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

[Alan Roi]

Then don’t feature them in behind-the-scenes coverage either and stick to rotating personnel, which doesn’t mean one couldn’t introduce brand-new characters with other functions on the ship or elsewhere (eg. an S2 captain other than Pike). But TOS also truly focused only on Kirk, Spock and McCoy (though the other characters had much greater roles) so it’s not that conservative.



The problem is you can only do that to a point while claiming in official timelines that the continuity is the same (hence the eyebrows raised on Mudd’s violent portayal), and even with a reboot the question is what is gained by using a legacy character. Is the show saying something new that entirely makes sense in context, is there a story-driven need to do that as opposed to merely using the character as a named audience hook?

Not sure why you are so obsessed with behind the scenes coverage. It sounds like that's all you watch, since the show has introduced a number of brand new characters with other functions on the ship as well. TOS focused primarily on the bridge crew, a doctor and an engineer. 3 out of the 4 follow series did the same. So continuing to follow suit is conservative. Your confusion the how's and why's of including Harry Mudd in the series further demonstrates you are more interested in the narrative around the series and franchise than what the series actually has to say about including him. I see enrichment, but then I'm all for exploring legacy characters provided they are enriched by the exploration, as that benefits the franchise as a whole..

 

[Danja]

It depends on whether they stick to an exploration of Picard with callbacks to his former crew or also manage to introduce memorable new characters that end up stealing the show.

Dahj and Elrond may well be the breakout new characters (Dahj is a enigma. Elrond may well be a young firebrand.)

Stealing the show? That honor will probably go to Seven of Nine (Again). Voyager fans the world over are chomping at the bit just to see HER.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Not sure why you are so obsessed with behind the scenes coverage. It sounds like that's all you watch, since the show has introduced a number of brand new characters with other functions on the ship as well. TOS focused primarily on the bridge crew, a doctor and an engineer. 3 out of the 4 follow series did the same. So continuing to follow suit is conservative. Your confusion the how's and why's of including Harry Mudd in the series further demonstrates you are more interested in the narrative around the series and franchise than what the series actually has to say about including him. I see enrichment, but then I'm all for exploring legacy characters provided they are enriched by the exploration, as that benefits the franchise as a whole..

I don’t actually follow that much behind-the-scenes coverage, but from what I have seen the bridge crew appears in traditional cast photos but has barely something to do onscreen, and there is a definite difference between TOS and the series that followed in that the latter had true ensemble casts, not just the big three.

I’m not sure what you mean by confusion: in TOS, Mudd is an utterly amoral con-man, whereas on DSC he is a murderer hell-bent on revenge. There is a difference. You see enrichment where I see reimagining and modernization better suited to a reboot, not to this kind of “is it, isn’t it, how exactly is it part of the same continuity?” I mean S2 ended with the clumsiest of unnecessary “we won’t talk about it” writing band-aids. That’s not enrichment, it’s fits and starts and feeling out the franchise in the dark.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I don’t actually follow that much behind-the-scenes coverage, but from what I have seen the bridge crew appears in traditional cast photos but has barely something to do onscreen, and there is a definite difference between TOS and the series that followed in that the latter had true ensemble casts, not just the big three.

I’m not sure what you mean by confusion: in TOS, Mudd is an utterly amoral con-man, whereas on DSC he is a murderer hell-bent on revenge. There is a difference. You see enrichment where I see reimagining and modernization better suited to a reboot, not to this kind of “is it, isn’t it, how exactly is it part of the same continuity?” I mean S2 ended with the clumsiest of unnecessary “we won’t talk about it” writing band-aids. That’s not enrichment, it’s fits and starts and feeling out the franchise in the dark.

Mudd was just as willing to kill people on TOS as he was on DSC. To say otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand the plot of Mudd's Women. (He also never actually killed anyone on DSC, btw, unless there was maybe a Klingon guard or something in his first appearance that I've forgotten. When push came to shove and he knew for a fact he'd won and gained control of the ship and there would be no more time loops, he clearly chose not to kill anyone.)

