Alex Kurtzman on the Fine Line Between Adding to, and Staying True to, Star Trek's Canon

[Dukhat]

No they aren't. That's just your opinion. Oh, and the shows you mentioned, yes they did operate under the assumption they could change things however they wanted. Let's look at Voyager as an example. Was there a Eugenics war going on in the 90s as per TOS. Nope. It was our 1990s.

Then we must have been watching different shows, because I never felt at all that TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT were trying to invalidate TOS as an entire series.

An embarrassing situation with a whole ship lost? Yeah, I see that being classified.

Ah yes, the Kurtzman style of 'keeping true to canon:" Let's classify everything!

 

[fireproof78]

Why didn't the DS9 crew know what Klingons looked like during the TOS era? Has that been completely wiped from Federation records? How does that make sense? Why did only one crew member of the TNG crew know about the events of 'The Naked Time' and even then only remember a reference to someone frozen in a shower? Again, why? This also takes place in an era where the Governor of a Federation colony, who executed half his colonists can slip away without anyone knowing what he looks like and perform Shakespeare plays all across the Federation for 20 years with no one the wiser. My understanding based on watching Star Trek for decades: Its been made abundantly clear over that characters in Star Trek don't know everything that's ever happened with regards to the Federation or Starfleet, nor should they be expected to. As well, neither the Federation in general nor Star Fleet, in particular, has ever been shown to offer absolute free flow of information.

Or, you know, when Worf states categorically that Klingons don't take hostages, ignoring Kor on Organia.

Ah yes, the Kurtzman style of 'keeping true to canon:" Let's classify everything!

In this instance, it wouldn't surprise me if it was classified. Same thing with the destructive nature of the spore drive. It reminds me of the stupid Omega Protocol being so classified that only captains can know about it, despite locking down the entire ship.

Then we must have been watching different shows, because I never felt at all that TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT were trying to invalidate TOS.

And we must be watching different shows, since I feel that no one is trying to invalidate Trek at all. Just offering different visions and telling different stories.

 

[Dukhat]

'Classifying' things because they don't line up with continuity is a cop-out, in my opinion. If you constantly need to classify things in order for your show to make sense in relation to another show, then you might as well just say that your show takes place in a different continuity.

 

[Alan Roi]

Then we must have been watching different shows, because I never felt at all that TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT were trying to invalidate TOS as an entire series.

You've provided zero evidence that Disco makes any attempt to invalidate TOS as a series. IMO, on the contrary, it validates TOS more than any other Star Trek series. TOS was the first series of Star Trek I ever watched. It remains my overall favorite having my most favorite episodes. I have enjoyed Disco immensely, and consider it the first series in the franchise which treats TOS with the respect I believe it deserves. In my personal opinion, every Star Trek series, excepting DS9 has done its best to try to one-up TOS in one way or another, but pretty much failed, until Disco came around. DS9 was a little better than the others, although it's treatment of TOS came across as the writers treating their TOS references as fanfiction. You come across as someone who didn't watch TOS first. Am I wrong?

 

[fireproof78]

'Classifying' things because they don't line up with continuity is a cop-out, in my opinion. If you constantly need to classify things in order for your show to make sense in relation to another show, then you might as well just say that your show takes place in a different continuity.

I can come up with other reasons. But, for me, I don't sit there and watch a show and think about how it doesn't perfectly line up with another show.

Personally, I don't care for the stupid tribbles Short Trek, so it's in its own continuity anyway for me, because I don't want it as apart of regular continuity.

 

[Dukhat]

You've provided zero evidence that Disco makes any attempt to invalidate TOS as a series. IMO, on the contrary, it validates TOS more than any other Star Trek series. TOS was the first series of Star Trek I ever watched. It remains my overall favorite having my most favorite episodes. I have enjoyed Disco immensely, and consider it the first series in the franchise which treats TOS with the respect I believe it deserves. In my personal opinion, every Star Trek series, excepting DS9 has done its best to try to one-up TOS in one way or another, but pretty much failed, until Disco came around. DS9 was a little better than the others, although it's treatment of TOS came across as the writers treating their TOS references as fanfiction. You come across as someone who didn't watch TOS first. Am I wrong?

As you told me earlier, that's your opinion. I look at DSC and I look at TOS, and I find little to connect the two as prequel and sequel. When I look at DSC as its own thing (or an alternate universe), it works for me just fine. You can believe what you want.

And, BTW, I've been watching Star Trek since the '70's, and I've watched every single episode of TOS about a million times and every single Trek show after it, with the exception of the 3rd season of ENT which I plan to binge stream soon.

