• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

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

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

Look in 1979 with ST:TMP there were plenty of 'new design' decisions that TOS fans hated - that later fans (and those same TOS fans now accept):

And sorry, but there were PLENTY of fans in 1979 who hated the Klingon look remake. They also wondered:

- Why the refit 1701 nacelles looked like they came off of a Klingon D-7 Battlecruiser?
- Why was Security now wearing Body Armor and basketball like helmets?
- HOW were they claiming "it's the same Hull" when BOTH the interior and exterior look so markedly different?
- Why (and how) did they add a second Turbolift to the Bridge and change the Bridge orientation given it IS supposed to be the same original Hull?

Yet, 38 years later TMP is accepted 100% as being in the same continuity as TOS.
 
They can say whatever they want. It's still a discontinuity. It would be better if, like other properties, they simply allowed different continuities.

So, this is funny. You're contradicting yourself from one sentence to the next. First, you say that it is a discontinuity. Then, you say you wish they allowed discontinuities! Get your story straight! :guffaw:
 
Yet, 38 years later TMP is accepted 100% as being in the same continuity as TOS.

At the same time, some of the more controversial changes in TMP were abandoned in Wrath of Khan.

They got rid of the jammies, for one, and they switched from wrist back to handheld communicators.

They did drop the embroidered patches, however, which shifted Khan further away from TOS.

Moral of the story is that yes, you can change things, but the most egregious changes should be rolled back in response to feedback.
 
At the same time, some of the more controversial changes in TMP were abandoned in Wrath of Khan.

They got rid of the jammies, for one, and they switched from wrist back to handheld communicators.

They did drop the embroidered patches, however, which shifted Khan further away from TOS.

Moral of the story is that yes, you can change things, but the most egregious changes should be rolled back in response to feedback.
If that were the case, then they should have changed the 1701 again, because the majority of fans didn't care for it - but since that didn't happen, they grew to accept it.
^^^
And believe me when I say, the exact same thing will happen with 'Discovery' as it proceeds through its run. ;)
 
If that were the case, then they should have changed the 1701 again, because the majority of fans didn't care for it - but since that didn't happen, they grew to accept it.
^^^
And believe me when I say, the exact same thing will happen with 'Discovery' as it proceeds through its run. ;)
Perhaps they would have changed it if they weren't working with a $12 million budget.
 
I consider TMP to be sort of a soft reboot. It seems that Roddenberry intended it somewhat that way. His novelization treats the adventures depicted in the series as exaggerated, colorful depictions of events that "really" happened. It's as if he was kind of putting the series away and presenting TMP as the new standard and "true" depiction of the Star Trek universe.

Kor
 
Ha! Not at all! I love reboots and reimaginations. They're right when they say it can be fun and interesting. Just call them different continuities. That's all. Liking two different takes on Arthur and Merlin isn't a contradiction. Trying to shoe horn them into one continuity is unnecessary and dumb. That's why it isnt generally done in their case.
 
Last edited:
If that were the case, then they should have changed the 1701 again, because the majority of fans didn't care for it

Wait, what? Umm, that didn't happen.

I consider TMP to be sort of a soft reboot. It seems that Roddenberry intended it somewhat that way. His novelization treats the adventures depicted in the series as exaggerated, colorful depictions of events that "really" happened. It's as if he was kind of putting the series away and presenting TMP as the new standard and "true" depiction of the Star Trek universe.

We've all agreed silently never to speak about Roddenberry's novelization again.
 
LNPYoZp.jpg




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.


I can give you a long list. First lets ignore the timelines and the fluff. Lets just go on what we see in this image
1: Its clear they are of the same ship linage, they bear a number of shared features. So one will be older

2:The basic shapes, the TOS has very basic and rather primitive shapes, its a piedish on top a trashcan, with two tubes linked with straight construction like pylons. Very workmen like and lacking any styling. Its a Model -t. If you look at the NX, you see far more advanced hull shapes. The lines flow into each other and have a far more advanced styling and look. More like a corvette

3: HUll plating: On the TOS design we see far less detail, its also painted white. The NX has far more detailed and extensive hull detail and plating. Which makes the TOS design seem more primitive, because the TOS does not give off a"iphone" sleekness,but more a walki-talki blockness. its just looks like older, larger plants with less detail

4:The Nacelles. Of the two the NX looks newer and more advanced. The TOs Nacelles are duller, which look like its faded or lacking power. They also lack anything on the side, the TOS ship simply have a more pramative metal tube shape.

