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

[fireproof78]

I think it'll be all right. I've possibly been a little critical.. but only speaking for myself, it's like I'm exhausted.. out. I want to see it now and what I was trying to convey earlier, Discovery will have an identity and 'world' of its own. We'll be won over. It's a good direction to have some Star Trek, I've missed it.

On that, I agree. I think that DSC is shaping itself to have that identity, and not just within "Star Trek" but just in popular culture.

Say what you want about Abrams Trek, but it generated some excitement and interest, and enjoyment for people who maybe didn't like any other iteration. It's not some black sheep, it's part of the larger world building that fits together good enough to be enjoyable.

 

[ATimson]

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.

I didn't. I thought he was supposed to be a new race, and it wasn't until I started reading threads here that I realized he's supposed to be a Klingon.

 

[Mr Awe]

And it's worth keeping in mind that "timeline" doesn't just mean "one of various alternate realities." In the original sense of the word, a timeline is merely a chronological sequence of events, a sort of one-dimensional map of what happens when and in what order. So Kurtzman could be talking about "the timeline" in terms of what 23rd-century events happen when -- where this show falls relative to "The Cage" and TOS, what characters like Spock and Sarek and Mudd and whoever would plausibly be doing at this point in their lives, etc.

Yeeees, that is exactly what I've said here and elsewhere. And, it is explicitly what Kurtzman said--that characters are doing specific things and events are happening at specific times. There's really no "could be talking about" because he is quite clear in the interview.

 

[Mr Awe]

I think it'll be all right. I've possibly been a little critical.. but only speaking for myself, it's like I'm exhausted.. out. I want to see it now and what I was trying to convey earlier, Discovery will have an identity and 'world' of its own. We'll be won over. It's a good direction to have some Star Trek, I've missed it.

Agreed. The trailer and everything I've heard so far just makes me want to see it more. My intuition tells me that it will be bold and different yet it'll fit in the timeline just fine.

 

[Tarek71]

But they won't. That's a straw man. It's been made clear that the show is consistent with the events of TOS and the Prime continuity. They have merely changed the look of certain things. It's illegitimate to treat those as equivalent. If a new production of a Shakespeare play updates the costume and set designs, that does not constitute rewriting the play. Those are two different categories of change. Discovery is changing the style of the Prime universe, not the substance. (And yes, Star Trek is a series of plays. TV scripts are called "teleplays" for a reason.)

Different plays are not in continuity with each other. They are derived from the same source material. And it doesn't matter what they "make clear". Either it will be consistent or not. Their say so has nothing to do with anything. And the "look" is no different from the "events". Like historical fiction, the look of the time should be maintained unless there is some compelling reason to change it. Like, 50 years later, we decided on to update the computers and consoles to seem more like a plausible vision of the future. That doesn't apply here. Kurn, Worf and Martoks makeup looks completely plausible and realistic. And after ENT went to some length to explain these two basic looks, it is absolutely a discontinuity to change it.

And we have to bury this preposterous idea that the cultural artifacts, art, music, clothing, hair, make up or architectural styles of a time and culture are not part and parcel of that time, place and culture. They are deeply embedded and central, not some peripheral window dressing.

Also a total straw man. The differences in these new Klingons are differences in detail, not basic forms. They still have complex head ridges and dark skin. They still have essentially Klingon features, just in a different style

It is a radical and dramatic change. They don't even look like the same species. Style? Having a different shaped face and skin color is not a "style". Nothing compared to the very slight differences between previous incarnations of Andorians and Klingons, where, contrary to your implications of "radical" changes, they obviously tried hard to maintain a considerable continuity, unlike the Disco creatives who said they were deliberately "reimagining". Their looking very different was the whole point of the change. Not for them to be the same. I think you may have missed that "reimagination" would likely mean substantial change, not nip and tuck tweaks.

Again, you're confusing changes in style with changes in substance. Nothing we've seen indicates that these Klingons will not be recognizably Klingon in their attitudes and culture.

No, I'm aware of your dubious claim that music, art, clothing, architecture, hair, make up etc are not part of culture, or at least, not important parts of it. It is mere "Style" but not "substance". No, it is substantive. There was no reason at all to make these radical changes. They call them "fetishes", which is a bizarre characterization.

