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

[fireproof78]

What problems would have it created?

Not referencing past events, ignoring aliens, or the one that is currently facing them down-"How dare they make the Federation evil!" Or the other possibility- "How dare they say the Federation has collapsed!"

And that's just off the top of my head. The one consistency I have seen in genre fandom since 2000 is a knee jerk reaction towards the negative with anything new.

 

[Danja]

There's no pleasing the fandom:

"Voyager sux! Voyager rules!"
"Seven of Nine sux! We want Kes back! Seven rules!"
"Why isn't Picard more like TNG?"

And on ... and on ... and on.

TPTB might as well be herding cats.

 

[serabine]

Is quietly sitting in the corner not caring a whit about relative ship sizes.

 

[DaveyNY]

There's no pleasing the fandom:

"Voyager sux! Voyager rules!"
"Seven of Nine sux! We want Kes back! Seven rules!"
"Why isn't Picard more like TNG?"

And on ... and on ... and on.

TPTB might as well be herding cats.

<=== NOT a Pussy.
WOOF!!!

 

[Lord Garth]

There's no pleasing the fandom:

"Voyager sux! Voyager rules!"
"Seven of Nine sux! We want Kes back! Seven rules!"
"Why isn't Picard more like TNG?"

And on ... and on ... and on.

TPTB might as well be herding cats.

Yup. You didn't miss much. Just change the name of the series.

 

[WebLurker]

Obligatory repost of the recent Eaglemoss tech book depicting both versions of the Enterprise at their different sizes like it's nothing at all

A.) The book isn't canon, B.) we're missing the TOS pilot version, and C.) how can the larger Enterprise be refitted into the smaller version?

 

[The Overlord]

I think canon should be a tool in a tool box, rather then some revered holy text that has to obeyed at all times.

Star Trek is over 50 years old, contradictions to canon are inevitable and I pretty sure you can find a lot of them existing with a little effort.

I am not saying throwaway canon and do whatever, but canon should serve the story not the other way around. I do not think the writers should throwaway a good script if it contradicts a plot point from an episode from 1988.

 

[fireproof78]

I think canon should be a tool in a tool box, rather then some revered holy text that has to obeyed at all times.

Sadly, that shipped went to warp long ago.

 

[The Overlord]

Sadly, that shipped went to warp long ago.

That's a shame. I always pick good stories over everything else, I like contuinity just fine, but I would never choose contuinity porn over good stories.

And ultimately fans care way more this stuff way more the the writers do. Because treating canon as sacred text does not always yield the best results in the writing process.

 

[fireproof78]

That's a shame. I always pick good stories over everything else, I like contuinity just fine, but I would never choose contuinity porn over good stories.

And ultimately fans care way more this stuff way more the the writers do. Because treating canon as sacred text does not always yield the best results in the writing process.

It is sad, but it is there. Fans seem to expect writers and producers to care at the same level as fans do. The result is often very frustrating.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

A.) The book isn't canon, B.) we're missing the TOS pilot version, and C.) how can the larger Enterprise be refitted into the smaller version?

It wouldn’t be. If you imagine DSC’s flash-forward to Kirk’s time (with recasting and everything, not via legacy footage), you can easily see they’d bring their 442m model a bit closer to the TOS look, but that would be it. If you then imagine a flash-forward to TMP time, maybe the model would now be 450m long with the flat nacelles, but still in-continuity with DSC (a soft reboot for the big screen wouldn’t exist in DiscoVision). The Enterprise-B might then be 600m long and so forth. Keep imagining forward and you can see an entire design lineage that has nothing to do with this Eaglemoss depiction.

I’d have fixed that chart by a) excluding the DSC Enterprise design b) writing a lot more about it so DSC didn’t feel left out. The reader could then imagine a tossified version of that intermediate stage (= something close to what we see in “The Cage”) without the publication committing to that as the official line. The book would’ve simply made sure the chart looked right, and that would’ve been enough for the time being.

 

[DaveyNY]

At this point I just want Them to retcon the TOS Enterprise to be bigger and settle the question once and for all.

 

[Tuskin38]

At this point I just want Them to retcon the TOS Enterprise to be bigger and settle the question once and for all.