It's not a re-imagining at all. At most, a reassessment of what was already there. A more open acknowledgement that this character was always incredibly disturbed beneath the jolly 'harmless' veneer.

 

[Alan Roi]

Mudd was just as willing to kill people on TOS as he was on DSC. To say otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand the plot of Mudd's Women. (He also never actually killed anyone on DSC, btw, unless there was maybe a Klingon guard or something in his first appearance that I've forgotten. When push came to shove and he knew for a fact he'd won and gained control of the ship and there would be no more time loops, he clearly chose not to kill anyone.)

It's not a re-imagining at all. At most, a reassessment of what was already there. A more open acknowledgement that this character was always incredibly disturbed beneath the jolly 'harmless' veneer.

We also know from TOS that Harry undergoes criminal psychiatric treatment between his appearance on Disco and TOS. And we've been provided enough examples to show us that in this era such treatment can include behavior and personality modification to some pretty scary degrees.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Mudd was just as willing to kill people on TOS as he was on DSC. To say otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand the plot of Mudd's Women.

I’m not sure what you’re thinking of regarding “Mudd’s Women”, but on DSC he was quite willing to kill openly and directly even if we accept that it was on the theory that time reset would be 100% available. Yes, Mudd was always disturbed, but now he is psychotic. That’s a reimagined, modernized take on a legacy character, not an easy-to-reconcile prequel to what had been established. Why do that rather than create a different character?

We also know from TOS that Harry undergoes criminal psychiatric treatment between his appearance on Disco and TOS. And we've been provided enough examples to show us that in this era such treatment can include behavior and personality modification to some pretty scary degrees.

And all that so that DSC can include Mudd and get away with it. Sure, almost everything can be rationalized, but DSC is about going to extremes, then slapping on band-aids, as if it would rather be a reboot but is frustrated that it can’t, hence the time jump to the 32nd century.

Why bother with any of that rather than say the year is 2396 and create a show that would fail unless it manages to create new, memorable characters, rather than fall back to legacy with a twist of the day?

 

[Alan Roi]

And all that so that DSC can include Mudd and get away with it. Sure, almost everything can be rationalized, but DSC is about going to extremes, then slapping on band-aids, as if it would rather be a reboot but is frustrated that it can’t, hence the time jump to the 32nd century.

Why bother with any of that rather than say the year is 2396 and create a show that would fail unless it manages to create new, memorable characters, rather than fall back to legacy with a twist of the day?

Why insist that only one way, the way you assert, is the only right way where it comes to art? Disco has offered a deconstruction and enrichment of the franchise in its interpretation of the franchise, IMO. Deconstruction and interpretation have been seen as valid art for thousands of years. I will agree that some of the appeasement to fans who cannot handle any kind of reinterpretation of Star Trek has been clumsy at times, but to assert that the only way to approach Trek is to follow the Berman timeline without deviation is to demand the franchise be handcuffed creatively.

I personally like what CBS is doing by providing us Trek in innovative forms and across multiple time periods, from pre-TOS to 2399 to the distant future. Offers a great variety in exploring the franchise's universe and the Federation, in a lot of different ways.

FYI, I'd avoid relying on marketing for your vision of what anything is supposed to be, as you appear to do with cast photos. Insisting that a work of art be judged by how it's marketed is a bit silly, IMO. Its a part of that whole, 'judging a book by its cover' warning.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

I only mentioned cast photos in reference to how the bridge crew hasn’t been used much, but a book and its cover are usually determined by the same publisher. I’m not sure how anyone would be handcuffed by four quadrants and the entire universe in the year 2396 (and even other years if one is willing to accept them as established). If anything it encourages exploration of the new rather than reimagining of an audience-drawing legacy. The core is always “we can’t wait to see more of X”, and maybe there’ll be something new as well, but then again perhaps not and then at least there was fan service.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Actually that's The Orville's appeal.

Well now there's two of them

 

[fireproof78]

No matter the era there will be expectations of fan service. Putting it further in the future doesn't change that.

