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

[BillJ]

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.

And I'm not sure why you're so hostile over a TV show?

 

[Mr Awe]

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?

I'm not going to get into counter-factuals here as those are just red herrings. However, I will take them at their word that DIS is in the Prime timeline. Of course, as I've mentioned repeatedly, the proof is in the pudding and we'll have to see how well they pull this off. But, it sounds like they have hired people specifically to keep track of canon issues. That's great!

DIS is in the Prime timeline but with update visuals for the modern audience.

 

[jaime]

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.

I'm with you on everything but the skirts (though regulation pants were a step too far...) because at the time, those things were about rebellion and feminism as far as I can tell...Mary quant and all that...they were again in the nineties...because the sixties I guess. In context they make sense, though the camera angles...that would be the ,ale gaze thing I think really becomes a thing after the invention of the camera. (The male gaze is not everywhere in representational art prior to that, and is almost impossible to pick out in classical works, IMHO)
I think a skirt, even a mini, should still be an option in Trek, Just shot and designed differently. TNG tried for unisex...Kelvin tried for something like a midi, and both avoided boldly going with their lenses. Mind you...Trek was full of equality, for every science officer gal crawling through a vent shaft, there's usually a shirtless Shatner....and no one stayed dressed in ENt, the brazen hussies.

 

[jaime]

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 is....a different explanation to the usual of Genes dream. Though he did say something about fountains of...

 

[BillJ]

But, it sounds like they have hired people specifically to keep track of canon issues. That's great!

I'm not sure what exactly is great about it?

Nothing says "excitement" to me like consistent warp values!

 

[Mr Awe]

I'm not sure what exactly is great about it?

Nothing says "excitement" to me like consistent warp values!

Another red herring that doesn't even deserve an answer.

I get the impression that you're not excited about any aspect of DIS, which is fine. However, instead of knocking it before it airs, why not give it a chance? Maybe they actually know what they're doing?

If it sucks, I'll be the first to join you in complaining. Until then, I'll trust that they will keep an eye on canon to maintain some level of consistency without detracting from the stories.

 

[Tuskin38]

Nothing says "excitement" to me like consistent warp values!

I doubt it will be that level of pandering.

 

[BillJ]

I get the impression that you're not excited about any aspect of DIS, which is fine. However, instead of knocking it before it airs, why not give it a chance? Maybe they actually know what they're doing?

No, I haven't been excited about Discovery for a while. But, nothing I've said is knocking the show (there's actually quite a bit to like about the actors).

I don't sense that is Discovery going to be weird and wild fun on the final frontier, which is why I fell in love with Star Trek in the first place, but more dour political drama and infighting ala Deep Space Nine.

Even if I loved every aspect of it, I still couldn't see it as the "Prime" timeline.

 

[Jayson1]

I just don't see changes in artistic expression as changes in continuity. A new artist in a comic book can radically change a character's face, but it's still supposed to be the same character with the same face. For that matter, the same character played by two different actors is usually supposed to have the same face as far as the characters in the story are concerned. Recall that in the '09 movie, Spock Prime recognized the young Kirk and Scotty on sight. We see them as looking different, but the characters in-universe see them as looking the same. Maybe the same is true of the aliens, the technology, etc. It only looks different to us because the artists dramatizing the events are portraying it differently. (As I often bring up at this point, the foreword to Roddenberry's TMP novelization suggested that TOS had been a 23rd-century TV series dramatizing the Enterprise's real adventures but taking liberties with the details, and promised that TMP was a more accurate dramatization thanks to Admiral Kirk's personal vetting.)




Well, of course it's impossible to say anything about "the fans" as a monolithic unit. The fact that fans constantly argue online is proof in and of itself that there is nothing that fandom universally agrees upon. But I'm not talking about the fans. I'm talking about the general public. A TV show or a movie cannot bring in a large enough audience to succeed unless it appeals to the general public -- to people who've never seen Trek at all or are only casual fans at best. To people who've maybe seen one or two of the recent movies and maybe caught a few episodes of ENT but never saw any other Trek series. The whole point of creating a new series is to create new fans, to catch the attention of people who weren't interested in Trek before and get them interested in it.

