Entertainment Weekly Cover Story (7/28)

[Kevin Wolff]

And who gets to choose which part of canon stays and goes? Ditching canon is just going to piss people off.

The people making the production with the approval of the studio. It will piss off some, I agree. Regardless of what they call it, the universe needs to be modernized if Trek is going to survive. It will be better in the long run if they can just run wild (with good stories of course). It's hard enough to make good television without hampering the writers with mandates that only a sliver of the viewers will even remember, much less care about.
Think of the Abrams films as a proof of concept that the universe can be successfully rebooted, reimagined, whatever. Now they need to do it with the TV universe where it matters. Where all the good toys are. It'll only sting for a bit and we'll be better off in the long run.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I just want someone to beam down and say 'Behold, I am the Archangel Gabriel!'

Maybe Harry Mudd?

 

[Eric Cheung]

Regarding the use of the word "God," it's probably an exaggeration of a story. I do like that they've given thought to suggesting that humanity might have outgrown religions, at least certainly organized religions (Archer seemed to skew agnostic, while Picard was probably an atheist) but the word has been used quite a lot in an idiomatic sense countless times over the course of various Trek shows. I don't know whether the world will truly last that long in the real world as an idiomatic interjection, but it probably will.

A theme song does not a musical make. Many many shows have theme songs.

I think starmike is referring to this:

Enterprise: Exec wanted "Top Bands" on the show | The Trek BBS

It's stupid because it would mean we can't see one of the most iconic Trek races in a new Trek show.

While I would prefer they keep to this piece of canon to preserve the dramatic impact of that moment in Balance of Terror, and I'd be reasonably happy with some of the explanations they've used in various Trek works in the past, I'm guessing it's probably not even relevant. This isn't going to be like most Trek shows that have a whole ton of villains across lots of species. This looks to be pretty specifically a Klingon story, so I'd imagine Romulans wouldn't even be necessary to this particular show. If they do show up, maybe they'll just be seen interacting with the Klingons, or other aliens, and not the Federation.

 

[Mr Awe]

I'm still going to watch the show. It would be insincere to be a pom-pom waver when I see something that doesn't seem quite right within the context of the universe they are claiming matches up with TOS.

It would also be insincere to judge a group of people by an a comment from one person taken out of context.

 

[BillJ]

It would also be insincere to judge a group of people by an a comment from one person taken out of context.

What exactly was out of context about it?

It wasn't a comment, it was a directive from a producer to one of the stars of the show.

 

[Spider]

I don't think religion disappeared (if it did) because of intolerance. People don't really believe in Greek or Egyptian gods today, so it's not unfathomable that most religion would dissapear by the 24th century. Especially since Federation technology gives them almost godlike powers.

There are people today who believe in bigfoot, loch ness monster, alien abductions, witchcraft and other assorted nonsense. There will be people a few centuries from now that still buy religion.

 

[Kevin Wolff]

Religion will always be there. The hope is that it won't be a guiding principle and philosophy for most people in the future.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I think Religion (not spirituality or belief in the unknowable) probably exists within the Trek universe, but it's extremely marginal, uncommon, and has no bearing or influence on Federation or Earth politics.

 

[Mr Awe]

What exactly was out of context about it?

It wasn't a comment, it was a directive from a producer to one of the stars of the show.

Obviously, we don't know the context of why she said that. We don't know what prompted it, what was said before, and after. It also may not reflect the overall stance of the show. Etc.

Before jumping to conclusions, let's just wait and see. It's about 2 months before we can judge it with our own eyes.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

I agree with waiting and seeing, however, how it looks right now is that there is a little too much reliance on the farce that is "Gene's Vision". Every other script he wanted to peddle for a Trek movie had to deal with finding God, had religious overtones or some other pap that he wanted in there.

If it was always Gene's Vision, he'd have struck out things early on, like Mitchell playing God and discussing that a God needs compassion, or Balok telling the crew to pray before he destroys them.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Balok telling the crew to pray before he destroys them

Not even Bailey resorted to praying though. I know, I was there!

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Not even Bailey resorted to praying though. I know, I was there!

Just almost spit coffee! I know, he got up, lost his cookies at Sulu counting down and yelled at everyone for being wound up toy soldiers!

 

[Mudd]

Religion is rarely invoked in action-adventure TV or movies, and this was as true in the 1960s as now. When was the last time one of those folks on NCIS muttered a prayer when pinned down by domestic terrorists firing off AK-47s?

There was nothing out of the ordinary in TOS's treatment of God and religion.

 

[starmike]

What exactly was out of context about it?

It wasn't a comment, it was a directive from a producer to one of the stars of the show.

Yes, but the reasoning is still a mystery. Why remove references to God when there was an abundance of it before? That's what's missing. It would be far easier to just explain why than to have people speculate for months.

 

[Noname Given]

I just want someone to beam down and say 'Behold, I am the Archangel Gabriel!'

^^^
Don't bring actual TOS dialog from TOS - "Bread and Circuses" into this - it just makes the former ST:VOY writer who gave that particular direction look worse...oh, wait...

 

[Markonian]

Is this particular issue available in the UK? On their website there are issues about other franchises, and I couldn't find it at the news stand. Is it a US-American release only?

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Yes, but the reasoning is still a mystery. Why remove references to God when there was an abundance of it before? That's what's missing. It would be far easier to just explain why than to have people speculate for months.

From the take I get, Beyer was saying that saying "God" goes against Gene's Vision, which is utterly and completely misguided. If she's that off the track, then I sincerely hope that DSC isn't completely and totally following her every word.

 

[mattyhugh]

From the take I get, Beyer was saying that saying "God" goes against Gene's Vision, which is utterly and completely misguided. If she's that off the track, then I sincerely hope that DSC isn't completely and totally following her every word.

Well you weren't there. So....

 

[starmike]

Well you weren't there. So....

If it were Gene's vision, then I don't know why it couldn't just be stated. Instead it was a vague mention by David Mack about NDA and the decision was not made in a vacuum. I respect that, truly....but I'm thinking that it's a plot point instead of Gene's vision.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Well you weren't there. So....

Unless what the EW writer quoted is completely wrong, then they need to print a corrected version. They used direct quotes for the exchange between Isaacs and Beyer.

Were you there? If so, I'd love for you to elaborate on the actual exchange.

Here is what is from the EW story, in TrekToday. No, it isn't a slam on religion, but it sure looks like a misinterpretation of a so-called Vision:
https://www.trektoday.com/content/2017/07/more-star-trek-discovery-pictures/