 

[Alan Roi]

As you told me earlier, that's your opinion. I look at DSC and I look at TOS, and I find little to connect to two as prequel and sequel. When I look at DSC as its own thing (or an alternate universe), it works for me just fine. You can believe what you want.

I find it interesting that you decided to ignore all my arguments. You're opinion is yours as well, but I will continue to assert that there are other opinions just as valid, because they are. IMO, Discovery has enriched TOS in many ways, without trying to muscle TOS out of the picture like TNG did, VOY did and especially ENT attempted to. But I have 40+ years of looking at how Trek has evolved through not just TV and Film, but comics, novels, stage shows etc, so maybe I just approach Disco with a more open mind than some folks.

 

[Dukhat]

IMO, Discovery has enriched TOS in many ways, without trying to muscle TOS out of the picture like TNG did, VOY did and especially ENT attempted to.

Where you see enrichment, I see invalidation. And since we aren't going to see eye to eye about it, I'm going to drop it.

 

[Lord Garth]

TOS is usually a good-to-great show to watch and often a lot of fun, but not something I think that should be treated like Holy Scripture since it was never intended to be. TNG is an okay show but not something that I think every other Star Trek series should be like. Just my take on those first two series and how I think what's come afterwards should -- or more accurately shouldn't -- treat them.

 

[Alan Roi]

No, it wasn't our 1990s; Rain Robinson had a DY-100 model and photo in her office (you know, that ship Khan used to escape Earth after the Eugenics Wars?). While the war wasn't mentioned, the show was set after it ended and there wasn't anything to directly contradict it having ended last Christmas. So, while the filmmakers didn't mention it make it feel more like the present day then an alt-timeline, it does slot into place.

If a model and a photo is good enough for you then that's fine, and not worth arguing over. Obviously that was enough for many people.

 

[WebLurker]

If a model and a photo is good enough for you then that's fine, and not worth arguing over. Obviously that was enough for many people.

Okay.

I like that line of thinking; "it's fine if other people were okay with such and such for such and such reasons." While I think there can be interesting discussions on topics on this (e.g. reasons why or why not the model would be enough vs. more impactful elements), it seems like it's really easy to miss sight that it's not a debate and try to "win" the case for the position we hold. Wish that online fan forums had more "that's fine, and not worth arguing overs" in them.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Which makes Star Trek future history behave a whole lot like real history. Isn't the Federation and its copious worlds, dozens of species, hundreds of years of history vast enough to contain a few contradictions open to new interpretations and new information?

I was going to add something like this, because I kind of agree, but I feel Star trek is different. I mean Star Trek has a lot worlds, and aliens. A lot of stuff to work with. But onscreen, it doesn't really do much with it.

Star Trek's back grounds is often vague. It's not detailed. We almost never see earth and humans and how they actually interact in a normal setting. We just see smiling people in a background most of the time.

For example, it's really vague about the money thing, so we don't really see how human economics work--because one moment they vaguely seem to be working for dough, the next a character says humans don't use or earn money.

You never see scenes where humans are asked how they feel about not using money and if bothers them, because the subject is never brought up or shown.

The Eugenics wars, WW3 is all one and the same or separate with different dates and numbers etc. It's kind of a mess. Just look at that Voyager 90's time travel episode.

As of today, the WW3/Eugenics canon still hasn't been cleared up, so if you wiki it, you still get the conflicting statements and dates.

So, one of the things that impressed me about Game of Thrones and Star Wars, is that their backstory and history is extremely detailed. Names, dates, places, visual examples. The Mad King, the uprising, is a detailed account with a fixed date that the characters on the show frequently refer to.

A lot of it never even makes it onscreen, but it adds a lot to the legend and entertainment of the franchise.

 

[Alan Roi]

I was going to add something like this, because I kind of agree, but I feel Star trek is different. I mean Star Trek has a lot worlds, and aliens. A lot of stuff to work with. But onscreen, it doesn't really do much with it.

Star Trek's back grounds is often vague. It's not detailed. We almost never see earth and humans and how they actually interact in a normal setting. We just see smiling people in a background most of the time.

For example, it's really vague about the money thing, so we don't really see how human economics work--because one moment they vaguely seem to be working for dough, the next a character says humans don't use or earn money.

You never see scenes where humans are asked how they feel about not using money and if bothers them, because the subject is never brought up or shown.

The Eugenics wars, WW3 is all one and the same or separate with different dates and numbers etc. It's kind of a mess. Just look at that Voyager 90's time travel episode.

As of today, the WW3/Eugenics canon still hasn't been cleared up, so if you wiki it, you still get the conflicting statements and dates.

