Alex Kurtzman: 'Star Trek: Discovery' Will Spark Debate And Adhere To Canon

[jaime]

Wonder Woman has in fact been an icon for gay men for generations now. But you're drawing a false equivalence. Society already privileges white heterosexual cismales; we don't need more representation, because we already have an unfair share of it. It's everyone else who needs more representation.

You'll probably find what gives you 'privilege' is 'money' and possibly 'power' ideally 'old money' and 'inherited' power. Funnily enough, despite being a white male, I have spent most of my life living in council housing, mostly estates, and David Cameron, another white male, has usually lived in private housing, often an entirely different kind of estate. surely he represents me right? I mean we have so much in common. I mean sure, inherited wealth in certain countries has to do with it being passed down since before people moved around the world (or were moved) much, from so far back that it was all about having a good strong son to hit your enemies harder and keep the family line going...at least we are now closer to equality of opportunity and give it some time to balance the outcomes. Diane Abbot could be the beginning of Churchillian Dynasty.
But yes, the media and media representation is a different story....and I think that has more to do with where the biggest power in western media is, than anything else...but I don't think it's a nice clean line of identity politics, and to think it is will never address some of the underlying problems. One of which is that it's such a closed shop in the first place.

 

[jaime]

Only problem is we don't have a female equal to KIrk in the same way Superman and Supergirl are basically the same character with minor tinkering. Also I am not so sure Kirk being a male is the most essential thing about the character. I think it's being someone who loves his ship and is great friends with Spock and McCoy. Loves to have sex with aliens and is abit of cowboy who doesn't alway follow the rules.

A woman can do all those things as well. Anything lost in transition would be things that will forever be lost no matter who plays any future Kirk. We will never have another actor who can chew the scenery like Shatner or have the same chemistry he had with Nimoy and Kelly.

Jason

We got Janeway. Who I basically like more, even if I can never emulate her hair as well as I could Kirks. But then, who can? It's self repairing...probably nanites.

 

[Trekkin]

There is a reason that Wonder Woman was the favorite of so many girls across generations, and not Supergirl. We like Supergirl. But she is a derivative copy of Superman.

Yet Supergirl is still here and appearing in new media after 58 long years. A lot of her male and female 'non-derivative' contemporaries can't say the same.

Evidently, there is not 'a' reason.

 

[Jayson1]

We got Janeway. Who I basically like more, even if I can never emulate her hair as well as I could Kirks. But then, who can? It's self repairing...probably nanites.

I was thinking more in terms of being a cultural icon. I like Janeway but I don't think she has reached the status Kirk and even if she did that wouldn't matter much if we were talking about rebooting TOS once again.

Jason

 

[jaime]

I was thinking more in terms of being a cultural icon. I like Janeway but I don't think she has reached the status Kirk and even if she did that wouldn't matter much if we were talking about rebooting TOS once again.

Jason

No one will. Kirk is the first, the one that broughtTrek into the public consciousness. Picard will come a close second because of how well regarded TNG was, but it will never be as old as TOS. Case in point...Archer is a white male heterosexual American cowboy captain....and is further down the recognition scale than Janeway. Chris Pine, is also further down the scale, despite playing the exact same character. Age and public awareness through the lense of their time means it's only ever really going to be Kirk and Picard in the running. And Kirk will always win by a nose. If Janeway had been captain in TNG it would be her.

 

[Tarek71]

Yet Supergirl is still here and appearing in new media after 58 long years. A lot of her male and female 'non-derivative' contemporaries can't say the same.

Evidently, there is not 'a' reason.

And Wonder Woman is vastly bigger. The movie dwarfs the Supergirl show. I like Supergirl. I do. I like Benoist especially. She's cute, talented and I like her show. Since we have Supergirl, lets see her as often as possible. But there is no comparison to the gigantic cultural phenomenon that Wonder Woman is.