And my point was not about the TOS uniforms -- it was about the pilot uniforms. DSC is set in the 2250s, so we're talking about the era of "The Cage." But the pilot uniforms were only seen twice, so they're much less well-known than the TOS uniforms of 2266-70. To the general, non-fan audience that I'm talking about here, the look of the TOS uniforms will be familiar, but the look of the "Cage"/"Where No Man" uniforms will be an obscure bit of trivia. Again, today's casual viewers (as opposed to fans like us) thinking of the era before TOS are more likely to think of the Kelvin or NX-01 than they are to think of "The Cage" and "Where No Man."

Plus, of course, the pilot uniforms were drab and ugly. They were a product of a time when most TV was still black-and-white, so their hues were chosen to be distinguishable in grayscale more than anything else. And they look crude and cheap even compared to the regular TOS uniforms. DSC was never going to recreate the "Cage" uniforms faithfully, because it would've looked bad. So instead of trying for something broadly similar, they evidently decided that, since they had to do something different anyway, they might as well take full advantage of the freedom to be different.




That's why I like the TMP uniforms. They had so many variations, including logical, practical ones like field jackets, security armor, radiation armo

I wonder if the old rules apply when trying to get casual viewers to watch a show. Seems to me the fact that people watch tv differently sort of changes the way you try and get a audience. I don't think it works like it use to were you might get someone to watch just by catching their eye while they flip through channels.

Seems like today everyone binge watches something and if they do watch it might be days or even longer from the time it comes out on tv. BInge watching seems to work best if you have a arc based show and that you have complex and detailed universe people want to spend hours in. I think people seek complexity more than they just look for something to watch for a hour and forget. Except maybe on network tv. I think the old rules still apply to ABC,NBC,CBS and maybe FOX.

I also understand where your coming from in terms having the ability to change actors and design and I think Trek has done this before. TNG for example was a almost complete depature from TOS but it had a 80 year time gap. TMP sort of had this but it also had the orginal actors plus the ship was said to have gone under a refit.

It seems Trek has always had a in universe reason for change or the changes have almost always felt minor with the only real exception being the Klingons getting bumpy foreheads. Romulans get bumpy foreheads but they still have pointy ears so it doesn't really feel big. Trill get spots but they were only in a single episode before DS9 and the Worm still looked the same so it felt minor.

Discovery has these changes that seem drastic but only because the setting is so close to TOS. In theory the changes should be more like DS9 changes from TNG as oposed to TNG changes from TOS because of the setting, but of course the problem is you can't just make minor changes to TOS because the 60's look is so outdated which says to me this i a bad place to make radical changes to. Only way IMO to make it feel connected is if we see more stuff like the transporter room that feels both retro, modern and unique at the same time.

As for storytelling I'm not really worried that much. The Kelvin Universe didn't feel like it had a 60's mindset and I liked those movies so that aspect doesn't concern me. For me it is looks and only reason the looks are a concern is how close it is to TOS. Continuity was a concern but I have liked what they have said about that so I got to admit I am less worried about that as I use to be.

I should note I didn't become a fan of Trek until 94 with TNG when I was in my senior year of high school so I didn't really experience a real change to Trek while in the middle of being a fan since I wasn't really paying attention when TNG got started so that might also be impacting my views. Kelvin Universe I guess was my first real reboot of a tv show I cared about but those were movies and it had NImoy and the time travel to help with any doubts. Plus at that time like now I was very open to a new timeline or universe. To be honest the only thing I really feel needs to be done with the prime universe is a 24th century movie or mini series that brings closure to that era of Trek. TOS had "Undiscovered Country" and the 24th century went out either on "Nemisiss" or "These are the Voyages" which is a bad way to end that period of Trek IMO.