 

[Jayson1]

You know I was thinking about this canon issue and their might actually be no way to every really answer the question for sure simply because nothing that happens on "Disocovery" can ever impact any of the other shows.

It's not like Burnham might someday show up in a TNG episode or we can't ever see a flashback scene on DS9 where we see starfleet people wearing the new uniforms. Can something really be canon if their is no way to connect it to the other stuff beyond what we imagine in our heads?

Seems to me the only way this show will ever really be able to offically become part of the prime universe is if you somehow get Shatner to play Kirk on the show or some kind of other connection like that. In the past you could have character/actor crossovers or you can have something like the Maquis get set up in TNG, established and named in DS9 and then used as series regulars on "Voyager."

Every connection made on the new show can simply be seen as a new version of previous character or backstory, instead of a continuation of that character or backstory. It will all come down to how people view it in their minds unless they can find a more solid way to connect the 2. I think I now I understand just why every other show felt the need to have a character from the previous show to show up in the pilot and basically establish that this new show is indeed part of the trek universe you have been following. Will "Discovery" have that moment were you feel like their is no other option but to think of it as being in the prime universe without any doubt?

Jason

 

[Tarek71]

I didn't. I thought he was supposed to be a new race, and it wasn't until I started reading threads here that I realized he's supposed to be a Klingon.

Agreed, no way did I think those were Klingons. Of course, a reimagining is what they promised for the aliens (plural, meaning not just the Klingons). There are many species who are shown to be different species and yet look more like each other than Disco Guy looks like the TMP/TNG Klingons. And I don't just mean those that are inexplicably identical or nearly identical to humans like Deltans and Betazoids. Numerous forehead aliens of distinctly different species all look more like each other than Mr Droopy Face looks like Martok.

 

[F. King Daniel]

If you're a fan you've invested some of yourself into this whole other world. Some of the anxiety is the loyalty we have to previous shows, we don't want that compromised. When it comes down to it most of us will be on board because Discovery will take on its own living identity.

I love the old X-Men and Terminator films, both of which were explicitly erased from their fictional histories by newer ones.

Were they really compromised? It doesn't ruin my enjoyment of them one bit.

 

[Tyr]

I love the old X-Men and Terminator films, both of which were explicitly erased from their fictional histories by newer ones.

Were they really compromised? It doesn't ruin my enjoyment of them one bit.

But a T-800 from the new Terminator-Movies still looks the same as in Camerons first one from 1984...

 

[Tarek71]

They are different KDB, because they allow for that. Different continuities and changed timelines. Wolverine going back to 1972 changed history. Cool! Lets go with that. But Alex gets it all wrong with Trek. It's not that no one wants change. Its that if you call it "prime", stick with that continuity. but these aholes want to say its prime but make exactly the sort of changes that, in any other universe would mean "new and different continuity". If they want a changed timeline, just say so. In any other universe in most other properties that is exactly what they do. No one is confused.

 

[Christopher]

Different plays are not in continuity with each other.

I'm talking about different productions of the same play. Remember the controversy about the recent production of Julius Caesar that costumed their Caesar to look like Trump? Years earlier, they did it with a Caesar who looked like Obama. Many different productions of that play have updated its sets, costumes, casting, etc. from Ancient Rome to something that paralleled their own modern times. But they did not change the words or events of the play. The actual story remained unchanged. The characters were the same, the sequence of events was the same, and the world they inhabited was the same in substance even if it looked superficially different. (That actually bugged me about the David Tennant/Patrick Stewart BBC production of Hamlet that was updated to a more modern-dystopia setting. The stage/video direction incorporated security cameras everywhere, ubiquitously watching, to create the feel of an oppressive surveillance state -- but the script was unchanged, so the characters were still relying on hiding behind arrases and eavesdropping on each other. Some changes fit better than others.)

And it doesn't matter what they "make clear". Either it will be consistent or not.

And it will be consistent in story, which is what actually bloody matters. Star Trek is not just a series of images.

Their say so has nothing to do with anything.