Even accounting for inflation, WW made more than 3x as much in its opening weekend than the '84 Supergirl movie made in its entire run.

 

[cultcross]

You'll probably find what gives you 'privilege' is 'money' and possibly 'power' ideally 'old money' and 'inherited' power. Funnily enough, despite being a white male, I have spent most of my life living in council housing, mostly estates, and David Cameron, another white male, has usually lived in private housing, often an entirely different kind of estate. surely he represents me right? I mean we have so much in common.

Class privilege is a big issue, you're absolutely right - but it isn't the only issue. David Cameron either would not be where he is, or it would have been far harder, had be been female, black, gay, trans, disabled, etc. He has a host of privileged characteristics in addition to his class (which in itself ties into other privileges - straight white men are wildly overrepresented among the old money of England). None of this means he was destined to be Prime Minister, not does it mean he didn't work hard for it. But it does mean he had a head start and a constant advantage over others without that privilege. The history of British PMs is almost entirely white (the best we can manage is Jewish, and only the once) and has only two women, and nobody openly LGBT+. The odds, to coin a phrase, were ever in his favour.

 

[Trekkin]

And Wonder Woman is vastly bigger.

WW is 20+ years older, one of the first of a kind, and has 'wartime propaganda figure' under her belt. Her constant presence in publication was also, for a time, contractually obligated.

No shit she's a bigger cultural icon in the West.

My issue was not with the assertation that WW is more successful and well known. My issue was with your incredibly simplistic and (most importantly) unsubstantiated reasoning as to why.

 

[jaime]

Class privilege is a big issue, you're absolutely right - but it isn't the only issue. David Cameron either would not be where he is, or it would have been far harder, had be been female, black, gay, trans, disabled, etc. He has a host of privileged characteristics in addition to his class (which in itself ties into other privileges - straight white men are wildly overrepresented among the old money of England). None of this means he was destined to be Prime Minister, not does it mean he didn't work hard for it. But it does mean he had a head start and a constant advantage over others without that privilege. The history of British PMs is almost entirely white (the best we can manage is Jewish, and only the once) and has only two women, and nobody openly LGBT+. The odds, to coin a phrase, were ever in his favour.

Oh of course, but I dislike, strongly, the idea that there's some great club where our skin and chromosomes get us eme,bership and they roll out the good China and volauvents. It's as divisive and rascist as the olden days 'oh, you're a black chap, I knew a black chap once, suppose you probably know him' or the idea that 'all you folk look alike'. It's an utter nonsense, particularly to those of us at the other end, where with some exceptions we have more important things to worry about than melanin or underwear content, until some demagogue uses a difference to get anger they can use. 'Look at them. They are different to you. They have something you don't. You should take it from them.' Is a rather unpleasant approach to life, whoever uses it, and whatever sweeping statements they use to justify it. I have no doubt there will be a Prime Minister who isn't white in my life time, the hilarious thing is, it will probably be a conservative one (I believe Priti Patel and Saajid Daviid are already in the running.) not from the left side of the divide. And it will be a good sign, because it shows that equality is possible....and a bad sign, because again it will show that what really really helps is money and whispering in the right ear. Will they have it harder than someone who nth grandad got a house listed in the domesday book? For sure. But that's the weight of history...it's a bloody slow wheel to turn, but turn it we must, at its own speed. Swift revolutions rarely end well, and turn too fast to where they start.

 

[cultcross]

It's an utter nonsense,

It's also a strawman, because that's not what privilege is - it doesn't get you automatic entry to the good life. It means you have fewer barriers to things, small and large, than someone without that privilege. They're also cumulative, and different ones matter more than others in different situations. The more boxes you tick, the more barriers are removed - white, male, straight, cis, came from money, went to the right school, and so on. It doesn't mean that if you're all those things you get everything handed to you, it just means that two people otherwise equal in all respects tend to end up differently in the end because one has privileges the other doesn't. Jacob Rees-Mogg has maintained his parliamentary seat because he works hard at maintaining popularity with his electorate. But that doesn't mean he didn't get a leg up from his race, class, education, sexuality, etc etc. and continue to benefit every day from those advantages. And it doesn't have to be high fliers that are examples. It applies just as much to the promotion opportunities at Burger King, or to the probability of living in poor quality housing, or of being the victim of a miscarriage of justice, or being evicted, or ending up homeless, or a million other things in life.