5: The windows: The TOS ship has larger and more office building windows, where the NX looks more modern.

6: The deflector dish. The TOS ship has a dull old fashioned dish, like I saw in some yards growing up man. The NX has a high detailed shaped dish, it looks more modern and more advanced.

You can go on and one about a dozen other details, but the TOS ship will always look older, because it is. That was the first designed ST ship, the very first other used as a base for style, so all ships that came after it look newer because they are a refinement of the star trek model T
 
They can say whatever they want. It's still a discontinuity.

They don't just say it. They make it! We're talking about the people who create the show and define what its official canon status is, what subsequent creators will need to acknowledge and respect. What they say actually does go.


It would be better if, like other properties, they simply allowed different continuities.

Sure, I've been saying for a long time that it'd be nice if they did that.. But in this case, they aren't. The fact is that DSC is meant to be in the Prime universe, and you can't change that fact just because you dislike it.


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.

Take a closer look at TOS. The only Klingons who actually had beards there were the speaking males -- Kor, his lieutenant, Kras, Koloth, Korax, Krell, the "Elaan of Troyius" captain, Kang, one or two of his junior officers, and Kahless. All the background Klingon extras in "Errand of Mercy," "The Trouble with Tribbles," and "Day of the Dove" were clean-shaven, although a couple in "Dove" had a small mustache or soul patch or something. There's also Chang in TUC, who had no hair aside from a very small Fu Manchu mustache.

Besides, why should an entire species have the same hairstyle? That really makes no sense if you think about it. It's the kind of simplistic racial stereotyping that Trek does far too often, that would be hideously racist if it were done with real ethnic groups. Okay, given that most of the Klingons we've seen have been in the military, it makes sense that they'd have a standardized look (although surely the TOS look is more plausibly military than the flowing locks of later Klingons), but there's no reason whatsoever that there couldn't be other subsets of Klingon culture with different tonsorial standards.


And sorry, but there were PLENTY of fans in 1979 who hated the Klingon look remake. They also wondered:

- Why the refit 1701 nacelles looked like they came off of a Klingon D-7 Battlecruiser?
- Why was Security now wearing Body Armor and basketball like helmets?

My question was the opposite -- why did they abandon the body armor in TNG? Not to mention the engineering radiation suits and the seat restraints on the bridge. All of those make perfect sense as safety features, so it's silly that TNG abandoned them.


At the same time, some of the more controversial changes in TMP were abandoned in Wrath of Khan.

They got rid of the jammies, for one, and they switched from wrist back to handheld communicators.

They didn't entirely get rid of the TMP jumpsuit uniforms, since they didn't have the budget to replace all of them. They just dyed them different colors and used them for background crew.


Moral of the story is that yes, you can change things, but the most egregious changes should be rolled back in response to feedback.

I hate it when people use the word "should" when talking about art, as if there were some rigid, mandatory rule that needed to be imposed on everyone. Creativity is not about imposing rigid limits, it's about trying the new and unexpected. The only "should" is that creators should have absolute freedom to experiment with whatever feels right to them. Sure, it won't always work, but that doesn't mean it should never even be tried.


I consider TMP to be sort of a soft reboot. It seems that Roddenberry intended it somewhat that way. His novelization treats the adventures depicted in the series as exaggerated, colorful depictions of events that "really" happened. It's as if he was kind of putting the series away and presenting TMP as the new standard and "true" depiction of the Star Trek universe.

That's right. What people often don't realize is that TOS did not represent the perfect execution of his vision -- it represented the end result of constant compromises. Battling with the censors, having to abandon ideas they couldn't afford or didn't have the technology to achieve, trying things that just didn't work and turned out badly, etc. It was only natural that he'd want to make improvements when given the chance to try again.
 
