Alex Kurtzman Gets New Deal With CBS, Will Expand 'Star Trek' TV
- Thread starter Lawrence B
- Start date
- Status
Ooh. It calls it lore. So does that mean that the "visual reboot" is actually also changing lore, despite all claims to the contrary?..."The dimensions of the Constitution-class, 947 feet (289 meters) long for the original configuration and 1,000 feet (305 meters) for the refit-configuration, have been set in stone in time immemorial as far as Star Trek lore is concerned"
I love it when Memory Alpha gets dramatic!
No. Definitely not. The ur-Trek is the one that was simply called Star Trek, and TNG is only and ever a spin-off. It became a pretty good one over time (thanks largely to the talents of Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner), but it never captured the magic that TOS had, of being a new thing and inspiring people to see things differently. It couldn't, by its very nature. It wouldn't even have existed if not for the renewed surge of enthusiasm for TOS, as demonstrated first through its staying power in syndication and second through the original-crew movies. You personally may like it better — de gustibus and all that — but it definitely never eclipsed TOS in the public imagination.
What or what, leading to things like the what on the what?
I can only assume you're talking about something Purely British here...
it's a recast
Ooh. It calls it lore. So does that mean that the "visual reboot" is actually also changing lore, despite all claims to the contrary?...
No. Definitely not. The ur-Trek is the one that was simply called Star Trek, and TNG is only and ever a spin-off. It became a pretty good one over time (thanks largely to the talents of Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner), but it never captured the magic that TOS had, of being a new thing and inspiring people to see things differently. It couldn't, by its very nature. It wouldn't even have existed if not for the renewed surge of enthusiasm for TOS, as demonstrated first through its staying power in syndication and second through the original-crew movies. You personally may like it better — de gustibus and all that — but it definitely never eclipsed TOS in the public imagination.
What or what, leading to things like the what on the what?
Actually they had a worldwide audience, eye big in Japan too I believe. Big enough in America that you end up with Team America from the South Park guys.
Seven years, no cancellation.
Yes, TNG wouldn’t exist without TOS as its foundation, but fundamentally, in its time, it was bigger than TOS was in its time. Bigger viewing figures, bigger reach, it’s the one that pushed Trek from cult classic into mainstream pop culture.
Nope.Ooh. It calls it lore. So does that mean that the "visual reboot" is actually also changing lore, despite all claims to the contrary?...
Okay, that one I've actually heard of! (And it's hilarious!) But Captain Scarlet, Tracey Island, and Blue Peter, literally never, for whatever it's worth. (And saying something was popular in Japan is kind of akin to saying it was popular on Mars. The pop culture there is just... very different...)
The Undiscovered Country in many ways was the ultimate way to wrap up TOS, bringing the Klingon Cold War to an end. Klingons and other characters from previous Trek movies came back.
For TNG, the Cold War was with the Romulans, and Nemesis was an awful conclusion.
So in my wildest dreams, the Picard mini-series would feature a final conclusion to that thread, like say a peace deal with Romulus, with Denise Crosby returning as Sela, to wrap up her arc.
But I would also love to see a really well considered archaeological mystery spanning the galaxy.
Why not both?
Totally agree about Undiscovered Country!
That's what elevates that movie way above it's pure structure, characterization and plot. It's the greatest possible end point to the series overall and what many people remembered as the main conflict of the show, the one with the klingons.
Here is the part where I have to disagree:
TNG has a lot of episodes featuring the Romulans as villains. But they were never the "big" antagonists. They were used for stories where a antagonist was needed. It could have been the Cardssians. But DS9 pretty much took them over, and completed their arc.
It's the Borg. The main villain everyone remembers from TNG is the Borg. If the new Picard series features a villain - It's either going to be a completely new one, or the Borg.
This is also the more interesting conflict, but also the one with more pitfalls for the writers to fail at. Because how do you resolve the conflict with the Borg? A mere peace treaty like with the klingons won't be sufficent. That's the point where a truly talented screenwriter can utterly succeed. Or fail. They could come up with a truly fucking brilliant solution. Or just do the clichèd "blow 'em all up", which would be both a massive dissapointment poential-wise as well as a failure in the Star Trek ethical standard. We shall see.
(And yes, I know, technically Voyager already did that to wrap up their show. But come on? It's the Borg. How permanent can that defeat really have been?)
It's like they took a lot of fan news theoretical articles, tossed them in a word blender and that came out
Im sorry to harp on about this, but how far does this mindset go?
Tptb on DSC seem to be boiling Star Trek down to the fundamentals, changing things, then saying that the changes don’t matter because the fundamentals are in place and we should ignore the differences.
Ok fair enough.
So, let’s say they bring in Spock. What if they recast Spock with a female actor (similar to my Jane Kirk example above). If the fundamentals of the Spock character are in place, should we ignore the fact that Spock has been recast with a female actor? Nothing about Spock is fundamentally male just like with Kirk. Spock would be the same character and in the same continuity as TOS.
