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

[BillJ]

I don't mean it as personal but it's a historical comparison that elucidates the matter. There are trends that you just can't resist. Wanting a space based SF series to not look modern will be about as effective as Luddites in trying to resist new machines. It's not going to happen.

But, I certainly didn't mean it as a negative to the poster. I'm assuming that BillJ is in fact *not* a Luddite!

Only on Tuesday's.

 

[Nyotarules]

Like it or not, the 1960's were a big contributor to what made Trek "Trek".

What element of the 1960's made Trek 'Trek'? Was it the miniskirts, patriarchal society, legal racism and all those other things that made the TV world white, male, middle class and American?

 

[Kemaiku]

I think there are some people here deluding themselves on what is actually going on here.

What's going on here is that the same studio is making a 2017 production and being realistic about how it should be presented to an audience, and expecting people to be adults about it.

I think far too many fans are deluding themselves as to how much they matter or what weight their "opinions" hold.

 

[BillJ]

What element of the 1960's made Trek 'Trek'? Was it the miniskirts, patriarchal of society, legal racism and all those other things that made the TV world white, male, middle class and American?

Like it or not, that is part of it. Also the counter culture movement, among other things.

Which is why you reboot. They're turning the original into an anachronism in its own time period.

 

[BillJ]

...and expecting people to be adults about it.

So we're not being adults by engaging in discussion? The Great Bird would be proud.

I think far too many fans are deluding themselves as to how much they matter or what weight their "opinions" hold.

My opinion holds no weight. But, it is my opinion.

If TNG was placed in 2265 and nothing else was changed, would you hang on the studio saying it was the same timeline and it all fits together, and not question it?

 

[Nyotarules]

Like it or not, that is part of it. Also the counter culture movement, among other things.

Which is why you reboot. There's turning the original into an anachronism in its own time period.

And make the show a laughing stock when even 2017 has moved on to some degree from some of those attitudes.
1.Captain I'm scared
2.Your world of starship captains, does not include females'
3.Female explorers in space demand to be taken seriously as professionals wearing to the office/starship dresses that show their panties
4. An intergalactic organisation called The Federation is represented by a starship with 399 Humans and 1 Vulcan. The majority hailing from North America cos in the future the rest of the world decides only North Americans are worthy to attend Starfleet.

 

[BillJ]

And make the show a laughing stock when even 2017 has moved on to some degree from some of those attitudes.
1.Captain I'm scared
2.Your world of starship captains, does not include females'
3.Female explorers in space demand to be taken seriously as professionals wearing to the office/starship dresses that show their panties
4. An intergalactic organisation called The Federation is represented by a starship with 399 Humans and 1 Vulcan. The majority hailing from North America cos in the future the rest of the world decides only North Americans are worthy to attend Starfleet.

Which is why you reboot (or you shunt TOS off into its own timeline). You make a 2017 show for a 2017 audience without contradicting what came before.

 

[Christopher]

What element of the 1960's made Trek 'Trek'? Was it the miniskirts, patriarchal society, legal racism and all those other things that made the TV world white, male, middle class and American?

I take it you were asking rhetorically, but I'd venture a serious answer: It was the Kennedy-era idealism, a vision of a better future that was achievable through hard work and optimism. "We choose to go to the Moon and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard" and all that. And the spirit of the hippies and the counterculture and the Civil Rights movement, all the groups that didn't fit the conventional norms and were fighting for a future where they would be included as equals. There is certainly good stuff from the '60s that's worth keeping, but there are also parts that should be left behind.

3.Female explorers in space demand to be taken seriously as professionals wearing to the office/starship dresses that show their panties

Just to be technical, those were mini-culottes or "skorts" -- more like a leotard with a skirtlike flap around the waist. So those weren't panties, they were the lower portion of the outer garment. Like a skimpier version of Supergirl's TV costume or a tennis dress. Which would make a fair amount of sense if they were garments intended for physically active situations, but they are a little incongruous for clerical work or nursing or the sort of things TOS crewwomen generally did.

 

[Long Syntax]

A tree doesn't cut off its roots as death would surely occur - nor should Star Trek shun its past (IMHO of course).

 

[Mirror Mirror]

If you look at the examples I give, from other shows, you will see that is not what I am saying at all. Not to mention, as someone who isn't really a big TOS fan, I am not desperately awaiting the bold colours and so much red everywhere that a TOS clone would warrant...nor the bland marks and Spencer's pyjamas, terrible wool, Fifties blue steels look of the Cage either. What I am saying is, there are certain events, figures, a general style, that belongs to Trek, and the approach DSC is taking seems in keeping with that..aside from the transporter room, which I can see what they are going for, but think they missed, on the limited evidence from that one photo. The body armour is also a step in the wrong direction, but again..we will see and there's some precedent for it from the Movie Era.