 

[Alan Roi]

I only mentioned cast photos in reference to how the bridge crew hasn’t been used much, but a book and its cover are usually determined by the same publisher. I’m not sure how anyone would be handcuffed by four quadrants and the entire universe in the year 2396 (and even other years if one is willing to accept them as established). If anything it encourages exploration of the new rather than reimagining of an audience-drawing legacy. The core is always “we can’t wait to see more of X”, and maybe there’ll be something new as well, but then again perhaps not and then at least there was fan service.

Given how creatively stifled the 24th century shows turned out to be for the most part, I think handcuffed an accurate term where it comes to strictly adhering to that era's Utopian sensibilities.

 

[Alan Roi]

Well now there's two of them

Patrick Stewart doesn't seem to think so, but what does he know. And given the dearth of beige sets, and the cast wearing color coded uniforms and claims that each episode won't be wrapped up in a bow after 45 minutes those imagining Picard will be season 8 of TNG are likely to fined their nostalgic fantasies unstimulated.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Given how creatively stifled the 24th century shows turned out to be for the most part, I think handcuffed an accurate term where it comes to strictly adhering to that era's Utopian sensibilities.

Except they didn’t: DS9 questioned them in a number of episodes, alleging it’s more an ideology than anything, and who is to say that twenty years later that entire construct wouldn’t have weakened even further? How do people really think, beyond the veneer of Picard’s speeches? What happens if someone would like to start a major business? They’d just never want to? Ever? What is the model underlying Sisko’s father’s restaurant? All that would be quite interesting to explore in the hands of someone taking greater risks than Berman was willing to, and all while remaining entirely consistent with what has been established so far.

 

[Alan Roi]

Except they didn’t: DS9 questioned them in a number of episodes, alleging it’s more an ideology than anything, and who is to say that twenty years later that entire construct wouldn’t have weakened even further? How do people really think, beyond the veneer of Picard’s speeches? What happens if someone would like to start a major business? They’d just never want to? Ever? What is the model underlying Sisko’s father’s restaurant? All that would be quite interesting to explore in the hands of someone taking greater risks than Berman was willing to, and all while remaining entirely consistent with what has been established so far.

A series of: Is the Federation's Utopia really the bestest of Utopias? How much more Utopian could it be? How can we correct any flaws so it's an even better Utopia. I don't see a whole lot of compelling stories there, but maybe that's just me.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Patrick Stewart doesn't seem to think so, but what does he know. And given the dearth of beige sets, and the cast wearing color coded uniforms and claims that each episode won't be wrapped up in a bow after 45 minutes those imagining Picard will be season 8 of TNG are likely to fined their nostalgic fantasies unstimulated.

The Orville is remember those 90's Trek stories? whereas Picard is remember those 90's Trek characters?

 

[Boris Skrbic]

A series of: Is the Federation's Utopia really the bestest of Utopias? How much more Utopian could it be? How can we correct any flaws so it's an even better Utopia. I don't see a whole lot of compelling stories there, but maybe that's just me.

You wouldn’t want to see, I don’t know, what it means to grow up in that environment, go to high school and college followed by a civilian job? How exactly do people avoid desire for more than can be replicated? If they can’t, do they move outside the Federation? Are there such places that aren’t necessarily Ferenginar? How do they interact with the Federation and other governments? What about Federation colonies? You could have different seasons for different stages in someone’s lifetime, moving across the quadrants as required.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I’m not sure what you’re thinking of regarding “Mudd’s Women”, but on DSC he was quite willing to kill openly and directly even if we accept that it was on the theory that time reset would be 100% available. Yes, Mudd was always disturbed, but now he is psychotic. That’s a reimagined, modernized take on a legacy character, not an easy-to-reconcile prequel to what had been established. Why do that rather than create a different character?

Right off the bat, Mudd was 100% happy for the Enterprise to be destroyed with all hands if it gave him what he wanted. He was always psychotic - some people have just been too happy to look past who he really was because the actor played him like a classic stage buffoon.