Of course it does. It has everything to do with whether future Trek creators will consider this show to be part of the same integrated universe with TNG through ENT. There were fans decades ago who refused to accept the TOS movies as part of the same reality as TOS itself because they looked different. There are still a few such fans today. But their opinions have no bearing on the actual shows and films, because fans are only spectators in all this.

You know I was thinking about this canon issue and their might actually be no way to every really answer the question for sure simply because nothing that happens on "Disocovery" can ever impact any of the other shows.

That's been true of most new incarnations of Trek. The events of TAS and the movies couldn't change TOS. The events of TNG and its sequels couldn't change TOS, TAS, and the movies. They can retcon their events, change our understanding of them. The original version of those events remains unchanged, but we filter them through an altered perspective and that changes our view of how they fit into the universe. This is normal for series fiction.

It's not like Burnham might someday show up in a TNG episode or we can't ever see a flashback scene on DS9 where we see starfleet people wearing the new uniforms. Can something really be canon if their is no way to connect it to the other stuff beyond what we imagine in our heads?

"Canon" is not a fixed and unchanging thing, unless it's the canon of a series that's permanently ended. An ongoing canon is constantly growing and evolving as new installments are added to it. TOS's canon changed rapidly throughout its first couple of years as the writers felt their way towards figuring out what the show's universe and characters were like. The movies and later shows added new understandings and angles on the growing and evolving canon.

And there didn't have to be retroactive crossovers for the new parts of canon to "count." We accepted the movies in continuity because Khan appeared in a film; we didn't need them to go back and edit the young Saavik into TOS. We accepted TNG into continuity because it referenced events from TOS and gave cameos to McCoy and Spock; the new show told us how it fit together with the old, and that was enough for us to accept the continuity, with no need for TOS to be altered. The only thing that needed to be altered was the context in which we placed TOS, our view of the larger world that it inhabited. Every other new show has recontextualized TOS and its other predecessors in the same way. Discovery will be no different.

 

[fireproof78]

Of course it does. It has everything to do with whether future Trek creators will consider this show to be part of the same integrated universe with TNG through ENT. There were fans decades ago who refused to accept the TOS movies as part of the same reality as TOS itself because they looked different. There are still a few such fans today. But their opinions have no bearing on the actual shows and films, because fans are only spectators in all this.

This, 100 percent. The Klingon shift from TOS series to TMP is just as radical as the Discovery Klingon, around whom we do not have the context for the change. We've had decades of rationalization for why the change happened, and now its acceptable. But, it was only 5 years ago that the same arguments were made against the Star Trek Into Darkness Klingons and how they "ruined everything."

But, it is simply a change, a reflection of production values, that has been done again and again and again in Star Trek.

Unless, the argument becomes that this:

Becoming this, with no explanation

Makes perfect sense. Because, it has to be remembered, TMP offered no explanation as to the differences, and the audience didn't get one until DS9 commented that there were differences.

 

[Mr Awe]

And we have to bury this preposterous idea that the cultural artifacts, art, music, clothing, hair, make up or architectural styles of a time and culture are not part and parcel of that time, place and culture. They are deeply embedded and central, not some peripheral window dressing.

The preposterous idea that needs to be buried is the notion that a modern TV series needs to look like a TV series from 50 years ago. SFx and modern visual aesthetics have changed. The show must use modern technology and design sensibilities to be successful.

You're right that the styles are part and parcel of the time an place--but the time and place of when the show is *produced*. The look must change to stay up to date with the times. However, it is entirely possible to keep the events consistent with the timeline. And, the stories are much more important anyway. The specific look of a series really is just window dressing for the storytelling. That window dressing gets continually updated to appeal to modern audiences.

 

[Mudd]

They looked just like Klingons to me.

 

[Kemaiku]

As long as the general audience thinks "Klingon" at a glance, which apparently they're doing without any issue, that's all they need. Making them more alien has been a gradual if stunted process that jumped ahead with Into Darkness and gets to be fleshed out here for a longer story.

 

[RAMA]

They looked just like Klingons to me.

Because you were told they were Klingons.