So, one of the things that impressed me about Game of Thrones and Star Wars, is that their backstory and history is extremely detailed. Names, dates, places, visual examples. The Mad King, the uprising, is a detailed account with a fixed date that the characters on the show frequently refer to.

A lot of it never even makes it onscreen, but it adds a lot to the legend and entertainment of the franchise.

IMO, there is a big difference between Star Trek and Star Wars/GoT. Star Trek is a fictionalized view of our future. And as time goes by, our view of what the future looks like changes. Star Wars/GoT take place in completely fictional settings. They are static creations that don't need to change because there is nothing pushing them along as one finds with Star Trek. I personally find my entertainment value in what is on the screen before me. Extraneous background material is just that where it comes to a TV series, IMO.

 

[Nightdiamond]

IMO, there is a big difference between Star Trek and Star Wars/GoT. Star Trek is a fictionalized view of our future. And as time goes by, our view of what the future looks like changes. Star Wars/GoT take place in completely fictional settings. They are static creations that don't need to change because there is nothing pushing them along as one finds with Star Trek. I personally find my entertainment value in what is on the screen before me. Extraneous background material is just that where it comes to a TV series, IMO.

I get what you're saying, plus GOT/SW world building flows backward instead of forward like Star Trek.

But it's also more than just history, it's about actual events in the canon line. Like the money thing. As far as universe building, it's very vague.

They could just show humans using a replicator and having the subject of whether they pay for this or it's free come up, but it never does.

Instead, people just order what they want from them. No explanation. A character says money is obsolete. Another gives a vague reference to paying for something. You see others apparently working for a living. But another steps in and vaguely says humans don't use money anymore. And then you see another committing crime to earn money.

So it's all vague and weird looking. One minute money disappears, the next it reappears. Poor world building, IMO.

Whereas a more stable world building example would say, for example, replicators give you what you want, but you still have to pay for it. So now you have a solid background that explains why humans still work and even commit things like crime, when they have replicators.

It's pretty much the same with social topics, how humans view history, religion etc. It's all vague and rarely talked about, at least until now.

 

[The Old Mixer]

You never see scenes where humans are asked how they feel about not using money and if bothers them, because the subject is never brought up or shown.

To be fair, however the "no money" thing works, if that was the system they were brought up in, then why would they be bothered by it? Money as we know it would be alien to them.

Oh, damn.

 

[Nightdiamond]

To be fair, however the "no money" thing works, if that was the system they were brought up in, then why would they be bothered by it? Money as we know it would be alien to them.

Oh, damn.
View attachment 11929

I probably put it the wrong way. I'm just very curious to see this in action on earth, which they just don't show.

Like how does it work, who pays for it etc.

It can be lot of other things too, like social concepts, religion and such, but the money thing was good example.

Like I said, money disappears and then reappears depending on who says it. That's a bit of weak world building.

 

[DaveyNY]

I've kinda-sorta thought of it this way...

In Trek all of life's basic necessities are free of charge, most likely by that time through the use of Replication Technology in some manner.
This would include Food, Shelter, Medical Services, and Education.

Any nonessential activities or endeavors would be pursued through some sort of barter system including but not limited to the use of Credits, Gold Pressed Latinum and/or ones Inherent Talents.

Thus any and all descriptions we have been given up to this point, are correct.

("... from a certain point of view ...")

 

[fireproof78]

I've kinda-sorta thought of it this way...

In Trek all of life's basic necessities are free of charge, most likely by that time through the use of Replication Technology in some manner.
This would include Food, Shelter, Medical Services, and Education.

Any nonessential activities or endeavors would be pursued through some sort of barter system including but not limited to the use of Credits, Gold Pressed Latinum and/or ones Inherent Talents.

Thus any and all descriptions we have been given up to this point, are correct.

("... from a certain point of view ...")

Well, that settles that. I suggest we never speak of this again.

 

[serabine]

I probably put it the wrong way. I'm just very curious to see this in action on earth, which they just don't show.

Like how does it work, who pays for it etc.

I always wondered how the no money thing worked with Grandpa Sisko's restaurant (I think he had servers/help?), or the servers in Ten Forward. Is it a form of barter? You travel on a star ship in exchange for service? Which wouldn't make sense for Ten-Forward, I think, since given the kinds of missions the Enterprise gets, very often the most you'd be treated to are vistas of occasional nebulas on deep space missions, staring from the windows at contested planets in need of diplomatic intervention, or planets that are to be explored but inhospitable, a lot of streaking stars from warp flight, and the occasional mortal terror of failing ship systems and space battles. Doesn't really seem worth it.

 

[DaveyNY]

Perhaps Star Fleet has its own NOS B650 rating for its Starship Crews?

https://www.navycs.com/navy-jobs/culinary-specialist.html