Jason

 

[Mr Awe]

No, I haven't been excited about Discovery for a while. But, nothing I've said is knocking the show (there's actually quite a bit to like about the actors).

I don't sense that is Discovery going to be weird and wild fun on the final frontier, which is why I fell in love with Star Trek in the first place, but more dour political drama and infighting ala Deep Space Nine.

I've gotten completely the opposite sense that there will be action, adventure, and danger on the frontier. So far I've liked everything they have said and the trailer. We'll be able to judge the show itself in a couple of months. That's the critical test!

 

[Michael]

I don't sense that is Discovery going to be weird and wild fun on the final frontier, which is why I fell in love with Star Trek in the first place, but more dour political drama and infighting ala Deep Space Nine.

Boy, it would be a dream come true if this was a second Deep Space Nine.

 

[Christopher]

I wonder if the old rules apply when trying to get casual viewers to watch a show. Seems to me the fact that people watch tv differently sort of changes the way you try and get a audience. I don't think it works like it use to were you might get someone to watch just by catching their eye while they flip through channels.

I don't see the relevance. This isn't about viewing styles, it's about numbers. The existing fan community for any property is not large enough by itself to make an adaptation of that property successful. Therefore, any adaptation needs to draw in an audience consisting largely of people who are unfamiliar or only slightly familiar with the property, and therefore won't know or care how much has been changed from previous versions. Yes, they want a complex world, but it will be a new world to them, and they'll only become aware of its similarities or differences to the larger universe if they like it enough to subsequently seek out the earlier series. And then they won't be complaining about how the new series gets it wrong, they'll be complaining about how the old series failed to capture the things they liked about the new show.

It seems Trek has always had a in universe reason for change or the changes have almost always felt minor with the only real exception being the Klingons getting bumpy foreheads. Romulans get bumpy foreheads but they still have pointy ears so it doesn't really feel big. Trill get spots but they were only in a single episode before DS9 and the Worm still looked the same so it felt minor.

Not really. The majority of the time, the in-universe reasons are left implicit for the fans to rationalize on their own after the fact, or they're given in canon many, many years later. Like I've been saying, the only reason that new changes feel more radical to us is because we've had years to rationalize the old changes and concoct explanations for them that make sense to us. So in retrospect, they feel to us like they always made sense. But it took us time to get there. When they were new, they felt just as jarring as any other new changes.

Discovery has these changes that seem drastic but only because the setting is so close to TOS.

Yes, that's a fair point. It is surprising how much they've changed things within an already established setting. That hasn't been done before. But that doesn't mean it's wrong; it just means it'll take some getting used to. Doing things that haven't been done before is generally a good thing in creativity.

 

[Jayson1]

Why do people keep saying that people want the show to look like it was from the 60's? Their is a difference between retro and simply doing a fan film. Does the Iron Man suit from the Marvel movies look old and dated even if the look goes back into the past? In fact the popularity of comic book shows and movies show you that realism and silly can work together in union.

Jason

 

[BillJ]

Why do people keep saying that people want the show to look like it was from the 60's? Their is a difference between retro and simply doing a fan film. Does the Iron Man suit from the Marvel movies look old and dated even if the look goes back into the past? In fact the popularity of comic book shows and movies show you that realism and silly can work together in union.

I think part of it is some people treat Star Trek like this super serious endeavor that has real world importance. It can't be fun or campy because that diminishes how seriously people will treat it.

 

[Jayson1]

I don't see the relevance. This isn't about viewing styles, it's about numbers. The existing fan community for any property is not large enough by itself to make an adaptation of that property successful. Therefore, any adaptation needs to draw in an audience consisting largely of people who are unfamiliar or only slightly familiar with the property, and therefore won't know or care how much has been changed from previous versions. Yes, they want a complex world, but it will be a new world to them, and they'll only become aware of its similarities or differences to the larger universe if they like it enough to subsequently seek out the earlier series. And then they won't be complaining about how the new series gets it wrong, they'll be complaining about how the old series failed to capture the things they liked about the new show.




