Discovery Showrunners fired; Kurtzman takes over

[XCV330]

It is still humanity making it.

It gives us some good goal posts, and if some of them are impossible, and some of them have already had their due-date go by, we still have something to try for.
It's depressing sometimes after seeing 2001 and 2010, realizing there IS No Hyatt Regency in space, yet and no Pan-Am to get me there. And worse realzing if there was one I'd only be trying to outrun the unfixed mess down below to get there.
But I think we will. It will take longer, and then eventually the key technologies will all come into place and moving forward till be inevitable. My kids are going to see the first space colonists. I might not, But their kids might not even be born on Earth. This species never got anywhere by stopping to make sure its shoes were tied.

And a lot of that is going to come from people inspired by Star Trek, regardless of whether Khan listened to the Humpty Dance in 96.

That really doesn't pinpoint much. It can cover from 2201-2299. If the thought was that Trek took place early in the 23rd century, then the "200 years" is a pretty fair approximation. Khan was being dramatic, after all.

His State of the Khanate Speeches must have been entertaining.

 

[eschaton]

He'd have a good case to do that, per his own writing, Khan was around in the late 21st century, though a product of late 20th century genetic engineering. Khan mentions he was a prince on earth 200 years earlier at least twice in TWOK, which would put the events in the 2080's.
I like the 1990 dates, but there IS That.

It will confuse newcomers and casual fans way, way too much, IMHO. Though it would be easier from the standpoint of prop design, and much more interesting stylistically.

 

[Jinn]

Jinn, you make some good points, but I see this series as a re-imagining or reboot of Trek, as a whole-the redesigns, rewriting of characters, adding new elements: planets, species, technology, etc. I don't think the argument that the series is sticking to canon is valid. On the other hand, canon is subject to revision and always has been in Trek, Star Wars, etc. While I think Rick Berman honestly tried to stick to Star Trek canon, I can't really say the same for Harberts despite his claims.

If you see it like that, fair enough. IMO the argument that it isn't canon due to continuity problems (no matter how impactful, problematic or trivial these might be) always feels a bit reliant on the person's view of when these continuity errors become so major that they make shared universe impossible. Some don't "believe" in a prime universe at all, others just exclude specific outings and some exclude things they don't like (although I have seen very few of the last kind on this board, if at all). So personally I just stick to "if it's on-screen it's canon" and the problems can work out themselves. One thing I do wonder about is how for a person who denotes canonicity based on continuity deals with other oficially non-canon products being in-continuity with oficially canon products. For example any given TOS novel from the last couple of years that has no continuity problems with any of the shows; why is that not canon, after all it is in continuity?
That's also why declaring canon based on continuity always feels a bit like meshing together head-canon and canon.

 

[fireproof78]

If you see it like that, fair enough. IMO the argument that it isn't canon due to continuity problems (no matter how impactful, problematic or trivial these might be) always feels a bit reliant on the person's view of when these continuity errors become so major that they make shared universe impossible. Some don't "believe" in a prime universe at all, others just exclude specific outings and some exclude things they don't like (although I have seen very few of the last kind on this board, if at all). So personally I just stick to "if it's on-screen it's canon" and the problems can work out themselves. One thing I do wonder about is how for a person who denotes canonicity based on continuity deals with other oficially non-canon products being in-continuity with oficially canon products. For example any given TOS novel from the last couple of years that has no continuity problems with any of the shows; why is that not canon, after all it is in continuity?
That's also why declaring canon based on continuity always feels a bit like meshing together head-canon and canon.

It always will be. As much as it would be nice to divorce oneself from one's feelings on the matter, there is the viewer experience as part of canon. Otherwise, Discovery would be Prime and there wouldn't be constant debate over it, since authorial intent would reign.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Wouldn't that be 2201-2301?

For the 23rd century? I like 2201-2300.

 

[CaptGrumpy]

It's depressing sometimes after seeing 2001 and 2010, realizing there IS No Hyatt Regency in space, yet and no Pan-Am to get me there. And worse realzing if there was one I'd only be trying to outrun the unfixed mess down below to get there.
But I think we will. It will take longer, and then eventually the key technologies will all come into place and moving forward till be inevitable. My kids are going to see the first space colonists. I might not, But their kids might not even be born on Earth. This species never got anywhere by stopping to make sure its shoes were tied.

This

 

[Jinn]

For the 23rd century? I like 2201-2300.

You're right, I suck at correcting other people

 

[lawman]

Yeah, once again, if the Khan miniseries Meyer is doing is covering the Eugenics Wars, there is approximately a 0.00001% chance that it will take place during the 1990s.

