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

[fireproof78]

I think that's taking things too literally.

I fully respect the rest of your post, but this part I wanted to call out because it is not my position. But, it is one I have seen articulated, here and elsewhere, and that Kelvin Universe somehow lessened the connection with the characters. How? I have no idea.

Personally, I could care less so long as it is a good story, with good characters. The rest really is decorations.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Because the modern audience won't watch a series that looks like it's from the 60s.

Period pieces set in the 1960s, such as Mad Men (hugely successful), notwithstanding.

Also, the imaginary setting of Legion (also successful) looks a great deal like the 1960s, for example when it comes to wardrobe, and that show has a lot of stylistic commonalities with earlier shows made circa the 1960s, such as The Prisoner.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

Period pieces set in the 1960s, such as Mad Men (hugely successful), notwithstanding.

Also, the imaginary setting of Legion (also successful) looks a great deal like the 1960s, for example when it comes to wardrobe, and that show has a lot of stylistic commonalities with earlier shows made circa the 1960s, such as The Prisoner.

Trek is not a period piece, its a sci-fi show that is supposed to be humanities future.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Period pieces set in the 1960s, such as Mad Men (hugely successful), notwithstanding.

Also, the imaginary setting of Legion (also successful) looks a great deal like the 1960s, for example when it comes to wardrobe, and that show has a lot of stylistic commonalities with earlier shows made circa the 1960s, such as The Prisoner.

There's a difference between a show set in in the 60's and a show looking like it was made in the 60's.
I recently watched Fargo Season 2, which was set in 1979. They did a good job of recreating the era, but it was also obviously made in the 2010's.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

There's a difference between a show set in in the 60's and a show looking like it was made in the 60's.
I recently watched Fargo Season 2, which was set in 1979. They did a good job of recreating the era, but it was also obviously made in the 2010's.

True.

I understand that Star Trek has never been conceived of as a period piece, and I'd be shocked if a majority of the fans who want the looks of TOS preserved also want DSC as a show to look like it was made in the 1960s, not that I think it would be a good idea, at least at the present time, to pursue either angle in Star Trek in particular. So, I don't think that it's really about looking like it's a show produced in the 1960s so much as extreme fidelity to sets and props from that period that fans are getting hung up about.

My point was simply that there is currently an interest in 1960s nostalgia. Broadly appealing to nostalgic interest seems to be partly driving development The Orville. Star Trek's conception as "something serious" with respect to how it handles its depiction of the future seems to be the factor that makes 1960s aesthetics a mismatch for it, but that doesn't mean that audiences aren't interested in that sort of thing broadly.

(Apologies for the ongoing edits. I'm done with this post now. )

 

[Tarek71]

Even if their isn't one, makeup techniques and general aesthetics have changed a lot since the 1983 or 4, so I can see why they might want to update an old design.

I completely agree on modernizing. Ive said that. Any projection into the future, unlike a period piece, has to be updated to reflect changes to preserve some reasonably futuristic depiction of the future. That doesnt apply here though.

The Klingon make up of 1990s and 2000s Trek was very high quality. The prosthetics were well conceived, well made, well fitted and well blended. They were then and remain today, very realistic and completely believable. They did a great job. Droopier faces is not any sense more "modern", and the prosthetic doesnt look any more lifelike or realistic than Worfs or the ENT Klingons.

I think the issue is different with DiscoTrek. Up to now, Ive said less about the costume of Mr Droopy Face than his physical appearance. Thats because I have a hard time wrapping my head around it. When I look at the Starfleet and Klingon uniforms here, I am not struck by how modern they are, Im struck by how retro they are. Mr Droopy in his crazy costume looks like the latest henchman of Ming the Merciless. They don't look like they come from Qo'nos, they look like they come from Mongo. It goes well with the "Captain Neutron: Space Ranger" metallic features and highlights on the retro futuristic Starfleet uniform. The Flash Gordon/Buck Rogers old school Saturday Matinee serials look is....interesting.

I dont blame the people on the craft end. It's possible they are doing a great job delivering what they have been asked to do. But the end result is anything but more plausible, realistic, futuristic or modern.

