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

[Lord Garth]

I was in high school... but I had friends who had friends who were 21. And, as cooleddie74 said, we did take shots of tequila. I wasn't afraid of getting arrested for underage drinking and driving. I thought the world was going to end anyway. "Might as well live now or I never will."

It was a different time.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I was in high school... but I had friends who had friends who were 21. And, as cooleddie74 said, we did take shots of tequila. I wasn't afraid of getting arrested for underage drinking and driving. I thought the world was going to end anyway. "Might as well live now or I never will."

It was a different time.

True, never could know when an Augment army might show up on your doorstep promising "order".

 

[cooleddie74]

If you don't remember the Eugenics Wars, you weren't there, man!

I had bone spurs, snowflake!

 

[Nerys Myk]

I had bone spurs, snowflake!

We can't all be supermen.

 

[cooleddie74]

Or, like, tremendous guys.

 

[lawman]

The highlighted sections get to my point though that you're more willing to forgive or explain such inconsistencies or deliberate changes in a show that you love versus one that you don't or merely tolerate.

I think the highlighted sections demonstrate that I'm more willing to forgive or explain such (minor, unavoidable) inconsistencies in a property that's brand new and just finding its footing, than I am to forgive comparable (often larger, and avoidable or deliberate) inconsistencies in a property that already has a well-established and easily researched backstory. That hardly seems like an unreasonable distinction or any sort of double-standard. Yes, I love TOS in a way that I don't love DSC, for reasons that go far beyond continuity, but that really has no bearing on this.

It seems odd to give the inconsistencies caused by the growing pains in the first twelve episodes of TOS a pass, but not extend the same courtesy to Discovery for its first batch of eps, especially given all the behind-the-scenes drama with departing and chaotic showrunners (Fuller and the others) and so forth.

I think the distinction above (brand-new thing vs. minor expansion on existing thing) is important here. That said, I have given DSC something of a pass so far, not least because of all the creative turmoil. If I were judging it strictly on its own merits as a new show, independent of previous Trek, and without regard to behind-the-scenes info, I would have thrown in the towel on it after the Lorca heel turn in episode 13, which was a truly hideously bad shark-jumping episode. Criticizing it doesn't mean I've given up on it. It means I still care enough to give a damn and not be indifferent to it.

It's just strange to me to act (not you personally, just in general) like the keepers of the Holy Scripture of the Lord R. Goddenberry which is unerring and internally consistent with itself and across multiple iterations and additions, except for all those times where it wasn't. Just admit that it comes down to personal preference of which show you like better...

False dichotomy. I've never been a Roddenberry worshipper (nor do I think most of us kibitzing about continuity are)... nor do I think Trek continuity (or any fictional continuity) has ever been unerringly perfect, or could be, as I've posted repeatedly. That does not mean it's all just a matter of arbitrary and subjective personal preference and there are no reasonable standards of consistency worth upholding.

As to why it matters to call it the Prime Universe, as said, it's to differentiate it from the ongoing Kelvinverse films so there's no expectation that the storylines need to match up...

I don't follow the reasoning there. There are only two Star Trek universes (notwithstanding the MU and "Parallels" and etc. etc.)... the one from the last three movies and the one from all the other Star Trek ever, including every TV show. Why would anyone think viewers would expect a new TV show to tie in to those movies to an extent that makes it worth the trouble of dispelling? Or that, having dispelled that option, viewers wouldn't logically expect it to match up with the other one?...

and it's to provide a framework for fans to know that this takes place in the same general continuity as TOS/TAS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT and the first ten movies...

There is no such thing as a "general continuity." Either you have a continuity or you don't. It's the details that matter. If you restrict yourself only to broad strokes, as has already been mentioned, then the Adam West Batman is the same as the Tim Burton version and the Christopher Nolan version... but no sane person would suggest that those share a continuity.

It will be "inspired by in-universe events" like a Hollywood historical drama...