I only mentioned cast photos in reference to how the bridge crew hasn’t been used much, but a book and its cover are usually determined by the same publisher. I’m not sure how anyone would be handcuffed by four quadrants and the entire universe in the year 2396 (and even other years if one is willing to accept them as established). If anything it encourages exploration of the new rather than reimagining of an audience-drawing legacy. The core is always “we can’t wait to see more of X”, and maybe there’ll be something new as well, but then again perhaps not and then at least there was fan service.

Like the anti-Legacy Hero fanatics on some Superhero boards I frequent, you're wildly conflating story, character and style. The truth is that your 'encouraging exploration of the new' is flagrant nonsense. TNG, VOY and ENT were all built from the ground up to 'explore new characters and settings' and they were all VASTLY more derivative of TOS (or in the latter cases, TNG) than DSC has been, despite having fewer returning characters. They took entire episodes and just sanded off the serial numbers multiple times. They took old popular characters and built new popular characters that were very obviously inspired by the old ones. They built such rigid expectations into their casts (directly built on TOS with just a bit of TNG expansion) that an entire generation of Trekkies came away from that era with the built-in expectation that *every* Trek 'must' have this specific set of officers, 'must' have this specific kind of outsider/alien character or else it's not 'real' Trek.

There is absolutely no 'safeguard' you can build in to the concept of a new trek show that will stop the writers from stealing/homaging/reimagining what came before. It's part of their process, it's part of CBS's business model and it's part of the fan expectations. It *will* happen regularly, no matter what century a show exists in nor what characters the show is or isn't allowed to use.

And there is absolutely no reason why the use of legacy characters need ever automatically be seen as a guarantee that what you're watching is not going to be anything more than fanservice. Pike and Spock had good stories in DSC - much better ones than most of the 90s homages and much better than many of the undisputedly original storylines from the 90s. Good stories are good stories whether they use legacy characters or new characters. Bad stories are also bad stories whether they use legacy characters or new characters. But most importantly derivative stories are derivative stories, whether they use legacy or new characters. Building new characters that are blatantly inspired by previous ones or telling the same set of stories all over again just with different characters is not one ounce less derivative than just bringing back new versions of those original characters instead.

 

[Alan Roi]

You wouldn’t want to see, I don’t know, what it means to grow up in that environment, go to high school and college followed by a civilian job? How exactly do people avoid desire for more than can be replicated? If they can’t, do they move outside the Federation? Are there such places that aren’t necessarily Ferenginar? How do they interact with the Federation and other governments? What about Federation colonies? You could have different seasons for different stages in someone’s lifetime, moving across the quadrants as required.

No, I don't watch Star Trek for documentaries on how wonderful a Utopia the 24th century is.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Right off the bat, Mudd was 100% happy for the Enterprise to be destroyed with all hands if it gave him what he wanted. He was always psychotic - some people have just been too happy to look past who he really was because the actor played him like a classic stage buffoon.

I’m still not sure what you mean. At most he went so far as to create a situation where Kirk would be compelled to accede to his demands. It’s not like Kirk would’ve risked the ship had he not resolved the lithium situation as he did.

Also, how about you don’t take this so seriously that you would compare people to fanatics just because they want iterations of ST to outgrow their legacy by leaps and bounds, CBS’s business model notwithstanding? I’m not asking for FTL here, just groundbreaking, award-winning television.

VGR had many episodes that were derivative of TNG, sure, but that was their failing. I didn’t see anything in TOS like the Maquis, the Ferengi, let alone the Borg (!). Data isn’t Spock and neither is Odo, despite a definite sense (unjustified IMO) that there had to be an outsider type of character. It is possible to add to the legacy rather than go for Interpretation 43 of Element 32, and TNG was only the first step. DS9 was the next as it established that ST need not be set on a starship. What comes after?

The whole point to being a fan is not to settle for what seems to be on the menu, but rather to look at competitive television and ask oneself what is blocking ST and what can be done to move beyond the chequered iterations created so far. What has the franchise done right and what can be done better? I see a lot of pessimism for the notion that good writers can expand the universe, despite the fact that they did even though the Bermanverse was eventually run into the ground. How else would we have PIC and not just DSC? Entirely different storytelling models are possible even as they still take the viewers on a metaphorical or literal “star trek”. One just has to be willing to work without a net, and there is definite and troubling safety in legacy despite the fact that one could still mine certain elements.