 

[Mr Awe]

Period pieces set in the 1960s, such as Mad Men (hugely successful), notwithstanding.

True, but in space based science fiction, audiences generally expect the latest and greatest visually. Why do you think the new ST movies look so modern compared to even TNG movies, much less TOS?

I think part of the shock of the visual changes is that we now have a larger gap in years, and hence a larger gap in technology, between Discovery and ENT than we had between the 80s/90s/00s ST series. This is more akin to the jump from TOS to TMP and it's based primarily on huge advances in technology (I'm not sure how the budgets compare). So, Discovery looks way more advanced than even the immediately previous ST series, much less TOS.

 

[Refuge]

Granted, I've often said that I think ST will eventually need a wholesale reboot, that it would benefit from starting over completely and freeing itself from the continuity and conceptual baggage of the past. I was a little disappointed when Discovery turned out to be set in Prime again; after Kelvin, I figured a complete reboot was the logical next step. But that doesn't mean it can't still work. It's a challenging balance to strike, being faithful both to an aging Trek canon and to modern knowledge and sensibilities. It would certainly be simpler to do a complete reboot. But then, simpler isn't necessarily better. They're taking a gamble, yes, but it'll be impressive if it succeeds.

I don't understand. 'Freeing itself from the continuity and conceptual baggage of the past'. Take away the concept, take away the continuity, and what do you have left? That 'baggage' is the story source to the reference points they (you know who 'they' are) are selling to us. Like a springboard going backwards.

Discovery doesn't seem to be marketed as a reboot in a Kelvin Universe, (and I thought the Kelvin Universe was the reboot from previous Star Trek). I wonder what you'd call a reboot of the Kelvin reboot..

Discovery is going to have 2017 production values and maybe in the cinematic sense it will be more like event TV and the Kelvin Universe movies. However it is telling us it is ten years before something we can compare it with, (Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise). It'll focus on its own identity but for some or many there will be the occasional thought that Discovery is supposed to lead up to, and set the scene for a TOS like world..

 

[Jayson1]

For me I still think the biggest issue are the uniforms and the color scheme of the computer consoles. When ever you think about each era isn't the first thing you notice being the uniforms? You had the colorful TOS uniforms then that goes into the Red military outifts of the movies to the TNG uniforms to the DS9/Voyager uniforms to the "FIrst Contact" and later seasons of DS9 uniforms to even the "All Good Things" of the future.

I would argue that this is what people notice even before they notice the tech and sets because I think for many as long as you got a captains chair and a few designated stations for comm/taticalofficer etc they are open to any new concept.

Kind of like how "Voyager" put it's op and security stations in new places and gave the pilot a single station in front. The ship looked more grey than any other Starfleet ship but what the show didn't do was change the uniforms. They were still wearing the old DS9 uniforms.

Also I think fans like the idea of the colorful blinkie lights or in the Berman era you didn't have blinkie lights but you still had a colorful texture to the computer screnes. I think one of the big issue's people have with the "Disocvery" uniforms isn't so much the design but the simple fact that they are all the same color instead of coming in different colors such as yellow,red and blue.

Is it me but could the real big issue over the debate of canon be over the simply fact that the ship doesn't look bright and inviting? Makes me think back to how people use to complain that DS9 was to dark looking but that show had the excuse of being on a alien space station. I think people expect starfleet ships to be colorful and bright. The sets can change and be be updated but the color schemes shouldn't be touched.

Jason

 

[Nyotarules]

Period pieces set in the 1960s, such as Mad Men (hugely successful), notwithstanding.

Also, the imaginary setting of Legion (also successful) looks a great deal like the 1960s, for example when it comes to wardrobe, and that show has a lot of stylistic commonalities with earlier shows made circa the 1960s, such as The Prisoner.

Mad Men is about an advertising agency set in the 1960's looking like a 21st century tv show.
Star Trek Discovery needs to look like a mid 23rd century world with early 21st century production values. Not a 1960's TV show.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

I take it many people here talking about Trek looking like a modern 21st century sci-fi TV show haven't seen the pic of the retro Flash Gordon transporter room.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I take it many people here talking about Trek looking like a modern 21st century sci-fi TV show haven't seen the pic of the retro Flash Gordon transporter room.