Then that's an adaptation (like all the versions of Batman just mentioned), not a continuation or expansion of the original continuity. (But this is really just you speculating... the producers haven't said anything like that, they've said repeatedly that they're adhering to what's established much more carefully than that. The frustration here is that what they've done doesn't live up to what they've said.)

 

[Groppler Zorn]

True, never could know when an Augment army might show up on your doorstep promising "order".

I had bone spurs, snowflake!

Hey. I had a fictional cousin who died in that fictional war. He died doing what he loved: trying to reconcile continuity differences between DSC and TOS. I miss him.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

There is no such thing as a "general continuity." Either you have a continuity or you don't. It's the details that matter.

That’s a good point. On one level DSC seems to have reduced Star Trek to a series of broad concepts, ideas, and events (much like a comic book reboot) without worrying about the smaller details that go along with the visuals.

Ok, there’s a general panic about going back to the TOS look as the producers must be concerned that people wouldn’t accept that as “the future” even if they provided us with a creative reason as to why the apparent future tech looks less advanced than holograms and waving your hands about to move your virtual screens on your overlaid glass windows. They’re probably right in that people would have thought a more subtle update of the TOS look would be ridiculous. Heck, these are the same producers that think we need the ship to have a window out front so they can see where they’re going as we can’t possibly wrap our heads round the notion that “it’s a screen” and “they use sophisticated futuristic sensors to get better and more detailed images in higher resolution that can react faster to situations than your eye”. Fair enough - I don’t think it should look like TOS (in reality), as that would have been a disaster.

So why not just call the thing a reboot? The last Star Trek reboot made a ton of money and arguably led to DSC’s very existence.

And just to head off the “visual reboot/get over it/TOS fanboiiiiiii” arguments at the pass, think about this:

If visual continuity is ok to violate, where is the line? Some on here have even argued that it’s ok to tinker with the dates of historical events in the Trek universe (yes it’s fictional, but as @lawman says, you either have a continuity or you throw it away and make your own).

At what point do we have to say “ok this clearly isn’t in the same continuity as the old Trek”? When Jane Kirk rocks up on the bridge? When Android Spock has his neural net purged? When the Enterprise looks different to how it di- ...

I’m not arguing that DSC should look like TOS. I am expressing a concern that the blind acceptance of continuity changes opens Pandora’s box just a little - enough to allow much bigger changes in the future. How long will it be before something is directly contradicted for the purposes of DSC being “creative” or “not chained by canon” or whatever.

Fine, “DSC be free” (Voyager references...). Be a reboot - I’d actually prefer that at this point. If you’re going to Marvel, then Marvel. Don’t half arse it.

 

[PiotrB]

If visual continuity is ok to violate, where is the line?

Violation of non-visual continuity unless there is some time travel stuff which explains this violation.

 

[fireproof78]

Heck, these are the same producers that think we need the ship to have a window out front so they can see where they’re going as we can’t possibly wrap our heads round the notion that “it’s a screen” and “they use sophisticated futuristic sensors to get better and more detailed images in higher resolution that can react faster to situations than your eye”.

Not to cherry pick but the idea of a window is not that offensive. I mean, Picard sent Geordi to look out a window in one episode. Is a window that unreasonable that it needs this argument that the producers simply can't imagine that audience can't grasp a concept as a screen? Is that the argument?

If visual continuity is ok to violate, where is the line? Some on here have even argued that it’s ok to tinker with the dates of historical events in the Trek universe (yes it’s fictional, but as @lawman says, you either have a continuity or you throw it away and make your own).

Or, you have broad strokes and events, including technological advancements, but the visual representation of that technological advance is allowed to change.

I would prefer a reboot as well. But, personally, this hand-wringing over continuity does nothing to add to or take away from a show's enjoyment. At least, for me. For me, the idea that TNG and TOS exist in the same continuity is not the appeal of either show. Shows have a tough enough time maintaining internal consistency and timeline of events. I'm not saying the production teams should not try, but it isn't a deal breaker either.