It’s Star Trek. There are four quadrants and the entire universe beyond. There is Starfleet and there are civilians. There are planets we haven’t seen with totally different social models.

No, I don't watch Star Trek for documentaries on how wonderful a Utopia the 24th century is.

And that is all you got out of my description, even though I did ask what happens if someone doesn’t agree with its principles and would like to, I don’t know, own an uninhabited planet? Or at least a large property on it? Or a business? There are questions that could be examined in far more detail than the TNG era was allowed to. How did the “utopia” come to be? How exactly did humanity move from here to there? It’s SF, not fantasy, so there had to be a rational process.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I’m still not sure what you mean. At most he went so far as to create a situation where Kirk would be compelled to accede to his demands. It’s not like Kirk would’ve risked the ship had he not resolved the lithium situation as he did.

The ship was at risk. The episode literally says 'ship's condition critical' and if the magnetic storms hadn't let up they wouldn't have been able to contact/find Childress at the end at all.

Also, how about you don’t take this so seriously that you would compare people to fanatics just because they want iterations of ST to outgrow their legacy by leaps and bounds, CBS’s business model notwithstanding? I’m not asking for FTL here, just groundbreaking, award-winning television.

The word fan itself literally comes from fanatic and I was comparing you to similarly legacy hating fans on a Superhero board, not al Qaeda. I think you're the one taking that bit too seriously.

VGR had many episodes that were derivative of TNG, sure, but that was their failing. I didn’t see anything in TOS like the Maquis, the Ferengi, let alone the Borg (!). Data isn’t Spock and neither is Odo, despite a definite sense (unjustified IMO) that there had to be an outsider type of character. It is possible to add to the legacy rather than go for Interpretation 43 of Element 32, and TNG was only the first step. DS9 was the next as it established that ST need not be set on a starship. What comes after?

TNG had many, many things that were clearly derivative of TOS. It also had some things that weren't. It did last four years longer, after all. It was still more derivative of TOS in style, story and character than DSC is of any previous Trek. And the difference between Data and Spock is barely more than the difference between Nimoy and Peck. I guarantee if TNG had been created without the Star Trek brand name, Data would not exist because he'd've been considered too obviously based on Spock.

The whole point to being a fan is not to settle for what seems to be on the menu, but rather to look at competitive television and ask oneself what is blocking ST and what can be done to move beyond the chequered iterations created so far. What has the franchise done right and what can be done better? I see a lot of pessimism for the notion that good writers can expand the universe, despite the fact that they did even though the Bermanverse was eventually run into the ground. How else would we have PIC and not just DSC?

No, it isn't. The point of being a fan is to enjoy the show and have fun with the world however you like. And no one has said anything about it being impossible to expand the universe. Every Trek in existence has expanded the universe, including DSC (and even TAS).

Entirely different storytelling models are possible even as they still take the viewers on a metaphorical or literal “star trek”. One just has to be willing to work without a net, and there is definite and troubling safety in legacy despite the fact that one could still mine certain elements.

It’s Star Trek. There are four quadrants and the entire universe beyond. There is Starfleet and there are civilians. There are planets we haven’t seen with totally different social models.

We're not the ones claiming that our preferences are the only 'right' way to make a franchise. I agree innovation can and should (and does) exist *alongside* legacy. There are always possibilities for different ideas and characters. What's nonsense is your claim that legacy gets in the way of that and should be eliminated for the good of innovation. Every Trek has used legacy elements prodigiously and the two series with the most direct legacy elements are DSC and DS9 (Miles, Cardassians, Maquis, Worf, TNG style Klingons, Ferengi, Bajorans) - both of which are unquestionably the *least* derivative of all the spin-offs.

Also, this idea that legacy elements are bad because they're a 'safety net' has always struck me as a ridiculous internet myth. Recasting Spock isn't 'safe'. It's a fandom minefield almost guaranteed to piss someone off. Just look at the amount of hate DSC gets from certain quarters purely for daring to use Spock at all and tell me again how they just did it for 'safety'.