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

[Hythlodeus]

What if it’s revealed that Picard had a cousin who murdered the president of the federation? Or that he and dr soong were related?

well, that wouldn't be changes, but additions to the canon. Not very good additions to the canon but it wouldn't contradict anything we've seen so far (as long as Jean-Luc's cousin wasn't alive after GEN and named Picard)
I wouldn't even necessarily count the small additions to the 1701 as changes to be honest, they were too insignificant and were merely aesthetic updates

 

[Hythlodeus]

and, dammit, now I actively contributed to the general off-topicness

 

[lawman]

But why is it such a big deal? ... You're putting way too much emphasis on the Prime Universe setting, when it's only supposed to be a rough guideline.

A setting is something you establish with details, not just broad strokes — at least in any well-told story. So no, the prime universe isn't just a "rough guideline"... it's a fictional reality. The details matter.

And if you really don't get why they matter? Well, I can only speak for myself... but FWIW, I like things to make sense. I'm a rational-analytical personality type. I'm fond of logic. So when someone says "thing X is the same thing as thing Y even though they obviously look different," or "the events of History A are roughly the same as History B, so just treat them as the same reality," I'm being asked to ignore logical contradictions. That doesn't make sense to me. And that undermines my willing suspension of disbelief, takes me out of whatever story I'm trying to experience, and severely undermines my enjoyment. Clear enough?

How would using the original make the stories of lesser quality?

It would drive away new fans.

First of all, I don't believe that. Second, even if it's true, that's a marketing rationale, not an artistic rationale. It has nothing to do with the quality of the storytelling, and if we care about quality storytelling with artistic integrity, then we shouldn't want creative decisions to be driven by marketing.

It’s a lot less detailed then the Falcon. The Falcon isn’t also meant to be a futuristic earth space ship

The original Enterprise is by any measure a far more attractive and more iconic ship design than the Millennium Falcon, which is and always was a kludge of random parts shoved together with no overarching design aesthetic nor logical rationale. So if nostalgic sentiment can get audiences to buy the ugly one, it sure as shooting should be able to get audiences to buy the cool one.

So, nostalgia? Got it.

The whole premise of DSC, the entire conceptual hook on which it was promoted, is that it's a prequel, telling a new story in a familiar setting. "Ten years before Kirk and Spock." So yes, NOSTALGIA! Damn straight! That's what they were selling, so to deliver anything else is a bait-and-switch. They could have done a show set in the far future, or just an out-and-out reboot. They didn't. They chose to sell nostalgia... and then failed to deliver it.

And to circle this back around to the original thread topic...

Assuming that the producers of DSC are willing to make changes to the Enterprise, what other changes might they make to existing Star Trek continuity in the upcoming Trek to be overseen by Kurtzman?

I have no idea, but I'm not optimistic. Kurtzman has the storytelling impulses of a studio accountant crossed with a twelve-year-old boy, so I have the disquieting sense that all bets are off.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Not very good additions to the canon but it wouldn't contradict anything we've seen so far (as long as Jean-Luc's cousin wasn't alive after GEN and named Picard)

Agreed. The point about generations is fair though as Picard noted that he was the last of his line. To be honest the idea of a new Picard show gives me pause as I’ve no idea what they’d do with the character after all this time. I wouldn’t want to see him still in command of the Enterprise I don’t think. But then again I didn’t want to see him riding a dune buggy either - which I didn’t realise until I saw Nemesis. If they do go ahead with the Picard idea that’s been rumoured I think they ought to think long and hard about how they treat the character as Picard is so beloved that any changes (further to the ridiculous addition of him having a love for off-road motor racing) would have to be minor and carefully thought out. I want Picard from “ensigns of command” and “darmok” not from “nemesis”

I wouldn't even necessarily count the small additions to the 1701 as changes to be honest, they were too insignificant and were merely aesthetic updates

Tbf I’d argue that some (not all) of them weren’t even necessary but there’s a whole nother thread for that so I won’t trot out my objections here haha!

 

[fireproof78]

The whole premise of DSC, the entire conceptual hook on which it was promoted, is that it's a prequel, telling a new story in a familiar setting. "Ten years before Kirk and Spock."

I wasn't familiar with that era. So, while I can see people assuming it will be just like TOS, I was not expecting the same aesthetics as TOS, nor the storytelling tropes or sensibilities. The first teaser was of a ship that looked nothing like a TOS ship. So, whatever nostalgic vibes were to be had were rather shattered by that promo.

 

[fireproof78]

hmm... Nostalgia sure. It's what made Star Wars TFA a success.. Because it was ANH repackaged. Of course it would do well, a decade went by, and then a repackaged resell came out and gave all the old familiar items needed to drain the wallet of the fanboy. Thankfully, I saw it, and never went back, or watched it again. I saw it back in the 80s, so... yea.