Also, as has been noted in several thread, why are the production teams taken at their word? If people look at the show and say "That's clearly a reboot" then no amount of arguing is going to change that perception.

 

[GNDN18]

Not to cherry pick but the idea of a window is not that offensive.

Sometimes a window is quite helpful:

RIKER: "The only way we knew we'd come out of warp was by looking out a window." TNG, "Brothers"​

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Not to cherry pick but the idea of a window is not that offensive. I mean, Picard sent Geordi to look out a window in one episode. Is a window that unreasonable

I’ve always had an issue with the window since 2009 and I’m not sure why. Maybe it feels like a retrograde step on the one hand and a director (Abrams) who admittedly wasn’t “a Star Trek Guy” on the other trying to make the Enterprise the millennium falcon. But with 09 I just went with it because reboot. With DSC I want a reason why they went from screens to windows consarn it! Even though they did the same in kelvin and there are examples of ships contemporary to the nx-01 allegedly from prime that had windows. So ok maybe they had ships with both screens and windows - I’m cool with that. A line of dialogue could address that. But then to say “ah but they all had windows this whole time” when we know they didn’t unsuspends my disbelief (if that’s even a thing haha!)

As for Geordi - Picard sent him to look at the crystalline entity iirc because his visor had extra sensors - not because the viewer and ship sensors were inferior to the human eye. No it needs to be a screen else I’ll thcream and thcream until I’m thick.

I'm not saying the production teams should not try, but it isn't a deal breaker either.

Also, as has been noted in several thread, why are the production teams taken at their word? If people look at the show and say "That's clearly a reboot" then no amount of arguing is going to change that perception.

Yeah exactly. Obviously it’s not going to stop me watching the show and afaic it’s a reboot (if I’m going to be damned by the “get over it” brigade I’m going to be damned for what I really am! Ah “farpoint” references...) Which I’m happy with overall - I’m keeping my fingers crossed for a more compelling reboot in s2 as I didn’t particularly enjoy the story of s1 (ignoring the visuals and trekpicks - that’s a blend of Trek and nitpicks)

RIKER: "The only way we knew we'd come out of warp was by looking out a window."

Pish. Scotty knew the warp factor by the feel of the deck plates. And there were numerous ways they could have detected they weren’t at warp. Used a tricorder. Ok there was one other way. But still. Riker was being hyperbolic.

I’m just kidding btw

 

[fireproof78]

I’ve always had an issue with the window since 2009 and I’m not sure why. Maybe it feels like a retrograde step on the one hand and a director (Abrams) who admittedly wasn’t “a Star Trek Guy” on the other trying to make the Enterprise the millennium falcon. But with 09 I just went with it because reboot. With DSC I want a reason why they went from screens to windows consarn it! Even though they did the same in kelvin and there are examples of ships contemporary to the nx-01 allegedly from prime that had windows. So ok maybe they had ships with both screens and windows - I’m cool with that. A line of dialogue could address that. But then to say “ah but they all had windows this whole time” when we know they didn’t unsuspends my disbelief (if that’s even a thing haha!)

Who is saying they had windows all the time? I don't need a reason from one to the other. Some ships used windows with overlays, others use viewscreens. The net result is the same, with the added benefit that you can create some cool visual shots. I don't need a line of dialog stating this.

As for Geordi - Picard sent him to look at the crystalline entity iirc because his visor had extra sensors - not because the viewer and ship sensors were inferior to the human eye. No it needs to be a screen else I’ll thcream and thcream until I’m thick.

I'm thinking of a different episode, "Justice" where Picard sends Geordi to look at the Edo god. If I recall correctly, the sensors can detect it properly. So, some how, Geordi looking at it through a window gives a better look. So, yes his VISOR helps, but the sensors of the ship apparently failed to do what his VISOR could. So, maybe a window with a bunch of a people with VISORS?