And no...a new show made now would be the future from 2017 as it is now...grow creative cojones and make that show Hollywood people. Trek is a future that started based in the sixties, and was informed as it went through later decades...2017 can inform it and change a few things, but there's no point getting knickers in a twist over PADDS vs IPad silliness. It's easily explained anyway.

I disagree, we are seeing what would happen if the look of ENT, which was very modern, moved forward. Sure they have some campy nods, to TOS, but we are not seeing what many here want. We had people upset they used TOS style phasers and not them really stupid looking Cage lasers.

DIS is updating the look, and for most of treks history the look has been dependent on and often created by budget restraints. We are just seeing what happened when those are gone.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

A tree doesn't cut off its roots as death would surely occur - nor should Star Trek shun its past (IMHO of course).

Its not, but nor should it stick with looking campy when it will only attract a small group of people and in the long run fail.

 

[Long Syntax]

Its not, but nor should it stick with looking campy when it will only attract a small group of people and in the long run fail.

Oh, I agree. Drop the miniskirts and male chauvinism and leave it in the 60's. However, this is a prequel of sorts and an occasional nod to the past is (I'm sure) expected. Thankfully there have been no hints of a separate timeline from the showrunners.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I just don't see how you can separate the stories from the look of the original Star Trek. The stories, characters and visuals all have the same "60's vibe". If you take the "60's vibe" out of TOS, you are essentially boiling it down to the facts that don't conflict with our modern sensibilities. You are eliminating the flavor that makes TOS "TOS".

No one is expecting women to go around proclaiming they are frightened during a dangerous encounter, nor are we expecting recording equipment to not work without the ship's computer.

Most of the stories on TOS hit on universal themes, not "Sixties themes". They used plots and situations that go back centuries. I dare say those themes, plots and situations are still being used today.

 

[Christopher]

A tree doesn't cut off its roots as death would surely occur - nor should Star Trek shun its past (IMHO of course).

As I just said, we're not talking in such absolutist, all-or-nothing terms. When you do a new version of an old story, you keep what still works and update the rest. No, you don't cut off all the tree's roots, but you do trim away dead or diseased branches to encourage it to continue to grow in a healthy way.

 

[Mr Awe]

Dismissing 60's visuals? Check.
Dismissing 60's attitudes? Check.
Dismissing 60's technology? Check.
Dismissing 60's geopolitical world? I imagine this is going to be a check as the Soviet Union won't exist in this version based on the real world.

So they're going to keep some minutiae, but pretty much dismiss everything else that made the original Star Trek "Star Trek". I think there are some people here deluding themselves on what is actually going on here.

Like it or not, the 1960's were a big contributor to what made Trek "Trek".

Everything you wrote applies to TMP, TNG and all the other ST series. I guess those weren't Trek either?

No, we're not "deluded," we just recognize that time moves on. I don't want ST to be stagnant and stuck in the past.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Oh, I agree. Drop the miniskirts and male chauvinism and leave it in the 60's. However, this is a prequel of sorts and an occasional nod to the past is (I'm sure) expected. Thankfully there have been no hints of a separate timeline from the showrunners.

Keeping it in the same timeline is fine -- and encouraged -- by me. Having the stories take place in the same political "world" (errrr..."galaxy") in which TOS took place is great.

However, what I don't want to see is gold velour turtlenecks, communicators with visible resistors, and gooseneck viewers. Those should also be left in the 1960s

 

[Mirror Mirror]

Oh, I agree. Drop the miniskirts and male chauvinism and leave it in the 60's. However, this is a prequel of sorts and an occasional nod to the past is (I'm sure) expected. Thankfully there have been no hints of a separate timeline from the showrunners.

We have some, such as the Phaser and communicator. The Uniform colors are a Cage era nod as well. The showrunners seemed to have hired folks just to track canon, which is a great idea.

 

[Kemaiku]

The Great Bird would be proud.

I don't give two shits about the opinion of someone who abused their position to commit sexual assault, and also who are too dead to care what I think.

 

[Long Syntax]

I don't give two shits about the opinion of someone who abused their position to commit sexual assault, and also who are too dead to care what I think.

That's a pretty extreme position given the absence of any evidence.

 

[BillJ]

Everything you wrote applies to TMP, TNG and all the other ST series. I guess those weren't Trek either?

So I'll again ask the question: if TNG was set in 2265, would you buy it being the "Prime" timeline if the studio told you it was? Or, if they put Discovery in 2365, would you still consider it "Prime", if the studio told you to?