On the Star Trek Series Kurtzman will "expand" on, I am hoping we move back to the future, new stories, new adventures, new Tech, but that TREK Formula we all know so well needs to be there. STD took some things out of the formula, then ultimately added some back in near the end of the season.. but overall, it lacked much that made me feel like I was watching a Trek Series. the whole while I was thinking to myself, this feels like a long drawn out mini series, that when over, I will be able to say, at least I saw it once.

So Nostalgia, formula, future series, adherence to canonical history if set in TOS, No retcons, and good actors, and actresses. And for gods sakes, give the Klingons some frickin hair!! OMFG that drove me NUTS! I was like who the hell are these guys?? Oh right.. Klingons...

Sometimes I would watch and forget they were Klingons, and just picture them as outer space Vampires.. That actually fit better with their design, and cannibalism.. Still, I carry on the joke ALL THE TIME with my friends.. It's annoying I know, I like unplugged trolling, it's much more fun, and NO MODS! LOL

Me: What aliens are those?
Friend replies: what? On Star Trek Discovery? On the TV?
Me: Oh.... Yea.. right...

Klingons..

I don't want formulaic Star Trek. I would like something new, something decides to take a little bit of a risk now and then. I got safe and secure Star Trek for several years. I don't want repackaged. I have the original, thank you very much.

The Klingons are an old song by now, so I simply will state that I have never cared as much about the Klingons as I have with Discovery. TNG tired them out for me, and by DS9 the constant "honor and glory" bit was stale.

I may not agree with all of what DSC did, but you know what? They did things I would never do. And that is fine by me.

 

[Lord Garth]

In 2001, ENT threw me a loop with how it looked. Not how I pictured a TOS prequel to look. Within a few months I got over it and moved on from the series... and that was coming up on 17 years ago.

By the time Star Trek (2009) and Discovery came into the picture, I was way passed it. Never for a second did I think either would look like TOS. The only thing I wondered about was how much of a difference would there be. Figuring it wouldn't be as much the same as some people wanted or as different as other people wanted.

DSC looks like a cross between the first six movies, the Kelvin movies, and BSG. Some TOS nods and some TOS/TNG sound-effects thrown in. It works. At least for me.

 

[fireproof78]

DSC looks like a cross between the first six movies, the Kelvin movies, and BSG. Some TOS nods and some TOS/TNG sound-effects thrown in. It works. At least for me.

Same here. I don't want same old same old. Could it have been done differently? Of course! That's the point of art. We engage it, analyze it, decide whether or not it was done well, or if something could be added to it, or taken away. But, is it wrong? I struggle with that.

 

[Mudd]

Really, the important shortcoming of the show is that it's brainless and would not challenge a ten year-old.

Probably wouldn't engage most ten year-olds, either, so they're 0 for 2.

 

[Lord Garth]

Really, the important shortcoming of the show is that it's brainless and would not challenge a ten year-old.

Probably wouldn't engage most ten year-olds, either, so they're 0 for 2.

No need to single out Discovery. Harlan would say that about all Star Trek. If you're going to channel Harlan Ellison, go all the way.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

A setting is something you establish with details, not just broad strokes — at least in any well-told story. So no, the prime universe isn't just a "rough guideline"... it's a fictional reality. The details matter.

The internally contained details of the setting within the body of the show itself matter more, sure. Speaking of which, what's the Enterprise's operating agency in TOS, 'cause they went through several before settling on Starfleet? Yet somehow we managed to deal with that and a million other internal inconsistencies without blowing a gasket.

But what I was talking about as being a rough guideline is this show's in-universe history in relation to other shows made decades earlier. In cases like that it's okay to fudge the details a bit, IMO, to adapt to changing social conditions, updated special effects, the changing television landscape, etc. Every single show and movie since TOS has done it, and it's a normal function of a franchise that has been running this long.

Is Doctor Who a less enjoyable show because they don't get so hung up on continuity between incarnations spread across decades by different showrunners? And I'm not even talking about that much, just a little more flexibility.

And if you really don't get why they matter? Well, I can only speak for myself... but FWIW, I like things to make sense. I'm a rational-analytical personality type. I'm fond of logic. So when someone says "thing X is the same thing as thing Y even though they obviously look different," or "the events of History A are roughly the same as History B, so just treat them as the same reality," I'm being asked to ignore logical contradictions. That doesn't make sense to me. And that undermines my willing suspension of disbelief, takes me out of whatever story I'm trying to experience, and severely undermines my enjoyment. Clear enough?

Crystal. Thanks for the condescension, though. I could understand if you and I had been having a difficult exchange where I wasn't comprehending you, but it's a bit of an odd tone to take when it's the first time we've spoken on this topic

Maybe it's not all that logical to expect rigid consistency with every detail of a five decade old show that wasn't always consistent with itself from week to week, and was followed by four other series (or five with TAS) and several movies that also made significant changes to that shared history along the way.

You're not the only one with a rational-analytical mind. I just prefer to use mine to find ways to make things fit together. And when it doesn't, I adapt and don't sweat the small stuff too much.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Really, the important shortcoming of the show is that it's brainless and would not challenge a ten year-old.

