardly recognizable as Klingons. These are features that nearly every Klingon has had throughout Star Trek's history, yet both STID and Discovery seem to have done away with them. Perhaps other Klingons will have them, and maybe wigs as well, but I kind of doubt it. Still, we just don't know yet.

 

[Michael]

I have a real hard time believing that any fan anywhere in the world saw that first shot of that angry-looking, dark-skinned guy with forehead ridges and body armor in the trailer and didn't instantly recognize him as a Klingon. Makes this whole discussion about “These can't be the same species!” really absurd. If you're having that much trouble with changing visual designs and aesthetics in Trek, I seriously wonder how you made it that far as a fan of the franchise, seeing that in the past they were constantly changing stuff after a few years.

 

[Mudd]

Star Trek is not a period piece, nor is it in any sense an historical drama or recreation.

The places, things, people and events of Star Trek are pure fantasy. They never happened. They never will happen. They are and always will be plastic in the hands of the creative staff.

You want TOS Trek? That's what fan films are for.

 

[Mudd]

Oh, BTW, if it hasn't been mentioned this time around:

TOS never stated that the Romulans lacked warp drive, either at the time of their conflict with Earth or during the Kirk era.

Scotty has one line: "Their power is simple impulse." He's talking about what they've learned about the ship they're currently engaging and whether Enterprise is a match for it.. Now, whether or not it makes sense for that vessel to be running on sub-light engines is an argument in its own right, but there's no suggestion that Scott is making a global statement about all known Romulan technology of the past or present.