 

[jaime]

It's also a strawman, because that's not what privilege is - it doesn't get you automatic entry to the good life. It means you have fewer barriers to things, small and large, than someone without that privilege. They're also cumulative, and different ones matter more than others in different situations. The more boxes you tick, the more barriers are removed - white, male, straight, cis, came from money, went to the right school, and so on. It doesn't mean that if you're all those things you get everything handed to you, it just means that two people otherwise equal in all respects tend to end up differently in the end because one has privileges the other doesn't. Jacob Rees-Mogg has maintained his parliamentary seat because he works hard at maintaining popularity with his electorate. But that doesn't mean he didn't get a leg up from his race, class, education, sexuality, etc etc. and continue to benefit every day from those advantages. And it doesn't have to be high fliers that are examples. It applies just as much to the promotion opportunities at Burger King, or to the probability of living in poor quality housing, or of being the victim of a miscarriage of justice, or being evicted, or ending up homeless, or a million other things in life.

It is, however, how it is often characterised across the press and by various groups with an interest these days. It also doesn't take into account different advantages, or characterises things without taking others into account...for example, a manager employing someone who reminds them of themselves as a preference, etc. I think it's important to be inclusive rather than divisive. 'Privilege' as currently bandied about, is a glamour that makes it easy to ignore other things. I prefer to hope that we keep smacking down the nasty kind of divisions, and not set up new ones in their place, rather than replacing them with 'our' kind of division.

 

[Christopher]

I wouldn't mind a female Kirk or Cyborg Spock just like I don't mind the idea of a Black James Bond or a female Doctor. For years I use to think Denzel Washington should have been the new Superman and then later Will Smith.

Back in the '90s, I thought Michael Dorn would make a good Batman.

Only issue I have would be that I think it's easier to see those changes in a new line of continuity than it is to pretend like Shatner's Kirk is the same person as Rosario Dawson who I think would make for a awesome KIrk.

Yes, that was exactly my original point. Because the Kelvin films pretend to be a branch off the original timeline, they're constrained to keep the characters essentially the same as they were before (aside from Chekov being 4 years older). If they'd just gone with a wholesale reboot instead, they wouldn't be under that limitation and could change anything and everything, from the characters' sex and race to the century the show is set in. It would be more liberating to do a full reboot than a mere alternate timeline. And Discovery is under the most constraints of all, trying to fit new stories and sensibilities into an existing continuity without conflicting too much with it. Not that that can't be done -- it's what we tie-in novelists do all the time (so it's a good thing they have one of us on staff to show them how it's done). But it's a lot more limiting than a reboot would be.

Also I am not so sure Kirk being a male is the most essential thing about the character. I think it's being someone who loves his ship and is great friends with Spock and McCoy. Loves to have sex with aliens and is abit of cowboy who doesn't alway follow the rules.

A woman can do all those things as well.

Indeed. When I wrote my novel Only Superhuman, I basically approached its heroine Emerald Blair as a female Kirk, a woman who acted out the "lover and fighter" tropes that are traditionally associated with men, in order to subvert expectations. (Although I chose Kirk as a model because he's far more than that caricature, and is really a multilayered, very human character with a lot of intelligence and sensitivity. And I also based Emerald on Bugs Bunny and my cat Tasha.)

 

[Jayson1]

Back in the '90s, I thought Michael Dorn would make a good Batman.