Tbf (and based on the gender bent comic strip where this actually happened) I would rather enjoy it if they did this in DSC.
I actually would like to see what Picard's up to these days. If Star Trek wants to do social allegory about the times, I can't think of a better time to do it than now. Let me rephrase that: I can't think of a better time to do that than NOW. Bolded, all capitals. And Picard is the person to tackle the times we live in through a 24th Century lens. Like I said upthread, I think he should be a stand-in for Bernie Sanders. If you're going to bring back Picard this isn't a reason to do it, it's THE reason to do it.
No, TNG's not my favorite Star Trek series, but this is a story worth telling that takes Star Trek back to its roots when it's at its best, and having the best spokesperson to do it.
Of course, they might not do that. They might not have a
Last edited:
but thats a false analogy. The Enterprise wasn't gender bent. It still identifies as space ship. It just looks a little bit different than before. Just like Sarek doesn't look like Mark Lenard any longer or Pike doesn't look like Jeff Hunter, but like the new actors portraying these characters.
Well I’d guess the Enterprise doesn’t identify as anything given that it’s an inanimate object
I’m just kidding with that point of course - but you’re actually reiterating my point here. The fundamentals of the Enterprise include that she’s a spaceship. And we are to ignore the changes. If the fundamentals of the Spock character are in place (which don’t include the gender of the actor as far as I’m concerned) the analogy holds as we can ignore the change from male to female.
That's for the Big E to decide, or the ship models who play her.Well I’d guess the Enterprise doesn’t identify as anything given that it’s an inanimate object
I think it's a mistake to view gender as something that's as interchangeable as hair color or eye color or what some stupid piece of tech looks like.
In terms of an actual position, gender shouldn't matter. In terms of who someone is, I think their gender is part of who they are. Not all, but part. I think the gender they see themselves as is part of who they are. If you diminish part of what a person is, you diminish part of what they are. You diminish part of who they are.
How different would your life be if you were a woman? Be honest. How different would a woman's life be if they were a man? How different would the life of a transgendered person be if they were born the gender they identify as? How different would little things be that you don't even think about that you've taken for granted your whole life?
In terms of an actual position, gender shouldn't matter. In terms of who someone is, I think their gender is part of who they are. Not all, but part. I think the gender they see themselves as is part of who they are. If you diminish part of what a person is, you diminish part of what they are. You diminish part of who they are.
How different would your life be if you were a woman? Be honest. How different would a woman's life be if they were a man? How different would the life of a transgendered person be if they were born the gender they identify as? How different would little things be that you don't even think about that you've taken for granted your whole life?
Last edited:
I agree. Do you think it’s a mistake that they did a comic series where the marvel character Thor is now female? (Sincerely - I don’t mean to sound snippy).
Agreed also. I’m arguing that the gender of the characters of Kirk and Spock aren’t fundamental parts of their characters. I.e. not that Kirk or Spock would be the same were they no longer male, but it’s not a fundamental part of the makeup of their characters that they have to be male. They could be played by female actors and still embody the same character traits we know and love.
I certainly didn’t mean to diminish any part of a person - if it seemed like I was I apologise. I don’t want to demean anyone.
This is why I think it’s important for modern Star Trek to deal with these issues. If we can ignore smaller changes to established continuity then we can ignore more substantial ones so we can explore bigger issues.
Jane Foster was always female. She just was the host of Thor's powers while the still male Odinson was not.
Now LOKI, that's a different story. but not one without roots in the myths
I don't know anything about Thor, other than he's a Viking from Marvel Comics. So I'll go with something I do know. Starbuck from BSG. In Old BSG, Starbuck is a man and always has been. That's who the character is in Old BSG. In New BSG, Starbuck is a woman and always has been. That's who the character is in New BSG.
If some Random Future BSG had Starbuck be a man, then a woman, then a man again, and it's all supposed to be the same show, and it's just ignored by everyone, then it's essentially a genderless character who goes through the list of options. They're whatever they feel like at the moment.
Then there's the new Doctor on Doctor Who. Every time The Doctor regenerates, it becomes a different person altogether, with the previous Doctor's memories, so The Doctor is kind of like a Trill but not. The 12th Doctor is a man. The 13th Doctor is a woman.
No situation is exactly the same. So I can't even begin to know what to say about Thor. So what I'm about to say is a shot in the dark: If it makes sense that Thor is a woman now, then she should be a woman.
Last edited:
So if I were a fan of Thor, I wouldn't care at all. If she's an interesting character and the stories are good, that's all that would matter to me. Technically she's a different Thor but look at how many Robins and Batgirls that Batman has gone through. Closest example I can think of, on the fly.
For the record: I started reading comics in 1986, then stopped in 2011. So I'm not really up-to-date.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
