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

[Noname Given]

It has nothing to do with how I personally feel about the recap. It has to do with proving that video you posted is wrong.

Now you're just being a pedantic internet meme.

Look, Star Trek is 100% FANTASY - none of it is real, it's all made up. You're free to think and interpret things however you wish; but from the standp[oint of the current producers of Star Trek - the events in Discovery all lead to the adventures of Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, et. al. and said adventures and stories happened as depicted in the 29 TV seasons of Star Trek (including TAS); and the 10 films that encompass the TOS and TNG eras.

That the current 1701 interior and exterior visuals don't match (as yet since we're still 7 or so years from the era of Kirk taking command) ISN'T really material to the argument as that's all still in Pike's/Spock's future.

If you want to believe it's all an alternate universe/timeline, go ahead. But given the stance of the production team, the person you're replying to isn't the one who's "wrong" here.

 

[Dukhat]

Now you're just being a pedantic internet meme.

That’s pretty uncalled for.

If you want to believe it's all an alternate universe/timeline, go ahead. But given the stance of the production team, the person you're replying to isn't the one who's "wrong" here.

I never said he was wrong. He posted a video and I was replying about the video. He didn’t agree with the video either. If you had taken the time to read the entire dialogue between me and @Lord Garth instead of calling me silly names in an effort to be clever, you’d have known that.

 

[BillJ]

You're free to think and interpret things however you wish; but from the standp[oint of the current producers of Star Trek...

Isn’t the first time I’ve disagreed with the producers, likely won’t be the last.

 

[Danja]

That quote actually wasn't from Kurtzman. It was from the author of the article.

It's gotten the board talking ... so, it's all good.

 

[Lord Garth]

I think not sleeping last night (long story) has caught up with me. I don't know what to say other than we're good...

... And something about Holy Wars.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Now you're just being a pedantic internet meme.

You might wanna step back a bit from the blurry line between post and poster there.

 

[Noname Given]

That’s pretty uncalled for.

You are correct, I jumped to the wrong conclusion here - I am wrong and I do apologize.

I never said he was wrong. He posted a video and I was replying about the video. He didn’t agree with the video either. If you had taken the time to read the entire dialogue between me and @Lord Garth instead of calling me silly names in an effort to be clever, you’d have known that.

Fair enough.

 

[Dukhat]

You are correct, I jumped to the wrong conclusion here - I am wrong and I do apologize.


Fair enough.

Apology accepted. It’s all good.

 

[DaveyNY]

When I start to take the idea of canon too seriously, I like to remind myself that "Turnabout Intruder" is canon.

As well as "Spock's Brain" & "Sub Rosa".

Salt grains are a grand thing to have in massive quantities when discussing Star Trek Canon.

 

[fireproof78]

As well as "Spock's Brain".

Salt grains are a grand thing to have in massive quantities when discussing Star Trek Canon.

It's helpful in keeping salt monsters away too.

 

[DaveyNY]

It's helpful in keeping salt monsters away too.

Heh ...
Wouldn't that be more of an incentive for them to come looking specifically for you?

 

[fireproof78]

Heh ...
Wouldn't that be more of an incentive for them to come looking specifically for you?

As long as I keep giving them salt they won't kill me.

That's what Star Trek taught me

 

[DaveyNY]

As long as I keep giving them salt they won't kill me.

That's what Star Trek taught me

Ummm Yeah, cause that worked out oh so well for Professor Crater ...

 

[fireproof78]

Ummm Yeah, cause that worked out oh so well for Professor Crater ...

I didn't say it was a good lesson.

 

[Rahul]

Well... how internally consistent do you want? Every TOS era setting has been 100% consistent with the uniforms, sets, and models. Sure there are some story points that very and some sets were redesigned, but every time they went back to portray that era, they started with the originals. Every time. So in comparison, Discovery didn't even try. Kurtzman is basically admitting Discovery is a reboot. That is what you can do in a reboot, retell the original story in a different way. This directly relates to how Hollywood portrays history or adapts books. They either do it really well or really bad. Discovery is the really bad way. Sure that can result in some fantastic stories, like Braveheart, but that does't make them history, just as it doesn't mean that Discovery is really part of the older Trek canon. As far as I'm concerned, that stopped with the 2009 Kelvin universe. This interview with Kurtzman just reinforces that with me. They put their story higher than the original and I have yet to see how their story benefits from that.

I'm already liking that ramble-thread purely for that "DIS is Star Trek's 'Breaveheart'"-comparison!