Yes, that was exactly my original point. Because the Kelvin films pretend to be a branch off the original timeline, they're constrained to keep the characters essentially the same as they were before (aside from Chekov being 4 years older). If they'd just gone with a wholesale reboot instead, they wouldn't be under that limitation and could change anything and everything, from the characters' sex and race to the century the show is set in. It would be more liberating to do a full reboot than a mere alternate timeline. And Discovery is under the most constraints of all, trying to fit new stories and sensibilities into an existing continuity without conflicting too much with it. Not that that can't be done -- it's what we tie-in novelists do all the time (so it's a good thing they have one of us on staff to show them how it's done). But it's a lot more limiting than a reboot would be.




Indeed. When I wrote my novel Only Superhuman, I basically approached its heroine Emerald Blair as a female Kirk, a woman who acted out the "lover and fighter" tropes that are traditionally associated with men, in order to subvert expectations. (Although I chose Kirk as a model because he's far more than that caricature, and is really a multilayered, very human character with a lot of intelligence and sensitivity. And I also based Emerald on Bugs Bunny and my cat Tasha.)

The big question then comes to whether or not a Kelvin Universe style reboot that works in established canon can work on a tv show like Trek with so much history. The Kelvin Universe had he benefit of only being 3 movies. What "Discovery" is doing seems to be more on par with "Doctor Who" coming back in 2005 but I wonder if Trek has such great reset features such as regenerations and constant time travel that can in theory erase anything you want to erase.

Even if we count TNG as doing that it only had to 3 seasons of TOS and what would end up being 6 movies. Toss that in with a 80 year time gap and a effort to avoid many TOS aliens it seemed like a good way to do a reboot. "Discovery" seems to actually be embracing old stuff which is going to just invite more comparisons. Kind of hoping they make the ship some kind of unique vessel instead of just being another run of the mill ship. The Klingon looking features make me think that might happen.

Jason

 

[Christopher]

The big question then comes to whether or not a Kelvin Universe style reboot that works in established canon can work on a tv show like Trek with so much history.

I don't understand that formulation. Something set in established canon is not a reboot, in the sense you're using it. Discovery is taking a different approach from Kelvin. The Kelvin films used an alternate timeline specifically so that they could tell new stories that weren't limited by the existing history. Discovery has chosen to tell new stories that manage to fit within the gaps of the existing history, like what we tie-in authors do. They're pretty much opposite approaches. The only Kelvin-like thing about DSC is its production design.

In any case, the only way to answer the question of whether something will work is to try it.

 

[Jayson1]

I don't understand that formulation. Something set in established canon is not a reboot, in the sense you're using it. Discovery is taking a different approach from Kelvin. The Kelvin films used an alternate timeline specifically so that they could tell new stories that weren't limited by the existing history. Discovery has chosen to tell new stories that manage to fit within the gaps of the existing history, like what we tie-in authors do. They're pretty much opposite approaches. The only Kelvin-like thing about DSC is its production design.

In any case, the only way to answer the question of whether something will work is to try it.

I understand that "Discovery" is taking a different way than the Kelvin Universe but what they are both supose to have in common is a connection to the Prime Universe. The movies had classic Spock a alternate timeline that could be seen as being no different from the mirror universe or any of those universe's that Worf went to in season 7 of TNG. That means it also sprung from old continuity since old Spock goes back and time and eventually dies and Romulus blows up.

Kelvin Universe is going with a new design and visual update which may or may not have a in universe explanation. Which seems okay in theory with the major issue being how close it is to TOS. I think how close it is to TOS is the major issue people have that makes them skeptical to how they will feel about it being a Prime universe.

As for the term reboot I might not be using it right. I thought reboot was something that goes in a new direction but still holds a connection to the old in some form. A remake is something were you start from stratch. Some might use a reimaging but that seems like something that can describe a reboot or a remake. I think the confusion might come from the way their seems to be endless ways to describe something. We could use retooling or prequel or updating.