The TOS Enterprise doesn't have a canon size to retcon. Any size given would be the first time.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

At this point I just want Them to retcon the TOS Enterprise to be bigger and settle the question once and for all.

That wouldn’t help the chart since the TMP ship would still cause a dip at 305m, and then you’d have the B at almost the same size (467m or slightly more), whereas the unwritten rule is to make every subsequent design just a bit longer than the one before. Besides, it’s not just a size issue as the architecture was reimagined for DSC, not simply changed with pieces added or subtracted. It’s just DiscoVision; the designers never wanted anyone to apply pretzel logic here.

 

[WebLurker]

It wouldn’t be. If you imagine DSC’s flash-forward to Kirk’s time (with recasting and everything, not via legacy footage), you can easily see they’d bring their 442m model a bit closer to the TOS look, but that would be it. If you then imagine a flash-forward to TMP time, maybe the model would now be 450m long with the flat nacelles, but still in-continuity with DSC (a soft reboot for the big screen wouldn’t exist in DiscoVision). The Enterprise-B might then be 600m long and so forth. Keep imagining forward and you can see an entire design lineage that has nothing to do with this Eaglemoss depiction.

So, just take it all as artistic license? Personally, I prefer @DaveyNY 's idea that the Enterprise is just larger then we originally though. Or, as @Tuskin38 noted, it's never had a fixed size, so who's to really say that the ships were different sizes.

I’d have fixed that chart by a) excluding the DSC Enterprise design b) writing a lot more about it so DSC didn’t feel left out. The reader could then imagine a tossified version of that intermediate stage (= something close to what we see in “The Cage”) without the publication committing to that as the official line. The book would’ve simply made sure the chart looked right, and that would’ve been enough for the time being.

I think having the DSC version was good (it's a notable version of the ship and the book is made for viewers), just that the different scales make no sense. All things considered, I wonder if a non-fiction book would've worked better, given the plot holes involved.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Personally, I prefer @DaveyNY 's idea that the Enterprise is just larger then we originally though. Or, as @Tuskin38 noted, it's never had a fixed size, so who's to really say that the ships were different sizes.

There is no need for that since the size is not enough. You’d also have to imagine that the ship is a Transformer, perhaps starting in Disco style in 2245, moving on to Short Treks, then briefly jumping into something tossier for “The Cage”, then back to Disco style in time for DSC S2, then back into something still tossier for “Where No Man Has Gone Before” and finally staying that way (with upgrades). Is that the way DSC would’ve done it? Of course not: if they had to actually remake those events, there would’ve been no “stylized daydream” footage from the first pilot, and if they had to flash-forward, same thing.

It’s just a different vision which shouldn’t be put right next to the original without hiding any seams.

I think having the DSC version was good (it's a notable version of the ship and the book is made for viewers), just that the different scales make no sense.

(BTW, I wrote the quote this replies to, not Gamiel.) As noted elsewhere, I’d welcome an inverse version of the book delving into Disco style without depicting the rest right next to it, though it could be referenced in text. Without more canon or official input, there is no reason to say anything about discontinuities, just make them look good.

 

[WebLurker]

There is no need for that since the size is not enough. You’d also have to imagine that the ship is a Transformer, perhaps starting in Disco style in 2245, moving on to Short Treks, then briefly jumping into something tossier for “The Cage”, then back to Disco style in time for DSC S2, then back into something still tossier for “Where No Man Has Gone Before” and finally staying that way (with upgrades).

Well, we do have a Transformer Enterprise, but that came way later. I agree that the constant shifting makes no sense (not to mention the scaling up for no real reason). You can fudge that sizes haven't been very clearly stated in canon (not to mention that scaling isn't always consistent anyways) and claim multiple refits, but that only goes so far. IMHO, short of those rationalizations, the only "real" alternatives are to either assume that the pilot version has been completely retconned and that the Enterprise "always" looked like the DSC version until post-pilot TOS (maybe even including that), or that the DSC redesign (either the pre-"Cage" ones or all of them) should be disregarded as a "typo" and it assumed that it was "always" the pilot configuration until TOS proper. As much as one of the latter might be "cleaner," I kinda prefer to go with the former and just accept that fudging is needed to make it all work; I'd rather see them all fit together somehow then be forced to exclude something.

