Alex Kurtzman Gets New Deal With CBS, Will Expand 'Star Trek' TV

[johnjm22]

The existence of critically acclaimed sci-fi movies like Arrival in recent years makes it clear to me that there still is an audience for sci-fi films which are not dumb action blockbusters where the heroes defeat the bad guy. If only someone would tell Paramount that.

I agree. Gravity, Interstellar, The Martian all did well well financially.

But those movies are fresh new entities and I think that sparks interest. Star Trek doesn't feel progressive or new. It's just re-hashes and nostalgia. Star Trek parodies do a better job of societal commentary than actual Star Trek does these days.

I don't know what needs to be done in order to refresh the franchise, but I feel confident in saying neither does Alex Kurtzman.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

But Gene also didn't want the Klingons involved in the show, which would have meant no Worf, and thus possibly none of the later Klingon development at all. He also didn't want the Romulans, IIRC, which would have been less consequential, but would have demolished a bunch of great TNG stories (and a few DS9 stories) as well. He just wanted totally new alien races divorced from past continuity. Given what an (early) failure the Ferengi were, this could have turned out quite bad.

Good point.

But here we can point out that not being beholden to TOS continuity in terms of how the Klingons were handled, and instead letting them grow out of the movie depictions, was a massive plus. The canon-shackles were off either way, and new stories could be charted, and were.

 

[Dukhat]

But Gene also didn't want the Klingons involved in the show, which would have meant no Worf, and thus possibly none of the later Klingon development at all. He also didn't want the Romulans, IIRC, which would have been less consequential, but would have demolished a bunch of great TNG stories (and a few DS9 stories) as well. He just wanted totally new alien races divorced from past continuity. Given what an (early) failure the Ferengi were, this could have turned out quite bad.

Here's the thing about that: In this case, I think Gene was right. Shift the focus away from Klingons, Romulans, Vulcans, etc. and make something unique. The idea was sound; the problem was in the execution. Take the Ferengi for example. Gene's original intent for them was quite different than how they were eventually portrayed. They were never supposed to be 'evil bad guys' like the TOS Klingons were. They were basically supposed to be a race of capitalists in a universe where profit and the attainment of physical wealth was anathema. But instead they were portrayed as big-eared, fanged idiots flinging laser whips around. Their intent was completely lost based on their portrayal, and that's why they failed as villains. And when the Klingons and Romulans were brought back on, their portrayals were little different than how they were in TOS and the TOS movies. There was literally nothing different about them a century after they were shown. Even the Klingon's outfits looked the same.

 

[eschaton]

Here's the thing about that: In this case, I think Gene was right. Shift the focus away from Klingons, Romulans, Vulcans, etc. and make something unique. The idea was sound; the problem was in the execution. Take the Ferengi for example. Gene's original intent for them was quite different than how they were eventually portrayed. They were never supposed to be 'evil bad guys' like the TOS Klingons were. They were basically supposed to be a race of capitalists in a universe where profit and the attainment of physical wealth was anathema. But instead they were portrayed as big-eared, fanged idiots flinging laser whips around. Their intent was completely lost based on their portrayal, and that's why they failed as villains.

I dunno. I mean, the different species in Trek are basically supposed to be allegories for different nations on Earth, with the Federation being the good old USA. If you wound back the clock say 70 years back from when TNG first went on the air, you go from 1987 to 1917. Certainly the major world powers were different in World War 1 than in the height of the Cold War. But all the same ethnic groups were kicking around, even if sometimes under very different governments. Thus, while there was no reason to keel the Klingons and Romulans as antagonists, keeping them around as story elements made a lot of sense. The transformation of the Klingons, though it took awhile to elaborate, was ultimately well done. The Romulans, not so much, but they always seemed to get short shrift in Trek - always in the background, and never given their full due.

Speaking about the Ferengi in particular, a recent rewatch of TNG was surprising to me, because I hadn't remembered how it continued to use the Ferengi in an ineffective manner even after DS9 basically figured them out. Hell, the few VOY and ENT Ferengi episodes show them having more casual brutality than on DS9 as well.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Take the Ferengi for example. Gene's original intent for them was quite different than how they were eventually portrayed. They were never supposed to be 'evil bad guys' like the TOS Klingons were. They were basically supposed to be a race of capitalists in a universe where profit and the attainment of physical wealth was anathema.

