I agree with that 100%. But it doesn't change that they intend their pretty-much-rebooted 23rd century to be part of the same world as TOS, TNG and their post-TNG series.
Alex Kurtzman on the Fine Line Between Adding to, and Staying True to, Star Trek's Canon
- Thread starter Danja
- Start date
I agree with that 100%. But it doesn't change that they intend their pretty-much-rebooted 23rd century to be part of the same world as TOS, TNG and their post-TNG series.
Oh, I know. Which is why Kurtzman’s way of “keeping true to canon” by sending the Discovery into the future and classifying the first two years of the show really was just a cop-out to me. If they were having problems with their 23rd century pre-TOS setting, all they had to do was establish that the show takes place in another universe/timeline/whatever, just like the Kelvin timeline, and then continue on with whatever stories they want to tell without the constant need to “keep true to canon.” I’m convinced that the only reasons CBS used the term “prime” universe to describe DSC was to differentiate it from the Kelvin timeline created by Paramount, and/or that it was a marketing department decision to get more people to pay for CBSAA. The show is a success; it doesn’t need ties to TOS or the prime universe to get people to watch it.
This is what really pissed me off. I didn't have a problem at the time it aired but after letting it "get some air" did it start to piss me off.
And that's OK. Honestly, I want the show to be future looking and forward in its design. If ignoring the color of the drapes is part of the process so be it.I agree with that 100%. But it doesn't change that they intend their pretty-much-rebooted 23rd century to be part of the same world as TOS, TNG and their post-TNG series.
I don't think that's a problem on paper. Thing is, heavy refits like that take time, and I have trouble buying that the Enterprise would need so many so close together (esp. when it seems like it's just switching between two configurations).
Sure. To me, it's a case-by-case basis on what points are "important." The easier it is to reconcile the discrepancy or the more minimal it is, the more "forgiving" I am of it. Other DSC ship classes looking different from TOS ones is fine (different engineering teams and all that), while the same ship looking different in different stories, that's annoying, at best,
Yeah, the interiors are the thing that really doesn't work for me. The bridge, I can see being able to be replaced (the idea of removable bridge modules was more or less confirmed in Star Trek Beyond), but the rest is very hard to suspend disbelief for.
I think the Short Treks are what really screw it up; just taking the actual TV shows by themselves, and it more or less works. (Course, the tribbles one doesn't seem to fit into canon at all and the Spock one show the uniforms that were brand new in DSC Season 2 being used years before, so breaking canon may just be something we have to accept with them.)
You do you, but I don't think TV works like that. It's not a comic book. (Besides, using stock footage from "The Cage," "fixing" the Klingon makeup, and bringing back the TOS D-7 all point to the idea that the show "has" to fit with TOS; if it was a visual reboot or a new rendition of the same things, they wouldn't have had to do that.)
Oh great now you want to bring TOS S1 - "The Man Trap" into the discussion.
Honestly I don't think CBS had any intention of making their new show a 'visual reboot' of TOS or other such nonsense. They originally hired Bryan Fuller to come up with an idea, his original plan was to have an anthology show taking place in multiple eras of Star Trek history, and then it all snowballed from there into what we eventually got. I think all CBS really cared about was making sure their audience didn't confuse their show with Paramount's Kelvin timeline films, and used the word 'prime' only to differentiate that. But then the DSC producers got it into their heads that the show was supposed to be a prequel to TOS even though it looks and feels nothing like that show, simply because the buzzword 'prime' was used. As you say, the move toward a more similar visual look to TOS and previous Trek seems to be the producers doing 'damage control' from the look of season 1.
I grew up watching TOS and I am perfectly happy with Disco being a prequel to TOS. I find it feels more like TOS than any of the other Star Trek series in many ways, and adds to it considerable while not being anchored to the retro-future many people claim it should be. It's 2019, not 1969. But then I know Star Trek is a TV show and that TV shows are produced in the era they are produced in. It doesn't bother me that Disco looks like it is produced in 2019, just as I can accept that if a new Hamlet comes along, it doesn't have to look and feel like the Lawrence Olivier version.
Unless the producers of that new version of Hamlet explicitly state that it's supposed to be in continuity with the Laurence Olivier version. In that case, I would then expect it to look and feel like that 1948 film. But that's just me, and I usually don't expect my expectations to be met.
Same here. But, that's not for everyone.
It's Hamlet. Its has been same story since 1604. Many Hamlet movies have told the same story set in the same place and time period, whether it's Oliver, Branagh or Gibson. So yes, they are the same continuity, but with different sets, different costumes and different makeup.