 

[Lord Garth]

John Wayne westerns and Clinton Eastwood westerns both portray the Old West. They're not the same as each other, but they both depict the same time and place. And at the end of the day, neither is an accurate portrayal of the American West from 1844 to 1912. Why such specific dates? I'm going from the establishment of Oregon City (the first established US city west of the Rocky Mountains) to the admission of Arizona as a state. Those are my two cut-off points on the opposite ends. But, anyway...

I view TOS and DSC similarly to the different versions of westerns when it comes to the 23rd Century. Kind of appropriate considering that Star Trek was pitched as a "space western". And as I've said, I've been a fan for 30 years, I prefer TOS to any of the Berman Series in fact, but I have no problem accepting different versions of the same thing. As far as I'm concerned, massive visual change already happened in TMP. TMP may be set two-and-a-half years after TOS, but they changed the look of everything in that movie. Everything. Not just the Enterprise. Nothing changes so completely in two-and-a-half years. Nothing. DSC didn't change things nearly as much as TMP did. So to give TMP a pass but not DSC is a little hypocritical in my opinion.

"But that's different!", someone will say. Is it really? That's where I'm going to cut them off at the pass. Why did they upgrade the visuals, I ask? "Because they needed to make it look better for the Big Screen." Ah-ha. And guess what both Discovery and Picard are doing? Trying to look more like something meant for the Big Screen. TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT never did that. They looked like good television but they weren't aiming to look like movies. That's the difference. DSC and PIC are taking a different approach because they have a different aim. They want to look more cinematic.

 

[fireproof78]

So to give TMP a pass but not DSC is a little hypocritical in my opinion.

Same here.

 

[Dukhat]

To be fair, there were only three major things that changed from TOS to TMP: The look of the Enterprise (which was explained in the film), the look of the Klingons (which wasn’t) and the uniforms (which are just clothing and not an unheard-of type of change for Star Trek.)

We never saw Earth in TOS, never saw any other starships other than the TOS Connie, never saw the bridge of a Klingon ship, and never saw any space stations other than the deep space K-7 type. So other than the absence of primary colors and the addition of a lobster tail on the Klingons’ foreheads, there wasn’t much change.

 

[fireproof78]

I would say that Kirk feels like a much different person than TOS Kirk, and much more of a jerk. I would say the TMP changes to the Enterprise are far more drastic and even the refit explanation is not sufficient for me.

TMP feels very lifeless and lack of adventuring spirit to me, at least in the beginning. The last third is OK, but it is a completely different feel and characters than to TOS. Much more difficult to accept for me.

 

[STEPhon IT]

John Wayne westerns and Clinton Eastwood westerns both portray the Old West. They're not the same as each other, but they both depict the same time and place. And at the end of the day, neither is an accurate portrayal of the American West from 1844 to 1912. Why such specific dates? I'm going from the establishment of Oregon City (the first established US city west of the Rocky Mountains) to the admission of Arizona as a state. Those are my two cut-off points on the opposite ends. But, anyway...

I view TOS and DSC similarly to the different versions of westerns when it comes to the 23rd Century. Kind of appropriate considering that Star Trek was pitched as a "space western". And as I've said, I've been a fan for 30 years, I prefer TOS to any of the Berman Series in fact, but I have no problem accepting different versions of the same thing. As far as I'm concerned, massive visual change already happened in TMP. TMP may be set two-and-a-half years after TOS, but they changed the look of everything in that movie. Everything. Not just the Enterprise. Nothing changes so completely in two-and-a-half years. Nothing. DSC didn't change things nearly as much as TMP did. So to give TMP a pass but not DSC is a little hypocritical in my opinion.

"But that's different!", someone will say. Is it really? That's where I'm going to cut them off at the pass. Why did they upgrade the visuals, I ask? "Because they needed to make it look better for the Big Screen." Ah-ha. And guess what both Discovery and Picard are doing? Trying to look more like something meant for the Big Screen. TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT never did that. They looked like good television but they weren't aiming to look like movies. That's the difference. DSC and PIC are taking a different approach because they have a different aim. They want to look more cinematic.

No, and I do understand your point BTW, but a lot of people tend to forget Star Trek's sfx at the time were state of the art, and when TMP came around the sfx were simply a natural progression. There wasn't an option to go back. Star Trek compared to fellow TV series produced at the time in the late 1960's looked completely different because Trek's inspiration was from the movie "Forbidden Planet" so the aim for Star Trek was always meant to look cinematic. For me, it does, being a few who had the opportunity to see "The Menagerie" on the big screen would truly understand what an accomplishment these pioneers did.