Just to give credit where credit is due. Gene wanted a new adversary, as stated. But Roddenberry delegated the formulation of the details of the new villain species to Herb Wright, and it was Wright who "conceived the Ferengi as a species of profit-obsessed, ruthless aliens. He was especially fond of the contrast between them and the crew of the Enterprise-D, who had no desire or need for money. (Star Trek: The Next Generation 365, p. 36)" Etc. [http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Ferengi]

 

[Dukhat]

I dunno. I mean, the different species in Trek are basically supposed to be allegories for different nations on Earth, with the Federation being the good old USA. If you wound back the clock say 70 years back from when TNG first went on the air, you go from 1987 to 1917. Certainly the major world powers were different in World War 1 than in the height of the Cold War. But all the same ethnic groups were kicking around, even if sometimes under very different governments. Thus, while there was no reason to keel the Klingons and Romulans as antagonists, keeping them around as story elements made a lot of sense. The transformation of the Klingons, though it took awhile to elaborate, was ultimately well done. The Romulans, not so much, but they always seemed to get short shrift in Trek - always in the background, and never given their full due.

At the start of TNG, Gene's primary focus was to show a more 'evolved' humanity who had risen up beyond the need for personal wealth, or even the need for overly emotional responses, such as not grieving when someone dies. In other words, something quite different from TOS and the TOS films. The Klingons and Romulans really didn't have much to do with that mindset, so to Gene's thinking, they weren't necessary. But obviously there needed to be some kind of adversary, so the idea of aliens driven solely by profit emerged.

 

[Mudd]

Honestly, given Discovery is so close in time period to TOS, yet shares virtually no common characters (Sarek and Mudd aside) I think of it as more of a "sidequel" than a prequel.

I mean, what outstanding TOS threads have been addressed? Basically just why Sarek doesn't seem to get along with Spock. We got some more elaboration of Mudd's character, but nothing which really helped to explain the Mudd better (indeed, it arguably made things a bit more confusing for some). Otherwise, the events of DIS have very little to do with TOS indeed - at least to date.

In contrast, ENT was more of a true prequel, at least conceptually. Obviously there were no crossover characters till T'Pau was introduced at the very very end. But for the big picture it was supposed to tell the story of how the Humans, Vulcans, Andorians, and Tellarites founded the Federation. Of course it completely screwed the pooch on that for the first three seasons, but thankfully Manny Coto remembered what a prequel is supposed to be for the end run of the show.

Consistency has the least to do with quality of any aspect of Star Trek. Who cares?

 

[ITDUDE]

Season 4 was mostly continutiy-pandering to the tiny group of hard core fans who'd hung in until the end. More of that kind of stuff will just render the remnants of Trek even less worthwhile in terms of intelligence, imagination, and storytelling ambition.

I think more highly of season four than you do. But, at least they waited to start pandering to the hard core crowd until the end.

Season 4 was good. Not Great, but Good. If it wasn't too late for ENT by then, it could have easily led to a very decent Star Trek show. Even Braga said that he wished Season 4 was Season 1.

I think STD show runners thought that it was fan pandering that made Season 4 good and decided to do same right off the bat in Season 1 of STD. Now that they are gone, we'll have to go and see if Kurtzman has learned the lesson of all of previous failures.

 

[BillJ]

Obviously there were no crossover characters till T'Pau was introduced at the very very end.

Well, T'Pol was originally supposed to be T'Pau. Until they figure out they would have to pay royalties to the writer of "Amok Time". Same thing happened with Nick Locarno/Tom Paris.

 

[ITDUDE]

Honestly, given Discovery is so close in time period to TOS, yet shares virtually no common characters (Sarek and Mudd aside) I think of it as more of a "sidequel" than a prequel.

Kind of like a parallel universe, eah?

 

[ITDUDE]

Well, T'Pol was originally supposed to be T'Pau. Until they figure out they would have to pay royalties to the writer of "Amok Time". Same thing happened with Nick Locarno/Tom Paris.

Greed - ruining Star Trek canon since 1966

 

[eschaton]

Consistency has the least to do with quality of any aspect of Star Trek. Who cares?