Is that the way DSC would’ve done it? Of course not: if they had to actually remake those events, there would’ve been no “stylized daydream” footage from the first pilot, and if they had to flash-forward, same thing.

True, we saw that with them using the DSC version at all times, irregardless where it fit in to the pilots. From a practical standpoint, I understand that that's the only financially sound way it could be done (spendy to build new sets for single installments). But that still leaves us with the problem of the ship changing from year to year. This was probably always going to be a continuity Kobaishi Maru the moment it was decided to put the original Enterprise in the show (a canon-consistent recreation of the TOS version wouldn't fly with anyone outside of a small subset of the fanbase, but the positioning of DSC between the pilots meant that there was not "real" way to wedge a new design in a way that would fit the "facts"). Mileage may vary if it was worth it or if the Powers That Be should've just accepted that they couldn't both reimagine the Enterprise and keep continuity intact.

It’s just a different vision which shouldn’t be put right next to the original without hiding any seams.

But that's exactly what we have to do when going from one show to the next.

(BTW, I wrote the quote this replies to, not Gamiel.)

Whoops; cut and paste mistake.

As noted elsewhere, I’d welcome an inverse version of the book delving into Disco style without depicting the rest right next to it, though it could be referenced in text. Without more canon or official input, there is no reason to say anything about discontinuities, just make them look good.

To be totally honest, I'm not even sure how the Powers That Be see this; do they consider it a "retcon" of information from TOS or are the two designs supposed to coexist somehow?

 

[F. King Daniel]

The TOS Enterprise doesn't have a canon size to retcon. Any size given would be the first time.

But it has a size that was blueprinted deck-by-deck in extreme detail as far back as 1974, that's been used in a half-century of tie-in material and one blurry screengraphic in a TOS episode where we see the Enterprise and D7 next to each other with a little scale-establishing thingie.

Also you could argue those Enterprise evolution charts in the background of TNG and DS9 establish the size of the ship relative to the other Enterprises.

 

[Lord Garth]

Apologies for the late reply. Something hit me just now.

I think the success of The Orville may have a lot to do with Picard going forwards. TNG fans just go gaga over the series, showing that TNG is no in the realm of forgiving nostalgia.

I think that's only half of it. I think there were a lot of people looking forward to a new Star Trek series and then there were many who didn't like that it would be another prequel. "We want to go passed Nemesis!", they would exclaim. So Alex Kurtzman must've been aware of the sentiment. But that wouldn't mean he'd know what to do with it.

Then the other half kicks in. He saw the response to The Orville, then decided he'd make this Post-Nemesis series about Picard. Except Patrick Stewart didn't want to play Picard anymore. So Alex Kurtzman buttered him up and agreed to make Picard different, so Sir Patrick wouldn't feel like he was playing the same character exactly the same way again. They just used what happened last we saw and heard anything of the 24th Century as a springboard (Nemesis and the 2009 film respectively) to drive Picard into this changed direction and went from there.

Throw Michael Chabon into the mix, the writer of "Calypso" who's also a critically acclaimed author, and people already excited know they have an A-lister as the showrunner.

So they had their setting, their main character, their actor, their premise, and the main writer all locked into place. That's how I think it came together.

EDIT: I think the Borg came into the picture because that's the enemy most associated with TNG. Since the Romulans were already going to figure prominently in Picard, if they were using Nemesis and 2009 as a springboard, they probably wanted to figure out how to tie the Romulans and the Borg together.

And since the Borg are a form of artificial intelligence, they can tie that in somehow to Data. In turn, they would also have an opening to include Seven of Nine, the most popular character from Voyager. Jeri Ryan didn't want to appear in Nemesis because there was no natural connection. But in Picard, there would be.

So they started off with this one thing and as it grew and grew and grew, it all fell right into place.

 

[Danja]

And since the Borg are a form of artificial intelligence, they can tie that in somehow to Data. In turn, they would also have an opening to include Seven of Nine, the most popular character from Voyager. Jeri Ryan didn't want to appear in Nemesis because there was no natural connection. But in Picard, there would be.

Also, Seven wouldn't have known anyone from TNG during Nemesis.

It goes without saying that is now about to change.

So they started off with this one thing and as it grew and grew and grew, it all fell right into place.

It HAS taken on a life of its own.

It's now not only a sequel to Nemesis, it's also a follow-up to Voyager.