Take a closer look at TOS. The only Klingons who actually had beards there were the speaking males -- Kor, his lieutenant, Kras, Koloth, Korax, Krell, the "Elaan of Troyius" captain, Kang, one or two of his junior officers, and Kahless. All the background Klingon extras in "Errand of Mercy," "The Trouble with Tribbles," and "Day of the Dove" were clean-shaven, although a couple in "Dove" had a small mustache or soul patch or something. There's also Chang in TUC, who had no hair aside from a very small Fu Manchu mustache.

Besides, why should an entire species have the same hairstyle? That really makes no sense if you think about it. It's the kind of simplistic racial stereotyping that Trek does far too often, that would be hideously racist if it were done with real ethnic groups. Okay, given that most of the Klingons we've seen have been in the military, it makes sense that they'd have a standardized look (although surely the TOS look is more plausibly military than the flowing locks of later Klingons), but there's no reason whatsoever that there couldn't be other subsets of Klingon culture with different tonsorial standards.
I was going to address the background Klingons in parentheses but ended up deleting it. I think it's reasonable to give precedence to the main Klingons, but the background ones obviously are on screen, so they definitely existed. In any case, I would expect them (in Discovery) to have eyebrows, and for at least some of them to have facial hair. It seems we've gone from compulsory hairiness to (apparently) compulsory hair removal. It could potentially be ritualistic like with the Nero and his crew though, rather than the typical appearance of new Klingons.
 
Moral of the story is that yes, you can change things, but the most egregious changes should be rolled back in response to feedback.

My God, man, think about what you're saying! The most egregious changes should be rolled back in response to feedback. You want to kill this by committee. Let artists be artists and I'd actually prefer they be isolated from 'feedback' as much as possible. Good Lord.
 
That's right. What people often don't realize is that TOS did not represent the perfect execution of his vision -- it represented the end result of constant compromises. Battling with the censors, having to abandon ideas they couldn't afford or didn't have the technology to achieve, trying things that just didn't work and turned out badly, etc. It was only natural that he'd want to make improvements when given the chance to try again.

No, no, Christopher, TOS clearly established that planets in outer space looked like cheap sets, so from this point forward, all Star Trek shows must depict planets as cheap sets!
 
They don't just say it. They make it! We're talking about the people who create the show and define what its official canon status is, what subsequent creators will need to acknowledge and respect. What they say actually does go.

Couldn't agree more! Anything they say is canon is in fact canon. Ive never said otherwise. They can make whatever changes they like. They can say Kirk and Spock served in the 2150s on the NX-01 and 110 years later, a heroic new crew on the 1701 Enterprise led by Archer and T'Pol continued the saga!

Would that be canon if they said it was? Yes. Would subsequent creators have to acknowledge that? Yes. Is it a discontinuity? Yes. LOL. Obviously. It would be a discontinuity no matter what Alex says in an interview. And I think you and Alex would agree. Vulcan was destroyed in 2258 and Vulcan was not destroyed in 2258 are both equally canon. But they are not equally prime universe and they cannot be, no matter what any EP or showrunner says. What they say goes (is canon), but Alex is not going to say, publically at least, that "the Prime universe is whatever we say it is". He sounds the way they all do. Respectful of what's gone before and claims to be constrained by it. Ie not everything they say goes. At least not in terms of it being Prime universe.

The 3rd timeline/reimagined Discoverse Trek is every bit as canon as the Kelvinverse is. Yes, even the droopy face Klingons. Everyone agrees that it's canon. But they chose ultimately to say it's in the "prime" universe. But as you tried to argue earlier however, it seems to be a matter of certain disagreement about what exactly it is about the Prime continuity is subject to change w/o it being too much to still be Prime. Could new Vulcans have red scaly skin, green horns, purple hair, pink blood and fart glitter? What if in addition to that, they hated Logic. Is that enough to cross the line?

Sure, I've been saying for a long time that it'd be nice if they did that.. But in this case, they aren't. The fact is that DSC is meant to be in the Prime universe, and you can't change that fact just because you dislike it.

It makes no difference what timeline it is "meant" to be in. Even Alex claims to be constrained in order for it to be Prime universe. Meaning it's not what universe he says it is, but whether it actually does agree with that continuity. If it's whatever he says it is, than there is no difference between "events" and "alien characteristics". It's either "the events" or "whatever they say it is". Not both.
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top