But sure. We can agree to disagree, but I like to think Star Trek stories can be still set in the same timeline and told in a different way and presented in an updated form and be allowed to expand on a show made 50 years ago. But then between TOS and TNG, I read a lot of good Star Trek novels which did pretty much same thing and found them quite enjoyable. For instance, I have no trouble imagining How Much for Just The Planet and Strangers From The Sky taking place in Star Trek continuity. I didn't complain when the movies came along and look ridiculously more advanced given she short span from TOS to WOK (due to having a lot more money to spend), nor was I upset that the ENT effects and tech again looked far more advanced than TOS even though it was set 100 years earlier (due to the producers desiring visual continuity with TNG/DS9/VOY). My issues with the Kelvin Movies aren't that they don't visually match TOS either other than color coded uniforms. But that could be just me.
Last edited:
My point wasn't that it was Hamlet. It was that if the production was supposed to specifically be part of the Olivier version, then it should look and feel like that version, not like something entirely different. That they're telling the exact same story is irrelevant.
Star Trek Phase II, Star Trek Continues, etc.: These are all (fan) productions that are supposed to take place during the time of TOS. Fan films aside, they are believable to me as period pieces. DSC looks great, but utterly fails to convince me that it is also a period piece. That doesn't make the show bad, just not very believable per its supposed intent. That's all I'm saying. YMMV.
The thing about 'period pieces' is that they are, by definition *historical*. Star Trek doesn't take place in a historical period. It takes place in the future. And the future in 2019 looks different from what the future looked like in 1969, what it looked like in 1987 and what it looked like in 2001. To demand a TV series set in the future be restricted to looking like a period piece of what the future looked like in 1969 seems a bit odd to me I one ever wants Star Trek to be nothing more than a period piece. But again, I like to think Star Trek takes place in the future, not the past.
I think this is my big sticking point too. Treating Star Trek as a historical piece kind of misses the point of the idea of Trek-looking towards an optimistic future.
And again, that’s my point. Don’t say that your show is a prequel to another show produced in the ‘60’s, with a ‘60’s view of the future, if you don’t plan on adhering to that version of the future. Just update it without having that link. That’s what nuBSG did. And don’t try to invalidate that show with your own version of those events, because there are an awful lot of people who still love that ‘60’s show regardless of how dated someone judges it to be. Just my $0.02.
No offense, but DSC doesn’t look anywhere near as optimistic as TOS did.
There is room for both visions, IMHO. I don't need a BSG thing to have both.
YMMV.
YMMV.
TOS was chock full of 'Twilight Zone' style cautionary tales where the future looked pretty dangerous and our heroes only survived by the skin of their teeth and we see the horrific cost that those who didn't pay. It is filled with pointed arguments that it will take an immense amount of hard work to get from where we are to where the Federation is during the series and that it is easy, even for well-intentioned people to fail horrifically, or that they must die because their striving for good will prevent that optimistic future from ever existing. Behind the bright lighting and color-coded uniforms, TOS was often as dark thematically as DSC has ever gotten. Heck, half the colony Kirk lived on was executed by their governor just ten years before the time period Disco seasons 1 and 2 are set. M5 will be created a decade after Disco's seasons because space travel is so dangerous. And we know how that turned out. And look at what reward the space hippies earned. Man, so many people just remember what they want to remember about TOS.
Oh, and our role model of a captain engages is shown to be obsessive, ignores direct orders from his superiors, engages in criminal activity a lot, arguably breaks General order one on numerous occasions and falsifies reports to Starfleet.
Last edited:
Yeah, TOS's optimistic outlook was humanity working together, not paradise or utopia.
I watch a show and decide for myself whether I enjoy it. What Alex Kurtzman says doesn't have any impact on that. He can say whatever he wants and we can hash it out here however much we want. Flashing, blinking lights won't magically make the show better.
Promotheus is supposed to be a prequel to Alien. The shipboard computers say otherwise, but I suspend my disbelief. I don't say, "The computers in Prometheus don't look like the shitty PCs I was taught keyboarding on in school that were old even back then! This movie sucks!" EDIT: And in the case of Alien and Prometheus, they were both directed by the same guy! Ridley Scott. Even he thought the future shouldn't look like it was projected from the past when making a prequel to his own movie.
(I bet two weeks, I couldn't even make it to 24 hours... smdh... With tendencies like these, I'm glad I don't smoke.)
Last edited:
Similar threads