I dunno about that. After all...

Khan also said 1996 in TWOK.

...there is this. And...

Yep. And at that point, there was still some fluidity to the time frame Star Trek took place in. Early-23rd century and late-20th century could be rounded to be 200 years apart.

...this, too. Khan also bragged to Terrell that his people were "sworn to live and die at my command 200 years before you were born." And Chekov described him as "a product of late twentieth century genetic engineering."

Surely no one thinks Meyer or anyone else making that film in 1982 imagined such things were going on at the time, or that it was likely (or even possible) that the Eugenics Wars would take place just ten years down the line? They were treating Trek's history as a thing unto itself, separate from our own.

I agree. I've always felt that Star Trek was in our future. That's what made it inspiring to me. So keeping future history in the future is a conceit I'm willing to accept

Whereas I have never felt that (mainly because that it's wildly at odds with loads of evidence both from the show and from the real world). Yet that distinction has never diminished the show for me in any way. Like much other SF, its aspirational ideals (and warning parables) are no less potent because they're set in "unreal" histories.

Or the writer didn't know what year the movie took place.

Nobody knew what year the movie took place. Trek didn't pin itself to any specific Gregorian calendar years until after TNG's "Neutral Zone" in 1988 specified the year as 2364. Prior to that, the best (unofficial) estimates put TOS in the first decade of the 23rd century (per, e.g., the Goldberg Spaceflight Chronology).

It will confuse newcomers and casual fans way, way too much, IMHO. Though it would be easier from the standpoint of prop design, and much more interesting stylistically.

DSC certainly doesn't seem to have avoided anything on the basis that it might confuse newcomers and casual fans. (Dunno about you, but I have personal testimony to that effect from more than one person.) Granted DSC doesn't seem to have a clue who its intended audience actually is, still, that at least means we can't generalize from it about future projects.

One thing I do wonder about is how for a person who denotes canonicity based on continuity deals with other oficially non-canon products being in-continuity with oficially canon products. For example any given TOS novel from the last couple of years... That's also why declaring canon based on continuity always feels a bit like meshing together head-canon and canon.

I think that's what most of us do around here, actually. At least I certainly do. "Canon" merely denotes that something was onscreen; that doesn't say anything about the quality or consistency of its story. My personal sense of Trek continuity is based very much on my headcanon, and includes a lot of licensed material, and a lot of unofficial rationalizations of contradictions freely floating around in "canon."

 

[Jinn]

I think that's what most of us do around here, actually. At least I certainly do. "Canon" merely denotes that something was onscreen; that doesn't say anything about the quality or consistency of its story.

We had a poll here some months ago, that asked wether one considers DSC canon and 32% voted for "No, there's just too many inconsistencies" and further 10% voted for "No, there's just too many inconsistencies" suggesting to be at least open about the possibility of something being non-canon because it has continuity problems. So, if that thread is to be believed there's a sizeable portion of people here who don't just go for the "on-screen is canon" thing.

My personal sense of Trek continuity is based very much on my headcanon, and includes a lot of licensed material, and a lot of unofficial rationalizations of contradictions freely floating around in "canon."

Yep, same here.

 

[lawman]

I participated quite a bit in that thread. It's important to note that actual wording questioned whether DSC was in the prime timeline, not whether it was in the canon. The two terms are not identical (the Abrams movies pretty much define the distinction, being part of the latter but not the former).

 

[jaime]

Here’s a twist...since the ‘eugenics wars’ is a plural, what if it is a retroactive term also applied to the Second World War, in which Eugenics (having been a mainstay for all sorts of people the world now sometimes forgets in the ten years or so preceding it) also had an influence. Therefore Cold War proxy wars, and even the crazy state of the world today (which has its roots very much in the Second World War in particular.) could all be referred to as ‘the eugenics wars’.

Any current Trek writers reading that, you don’t have to thank me, but feel free to send me some merch. Maybe Hideo Kojima too, because you might want to look at his stuff.....

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Nobody knew what year the movie took place. Trek didn't pin itself to any specific Gregorian calendar years until after TNG's "Neutral Zone" in 1988 specified the year as 2364. Prior to that, the best (unofficial) estimates put TOS in the first decade of the 23rd century (per, e.g., the Goldberg Spaceflight Chronology).

Just a minute.

In TWOK, Kirk gets a bottle of Romulan ale from Bones from the vintage of 2283. Given that in the beginning of the film it's declared that TWOK takes place in the 23rd century, we've known since TWOK was released in 1982 that the events of TWOK took place sometime between the years 2283 and 2300 inclusive.