Not really. The majority of the time, the in-universe reasons are left implicit for the fans to rationalize on their own after the fact, or they're given in canon many, many years later. Like I've been saying, the only reason that new changes feel more radical to us is because we've had years to rationalize the old changes and concoct explanations for them that make sense to us. So in retrospect, they feel to us like they always made sense. But it took us time to get there. When they were new, they felt just as jarring as any other new changes.




Yes, that's a fair point. It is surprising how much they've changed things within an already established setting. That hasn't been done before. But that doesn't mean it's wrong; it just means it'll take some getting used to. Doing things that haven't been done before is generally a good thing in creativity.

The question though is how this new look will help bring in new fans that a retro futuristic setting couldn't. I was kind of thinking back to what made me want to watch TNG in 1994. Only thing I can think of is that I was going though a bad time back then because I had to move back with my mom and I was leaving all my friends that I had made when I spent 2 years with my dad. I got to admit that it wasn't the look of the show that won me over. I loved the future speak of the universe plus the roddenberry vision sort of made me feel good at a time when I was sad. PLus I did like the continuity which made it feel more like a real place. I think we might overestimate the look in terms of making new fans. People can see cool visuals anywhere. It will be the characters and universe that I think will make people want to keep watching.

Also I'm not even saying these changes will be a bad thing. I'm willing to love the show on whatever terms I feel it best fits, whether it is a Prime universe setting or a 3rd universe setting or maybe something like I have been thinking might be possible is a show that has a "Fringe" type of vibe that deals with stuff in both the prime universe and another universe where they can bring in all sorts of changes without needing to explain them beyond the fact they are from another universe.

Jason

 

[Michael]

I don't know. Outside of the odd nostalgia episode, when was Star Trek's design ever really retro? I guess things like T'Pol's viewfinder being kind of a nod to Spock's on the original bridge or the curves on the Enterprise from JJ Abrams' Star Trek were kind of retrofuturistic callbacks, but at large the design ethic at the base of every Star Trek production, especially in the context of the set design, always seemed to be to create a probable, somewhat realistic and cool look into our future. Or at least something most people would see as futuristic and not nostalgic.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I get the impression that you're not excited about any aspect of DIS, which is fine. ...

OK -- I'm going a little off-topic here to lighten the mood a little, but I'm wondering if we (we fans) have settled on an abbreviation yet for this show?

Is it DIS (as in the quoted post above)? Or maybe DSC?
...Or (my favorite ) "STD"

 

[Michael]

Personally, I've never been all that big into abbreviating the series titles. TOS, TNG and DS9 are okay, but more often than not I will use Star Trek, Voyager, Enterprise and Discovery.

 

[Christopher]

The question though is how this new look will help bring in new fans that a retro futuristic setting couldn't.

I have been trying to get this point across for days now: These decisions are not strictly about functionality. Different people creating artworks on the same subject matter will create things that are different. Not because there's some mechanistic need to do so, but because they are individuals with their own individual styles, and art is about expressing your own style and vision. Nobody would bother to become a creator if all they could do was just copy what people did before them. We create because we want to present something in our own style, our own voice. When you're hired as the creator or showrunner or production designer or whatever of a new work set in an existing universe, that means you get the right to put your own stamp on it, to do it in your own way.

Besides, Star Trek should not be retro. It was never meant to be retro. It was meant to be cutting-edge, innovative, daring, groundbreaking, forward-looking. If it becomes nothing more than an exercise in nostalgia for an aging audience, then it will have lost everything that originally defined it and it will be nothing but a soulless imitation of what it once was. That would not be preserving the essence of Star Trek, that would be smothering it to death.

OK -- I'm going a little off-topic here to lighten the mood a little, but I'm wondering if we (we fans) have settled on an abbreviation yet for this show?

The official abbreviation is DSC.

 

[Noname Given]

Nothing says "excitement" to me like consistent warp values!

^^^
Oh please NO version of Star trek HAS EVER had consistent Warp Speed values - unless that 'value' is 'speed of plot'.