Snap!

 

[Jayson1]

I take it many people here talking about Trek looking like a modern 21st century sci-fi TV show haven't seen the pic of the retro Flash Gordon transporter room.

The transporter looked good. Granted when we saw the pic it wasn't covered in lens flares. I wonder just how much damage was done with using lens fares in the teaser. For me it has more to do with one color uniforms and way to different looking Klingons but the lense flares I do think had a impact on peoples opinions.

Jason

 

[BillJ]

The transporter looked good.

But it looking like it is from a Flash Gordon serial kind of kills the argument that everything needs to have modern sensibilities for audiences to be interested.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrofuturism

Pronounced retrofuturism in canonical Star Trek would hardly be the worst thing to happen to it, and in the right hands it could make it a great deal of fun. However, I wouldn't necessarily equate that with extreme fidelity to props, sets, costumes, etc. of productions from previous decades.

 

[BillJ]

I'm just afraid that Discovery will continue the Berman-era trend of Star Trek taking itself too seriously. I miss the "fun factor" of the original.

 

[jaime]

I'm just afraid that Discovery will continue the Berman-era trend of Star Trek taking itself too seriously. I miss the "fun factor" of the original.

I think the parameters for serious were just different in the sixties. I do think there was much of an intentional 'fun factor'....accidental camp...yeah...intended...not really. It's not like say...Batman.

 

[BillJ]

It's not like say...Batman.

No. But they did recognize that they were doing something that was "out there" and tended to have fun with it.

 

[Jayson1]

But it looking like it is from a Flash Gordon serial kind of kills the argument that everything needs to have modern sensibilities for audiences to be interested.

I agree. What I am saying though is the look of "Discovery" of looking to modern might be overstated because of my examples. I wonder what that teaser would have looked like with some more colorful uniforms, the lights not so dark and more traditional looking Klingons and no lense flares.

Jason

 

[jaime]

Trek is not a period piece, its a sci-fi show that is supposed to be humanities future.

Stranger Things is not a period piece, it's a sci-if show that Is supposed to be humanities past.
Or more usefully, given the time-scales involved and the amount of supposition involved....Robin of Sherwood is not a period piece, it's a fantasy show that is supposed to be humanities past. (You can insert say...Outlander...if you like too.)
It's not about the real setting vs fictional setting...both are fictional settings. There's currently a film set in more or less contemporary Hampstead Heath that has all sorts of laughing criticism levelled at it for not really being very accurate to the actual place, despite being filmed there and based on some real people. It's about the approach. Trek has 700 episodes of future history documented...it has its own milieu and mis-en-scene, in just the way periods in in history do...comparing TOS to Enterprises episodes set on the defiant is roughly the same as comparing Blackadder to The Tudors basically. Comparing TOS to Voyager, is like comparing Elizabeth R to Elizabeth: The New World. This is the sense in which I suggest thinking of Trek as a period piece...I am not saying Trek is real, an actual event that will happen and has somehow been magically transmitted through time (despite what the Starfleet Technical Manual says, with its anachronistic components rendered suitable for us past dwellers.)
I am saying that the approach taken by production teams for many years, and a logical approach taken by us fans, and an approach that serves well going forwards is to approach it as a period piece...go far enough back in history and there is as much certainty and guesswork about what is what as there is going forwards after all...the history of the humble Bra was only recently thrown into disarray by new discoveries.
The dialogue in Trek is often compared, acting wise, to performing Shakespeare...a certain rhythm, terms that are not every day....in its difficulty. It's an approach. A period piece for Treks future is different to say...Buck Rogers. It is the same with Star Wars...Rogue One is a period piece, totally, in approach from the makers. Another good example is Alien: Isolation, albeit in video game form.
Star Trek Continues is even more of a period piece, in that they go as far as the replicate certain limitations, but it is plain to see that it is not a show shot on film in the sixties. It borders on an historical recreation, rather than just the general approach taken by other fan films.
Do you see?
When some daft hippy guitar tutor says 'you've got to treat your guitar like a woman' he's not saying the guitar is a woman, nor is he expecting you to buy it dinner and massage its back after a long day....though he may do, in which case, find a new guitar tutor.