The problems aren't with the DSC design it's with your perception and long-term, ingrained thought process. All that's happened are design changes to refresh a fictional universe, much like any other longstanding fictional franchise of note. The design. much like STTMP, are sparked by production changes. They never needed explanation.

RAMA

 

[BillJ]

All I can say, is the for me (and me alone) the visuals are far more important in what I consider "Star Trek" (the visuals and the characters) than the minutiae is.

Changing the visuals of an already portrayed period is enough for me to consider it an alternate universe/reboot. Everyone's mileage may vary.

 

[Jayson1]

I'm talking about different productions of the same play. Remember the controversy about the recent production of Julius Caesar that costumed their Caesar to look like Trump? Years earlier, they did it with a Caesar who looked like Obama. Many different productions of that play have updated its sets, costumes, casting, etc. from Ancient Rome to something that paralleled their own modern times. But they did not change the words or events of the play. The actual story remained unchanged. The characters were the same, the sequence of events was the same, and the world they inhabited was the same in substance even if it looked superficially different. (That actually bugged me about the David Tennant/Patrick Stewart BBC production of Hamlet that was updated to a more modern-dystopia setting. The stage/video direction incorporated security cameras everywhere, ubiquitously watching, to create the feel of an oppressive surveillance state -- but the script was unchanged, so the characters were still relying on hiding behind arrases and eavesdropping on each other. Some changes fit better than others.)




And it will be consistent in story, which is what actually bloody matters. Star Trek is not just a series of images.




Of course it does. It has everything to do with whether future Trek creators will consider this show to be part of the same integrated universe with TNG through ENT. There were fans decades ago who refused to accept the TOS movies as part of the same reality as TOS itself because they looked different. There are still a few such fans today. But their opinions have no bearing on the actual shows and films, because fans are only spectators in all this.




That's been true of most new incarnations of Trek. The events of TAS and the movies couldn't change TOS. The events of TNG and its sequels couldn't change TOS, TAS, and the movies. They can retcon their events, change our understanding of them. The original version of those events remains unchanged, but we filter them through an altered perspective and that changes our view of how they fit into the universe. This is normal for series fiction.




"Canon" is not a fixed and unchanging thing, unless it's the canon of a series that's permanently ended. An ongoing canon is constantly growing and evolving as new installments are added to it. TOS's canon changed rapidly throughout its first couple of years as the writers felt their way towards figuring out what the show's universe and characters were like. The movies and later shows added new understandings and angles on the growing and evolving canon.

And there didn't have to be retroactive crossovers for the new parts of canon to "count." We accepted the movies in continuity because Khan appeared in a film; we didn't need them to go back and edit the young Saavik into TOS. We accepted TNG into continuity because it referenced events from TOS and gave cameos to McCoy and Spock; the new show told us how it fit together with the old, and that was enough for us to accept the continuity, with no need for TOS to be altered. The only thing that needed to be altered was the context in which we placed TOS, our view of the larger world that it inhabited. Every other new show has recontextualized TOS and its other predecessors in the same way. Discovery will be no different.

For me I think one of the biggest things when it came to seeing it as all part of a shared universe was that even if the Klingons do look different in TMP it is balanced against the fact that Shatner and all the TOS actors were in the movie still playing the same characters. Character crossovers in the Berman era along with the fact that the look of tech and uniforms staying more or less the same helped make it feel like it was all taking place in the same universe.

Perhaps I am using the word canon wrong and the words I should be using is a "shared universe." If all it takes for something to be canon is some of the basic building blocks of Trek such as Starfleet,Klingons,prime directive etc then I am not sure what the difference would be between that and a 3rd universe. Why wouldn't the Kelvin Universe be seen as part of the same canon? It's got all the familiar trapings as well.

We could point out things like Vulcan being destroyed but in the end is Vulcan being destroyed any different that if the Klingons don't look like they did in TMP and have sort of stayed that way for almost 40 years. I'm curious as to were the breaking point is supose to be when it comes to changes.

Jason

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Because you were told they were Klingons.

Yeah -- just like the only reason we knew they were Klingons in TMP is because we were told they were Klingons (e.g., they were flying in ships that looked like Klingon ships, etc.)

 

[Mudd]

Because you were told they were Klingons.

RAMA