Probably wouldn't engage most ten year-olds, either, so they're 0 for 2.

You can criticize the show as much as you want, but this is aimed at insulting the fans as well, which isn't cool. So please don't do this again.

 

[lawman]

The internally contained details of the setting within the body of the show itself matter more, sure. Speaking of which, what's the Enterprise's operating agency in TOS, 'cause they went through several before settling on Starfleet? Yet somehow we managed to deal with that and a million other internal inconsistencies without blowing a gasket.

Aside from casual mentions of "Space Central" in "Miri" and "Space Command" in "Court Martial," the only other one (and the only one mentioned more than once) was UESPA, in "Charlie X" and "Tomorrow is Yesterday." That can be explained away fairly easily (and has been, by Trek novelists). After that, the show settled on Starfleet Command.

There were undeniably a handful of other inconsistencies (though certainly not "a million"), but there's a big difference between a show ironing out its "early episode weirdness" in the first dozen or so episodes, which is understandable, and introducing brand-new easily avoidable inconsistencies after there are already hundreds of hours of established continuity.

That's what I and others are complaining about here... not "blowing a gasket," just offering reasonable criticisms and questioning the way the DSC producers appear to be trying to have their cake and eat it too, continuity-wise.

Crystal. Thanks for the condescension, though. I could understand if you and I had been having a difficult exchange where I wasn't comprehending you, but it's a bit of an odd tone to take when it's the first time we've spoken on this topic

No condescension intended, seriously. You asked "why is it such a big deal?", in so many words, and it seemed apparent that you and some other posters here sincerely don't understand why it's a big deal. I don't know how anyone else might have responded, but I know why it matters to me, so I explained, as clearly as I could, in the hopes of avoiding potential misunderstandings. That's all.

You're not the only one with a rational-analytical mind. I just prefer to use mine to find ways to make things fit together.

I enjoy finding creative and logical ways to reconcile apparent continuity glitches and make things "fit," too. That doesn't mean I appreciate having the writers and producers add to the supply of those glitches.

 

[cooleddie74]

And UESPA was canonized on screen in the graphics on the Friendship One warp probe from 2067 in VOY and in the Starfleet Command seal seen on the floor of the conference chamber on Earth in the Terra Prime arc on ENT (set in 2155). We know UESPA existed as early as four years after Zefram Cochrane's first warp flight and will still exist in some capacity as late as 2267, a lifespan of at least two hundred years. It's no longer an internal error or inconsistency.

 

[PiotrB]

Great. Everything - every ship, every uniform - is outdated.

The notion of the visual reboot seems to encompass a general misunderstanding of “future technology” (vis. It must *look* futuristic in order to *be* futuristic) combined with a lack of respect for the audience (“if it doesn’t look futuristic they won’t understand it’s in the future”) plus a sense of embarrassment about the original series

A setting is something you establish with details, not just broad strokes — at least in any well-told story. So no, the prime universe isn't just a "rough guideline"... it's a fictional reality.

Y'all remember TMP and who created this movie?

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Y'all remember TMP and who created this movie?

Sorry I don’t fully see what you’re saying here. It seems like you’re saying that the changes in DSC (set before TOS with the one caveat of the disco being built after the Enterprise, despite it looking contemporary with the shenzhou which is way older than the Enterprise) don’t matter because there were changes made to TMP (set after TOS showing a development and evolution of technology). Could you expand on this point as it seems a little ipse dixit as it is. Thanks

 

[PiotrB]

Sorry I don’t fully see what you’re saying here. It seems like you’re saying that the changes in DSC (set before TOS with the one caveat of the disco being built after the Enterprise, despite it looking contemporary with the shenzhou which is way older than the Enterprise) don’t matter because there were changes made to TMP (set after TOS showing a development and evolution of technology). Could you expand on this point as it seems a little ipse dixit as it is. Thanks

TMP was set 2 years after TOS and was first Star Trek visual reboot so y'all must have understand that all your complaints about this topic are outdated by now. All development and evolution of technology and refit stories were just handwave for gatekeepers. Truth is TMP visuals was supposed to be TOS visuals from the start like DSC visuals now.

 

[fireproof78]

TMP was set 2 years after TOS and was first Star Trek visual reboot so y'all must have understand that all your complaints about this topic are outdated by now. All development and evolution of technology and refit stories were just handwave for gatekeepers. Truth is TMP visuals was supposed to be TOS visuals from the start like DSC visuals now.

Indeed. Gene seemed to be wanting to move past TOS visuals by the time TMP rolled around. Plus, two hears is a pretty fast refit on a starship

 

[BillJ]

It's true. The people who said "They've changed it!" are the ones who "changed it!" here with the topic. You can't make this stuff up.

Thread drift at the TrekBBS. Well, gosh, that never happens!

 

[BillJ]

I've never really gotten a good answer to this: if nothing about Prime is important and can be changed on a whim, why is CBS' declaration about the show being Prime so important?