Yeah exactly. Obviously it’s not going to stop me watching the show and afaic it’s a reboot (if I’m going to be damned by the “get over it” brigade I’m going to be damned for what I really am! Ah “farpoint” references...) Which I’m happy with overall - I’m keeping my fingers crossed for a more compelling reboot in s2 as I didn’t particularly enjoy the story of s1 (ignoring the visuals and trekpicks - that’s a blend of Trek and nitpicks)

I could Trekpic any show if I really wanted to. I could sit down and pull each one apart, but that's not very fun for me. I watch shows for fun, not nitpicking. Discovery S1 could have been better, but that's what I would do. I'm not in charge, and I'll not sit there and demand it meet my standards of what I think Star Trek "should be."

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Who is saying they had windows all the time?

I’m inferring that from the Enterprise - granted it’s not been confirmed that it definitely does have a window yet but it certainly looks like it does. Unless it was modified to have a screen then modified back again etc. Which has been discussed to death here!

I'm thinking of a different episode, "Justice" where Picard sends Geordi to look at the Edo god.

Ohhhhh yeah I forgot about that! Did he even send Geordi to look at the crystalline entity or have I imagined that?

I watch shows for fun, not nitpicking.

Where’s the fun in that?

 

[Lord Garth]

So why not just call the thing a reboot? The last Star Trek reboot made a ton of money and arguably led to DSC’s very existence.

If they called it a "reboot", I'd be fine with this. They're not calling it a "reboot" and it's not a battle I'm choosing to pick.

And just to head off the “visual reboot/get over it/TOS fanboiiiiiii” arguments at the pass, think about this:

If visual continuity is ok to violate, where is the line? Some on here have even argued that it’s ok to tinker with the dates of historical events in the Trek universe (yes it’s fictional, but as @lawman says, you either have a continuity or you throw it away and make your own).

I don't know but I think anyone who has a problem with how DSC looks but has no problem with how ENT looks is a hypocrite. I got over new pre-TOS productions not looking exactly like TOS a long time ago. That ship has sailed.

But now suddenly it's an issue for some people (note that I said "some") because they don't like DSC. If they loved it, I bet you they wouldn't care.

Case in point: do they have a problem with how the Kelvin looked? Which is considered Prime and was a mere 12 years before the TOS Enterprise was commissioned? No. They don't.

 

[dahj]

So why not just call the thing a reboot?

Because it's not?

 

[Groppler Zorn]

I think anyone who has a problem with how DSC looks but has no problem with how ENT looks is a hypocrite

Tbf I did have an issue with the exteriors of the nx class as it didn’t look like enough of a retrograde step from TOS imho. The interiors I thought were fine but the aztecking etc. outside was too modern I thought.

do they have a problem with how the Kelvin looked? Which is considered Prime

Tbh I did - window included. But I never gave the kelvin itself much thought as it was part of the reboot movie (not timeline). Maybe starfleet goes through design aesthetic changes as often as it changes uniforms...

Because it's not?

A lot of people are happy with the party line. The evidence I’ve observed with my eyes doesn’t quite tally with “what we’ve been told and expected to blindly accept”. Perhaps I’m just too much of a contrarian and I question everything - I don’t know. But we must agree that it’s a bit of a reboot because “visual reboot”.

 

[dahj]

A lot of people are happy with the party line. The evidence I’ve observed with my eyes doesn’t quite tally

What evidence have you observed that leads you to think that we'll see "Jane Kirk" and that Spock is an android?

I mean, they've mentioned Spock already, and I'd reckon it's safe to say he's a real boy.

 

[jaime]

Maybe they ditch the windows when they upgrade to the holoscreens we know the later ones are. That would solve it. And reorient the enterprises bridge, as with the window where it is on the model, the whole thing would be skewiff.

 

[jaime]

What evidence have you observed that leads you to think that we'll see "Jane Kirk" and that Spock is an android?

I mean, they've mentioned Spock already, and I'd reckon it's safe to say he's a real boy.

He’s talking a hypothetical further down the line.