Why pick a setting for a story and then not use the potential to the fullest?

For example, what if you had a story which took place in Nazi Germany, and it was an utterly banal family drama which didn't touch on Nazism, the Holocaust, or any of it. What would the point be?

What if you had a story which focused on Abraham Lincoln's Chief of Staff (or whatever the equivalent was in those days) and instead being about proximity to the corridors of power, it was about the saloon he hung out with in the evenings with his friends?

Or say you have a historical drama that is set during the Crusades. Only after some buildup in the first season, the main character does not actually go to the Holy Lands, but gets shipwrecked on the North American shore?

All of these could be good stories. But they're also all arguably stories with wasted potential. If you can tell a story at any time, or in any place, you have to ask yourself why you want to have it take place then and there.

 

[Dukhat]

All of these could be good stories. But they're also all arguably stories with wasted potential. If you can tell a story at any time, or in any place, you have to ask yourself why you want to have it take place then and there.

From what I understand, the original idea to set the show during TOS was Fuller's. But then a lot of things changed, including the story, but the setting somehow stayed the same.

 

[BillJ]

From what I understand, the original idea to set the show during TOS was Fuller's. But then a lot of things changed, including the story, but the setting somehow stayed the same.

For all the "ten years before Kirk and Spock" talk, there is nothing about the story they told that made me feel it was in any way necessary for it to take place concurrent with TOS.

It just feels so generic.

 

[eschaton]

From what I understand, the original idea to set the show during TOS was Fuller's. But then a lot of things changed, including the story, but the setting somehow stayed the same.

Yep. What I can piece together is this:

Micheal Burnham was clearly a creation of Fuller's - you can see this right in the name. I'm going to presume he intended for her to be "bicultural" - a human raised by Vulcans - right from the start, because it seems right up his alley. The addition of the whole "Spock's sister" thing may have come later. Notably all of the Sarek scenes in the pilot occur when no one else besides Burnham is present, and she doesn't even mention talking to him to anyone else. I believe Micheal Burnham was meant to "betray" the Federation in a much more straightforward fashion in Fuller's original draft, which was muddled through later edits.

We know that Fuller's original plan was for the ship to go to the MU very early in the season. The Tardigrade was originally supposed to be a bridge officer, but this was rejected due to CGI costs. The Pahvo episode only happened because CBS insisted on a planet-side adventure. The time-loop episode only came into being because the show was overbudget and needed a bottle episode. Basically, very little off Act 1 probably bore any resemblance to what Fuller wanted.

Lorca was not supposed to be from the MU, just a grizzled, war-weary captain. The ship was supposed to, by the end of the season, skip forward through time, either to the "unknown era" between TOS and TNG or to a post VOY setting. The Season 1 cast would then share billing with an entirely new cast for around five episodes, and then be retired.

 

[Dukhat]

For all the "ten years before Kirk and Spock" talk, there is nothing about the story they told that made me feel it was in any way necessary for it to take place concurrent with TOS.

It just feels so generic.

Heck, a show that showed both a Klingon/Federation war and a visit to the Mirror Universe could have taken place during halfway through Deep Space Nine

 

[eschaton]

For all the "ten years before Kirk and Spock" talk, there is nothing about the story they told that made me feel it was in any way necessary for it to take place concurrent with TOS.

It just feels so generic.

Just you wait. Next season it will be where no one has fanwanked before!

 

[BillJ]

Just you wait. Next season it will be where no one has fanwanked before!

Which is weird. There was so much fanservice, yet the show had no real vision or identity of its own. It was just a vessel to go "look, TOS!".

I know many folks will disagree with me, but it all felt like big dollar fan fiction.

 

[PiotrB]

The ship was supposed to, by the end of the season, skip forward through time, either to the "unknown era" between TOS and TNG or to a post VOY setting. The Season 1 cast would then share billing with an entirely new cast for around five episodes, and then be retired.

This wasn't true long before Fuller left for Christ's sake.

 

[BillJ]

Heck, a show that showed both a Klingon/Federation war and a visit to the Mirror Universe could have taken place during halfway through Deep Space Nine

I do wonder how people would've felt way back when DS9 was on, if the wormhole only led to the Klingons and the Mirror Universe?