That's all from the film itself.

Or the writer didn't know what year the movie took place.

The writers of TWOK explicitly narrowed the calendar date of TWOK to an 18 year period themselves, between January 1, 2283 and December 31, 2300 inclusive. (Lo and behold, Memory Alpha dates TWOK as occurring in 2285.)

 

[jaime]

Just a minute.

In TWOK, Kirk gets a bottle of Romulan ale from Bones from the vintage of 2283. Given that in the beginning of the film it's declared that TWOK takes place in the 23rd century, we've known since TWOK was released in 1982 that the events of TWOK took place sometime between the years 2283 and 2300 inclusive.

That's all from the film itself.



The writers of TWOK explicitly narrowed the calendar date of TWOK to an 18 year period themselves, between January 1, 2283 and December 31, 2300 inclusive. (Lo and behold, Memory Alpha dates TWOK as occurring in 2285.)

Ale isn’t wine. The Budweiser in the fridge has a date on it, but I can’t see it increasing in value *notices news story about beer shortage in UK during World Cup and bbq season* I stand corrected.
Vintage beer ftw.

 

[fireproof78]

Whereas I have never felt that (mainly because that it's wildly at odds with loads of evidence both from the show and from the real world). Yet that distinction has never diminished the show for me in any way. Like much other SF, its aspirational ideals (and warning parables) are no less potent because they're set in "unreal" histories.

For you, yes. Doesn't make it the only way to view the material.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Ale isn’t wine. The Budweiser in the fridge has a date on it, but I can’t see it increasing in value *notices news story about beer shortage in UK during World Cup and bbq season* I stand corrected.
Vintage beer ftw.

Romulan ale isn't beer, either.

But if you read it as a sell-by date, then the sarcastic joy that Kirk shows is quite easily explained by the assumption that it's at that point expired, which would also explain how Bones was able to get his hands on it.

That would narrow it down to 17 years, since an expiry date would imply that it's after 2283.

In any case, I always took the dialog to mean that it was made in 2283 but it wasn't yet ready to drink [ed - in the opinion of Romulans, not humans who'd by implication react badly to fully fermented Romulan ale], hence the part about it taking a while to ferment. [ed - On the other hand, if the idea is that it is ready after having fermented for a while (but still drinkable to humans, however borderline), then that means more time has passed, pushing the year even later.]

 

[lawman]

In TWOK, Kirk gets a bottle of Romulan ale from Bones from the vintage of 2283. Given that in the beginning of the film it's declared that TWOK takes place in the 23rd century, we've known since TWOK was released in 1982 that the events of TWOK took place sometime between the years 2283 and 2300 inclusive.

Not necessarily. There was much debate about this at the time. The exact exchange is this:

KIRK: Romulan Ale! Why, Bones, you know this is illegal.
McCOY: I only use it for medicinal purposes. I got a ship that brings me in a case every now and then across the Neutral Zone. Now don't be a prig.
KIRK: [reading bottle] 2283...
McCOY: Yeah well it takes this stuff a while to ferment.​

Given that no character had ever mentioned a contemporary Gregorian date in Trek up to that time, it was far from clear that Kirk was doing so... especially given that the bottle was from outside the UFP, He might have been reading a Romulan date, or a Stardate. Moreover, given the ambiguity of McCoy's quip about aging it, the date might be either recent or distant. Basically, the exchange was open to a wide variety of interpretations.

(Lo and behold, Memory Alpha dates TWOK as occurring in 2285.)

Which signifies nothing; MA's dates are more often than not drawn from the Okudas' Star Trek Chronology (first published in 1993), as this one certainly is. (And the Okudas' dating of this particular film is more than a little quixotic, especially since it disgregards one of the film's most precise chronological references, the "fifteen years" repeatedly mentioned as the span since the events of "Space Seed.")

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Oh, Jesus.

Being unable to figure out what they meant is a far different thing from concluding that "Nobody [including the writers] knew what year the movie took place."

 

[fireproof78]

Basically, the exchange was open to a wide variety of interpretations.

So, Star Trek? I mean, really, isn't that the point?

 

[lawman]

No, "nobody knew" is a perfectly reasonable statement. There literally was no official Star Trek timeline in 1982, nor for years afterward. The movie was not set in any specific year. So there's no way anyone could have known, because the information did not exist.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

So, Star Trek? I mean, really, isn't that the point?

It's our bread and butter....