Jason

 

[Nyotarules]

The Titanic movie made a bundle even though everyone knew the ship was going to sink. But down with prequels for Prime Trek right cos we know the Borg are coming...

 

[Nyotarules]

I have no doubt there will be a Prime Minister who isn't white in my life time, the hilarious thing is, it will probably be a conservative one (I believe Priti Patel and Saajid Daviid are already in the running.) not from the left side of the divide.

Political irony at its finest. The Left champions of the downtrodden and ethnic minorities everywhere, when it comes to political leadership is far, far, far down the progressive list. Still dominated by working class grammer school boys or middle class grammer school boys..who all went to Oxbridge.

 

[Noname Given]

I understand that "Discovery" is taking a different way than the Kelvin Universe but what they are both supose to have in common is a connection to the Prime Universe. The movies had classic Spock a alternate timeline that could be seen as being no different from the mirror universe or any of those universe's that Worf went to in season 7 of TNG. That means it also sprung from old continuity since old Spock goes back and time and eventually dies and Romulus blows up.

Kelvin Universe is going with a new design and visual update which may or may not have a in universe explanation. Which seems okay in theory with the major issue being how close it is to TOS. I think how close it is to TOS is the major issue people have that makes them skeptical to how they will feel about it being a Prime universe.

As for the term reboot I might not be using it right. I thought reboot was something that goes in a new direction but still holds a connection to the old in some form. A remake is something were you start from stratch. Some might use a reimaging but that seems like something that can describe a reboot or a remake. I think the confusion might come from the way their seems to be endless ways to describe something. We could use retooling or prequel or updating.

Jason

Well, normally a reboot implies any existing storylines/continuity from the work being rebooted are thrown out the window entirely (so to speak.)

 

[Christopher]

I understand that "Discovery" is taking a different way than the Kelvin Universe but what they are both supose to have in common is a connection to the Prime Universe. The movies had classic Spock a alternate timeline that could be seen as being no different from the mirror universe or any of those universe's that Worf went to in season 7 of TNG. That means it also sprung from old continuity since old Spock goes back and time and eventually dies and Romulus blows up.

Yes, they theoretically share a common past, but the difference is in what they can do going forward. Kelvin branched off in a new direction so that it can build its own new history going forward. Its stories don't have to lead into the events of TOS or TNG or the rest, and can totally contradict everything that happens going forward from the opening moment of the first movie. Vulcan can be destroyed, Kirk can get the Enterprise much sooner, Amanda and Pike can be killed, etc. But Discovery is an in-continuity prequel. Its events have to be consistent with the future we know. The Sarek in this show is the same Sarek who will have a heart attack on a journey to Babel, implore Kirk to bring Spock's katra back from Genesis, and have a mind meld with Picard as he suffers from Bendii Syndrome. All of that is in his future and he can't be written in a way that contradicts that. So the '09 movie could show Sarek reconciling with his son a decade earlier than he did in TOS, but Discovery cannot do that, because it's supposed to be something that happened in the past of TOS. Whatever Sarek does or experiences in this show has to be something that's compatible with his life history in TOS, the movies, and TNG.

As for the term reboot I might not be using it right. I thought reboot was something that goes in a new direction but still holds a connection to the old in some form. A remake is something were you start from stratch. Some might use a reimaging but that seems like something that can describe a reboot or a remake. I think the confusion might come from the way their seems to be endless ways to describe something. We could use retooling or prequel or updating.

Well, it depends. As an industry-insider usage, "reboot" means any revival of a dormant media property. But in fan usage, ever since the 2004 Battlestar Galactica reboot, it's been assumed to mean something like that show, a completely reinvented version that's out of continuity with what came before. By that definition, for instance, Spider-Man: Homecoming is a reboot because it starts over and ignores the previous Spider-Man movies, but Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is not a reboot because it's in the same continuity as Harry Potter. The new MacGyver is a reboot because it starts over completely with a new version of the character, but the new Doctor Who is not a reboot because it's meant to be a continuation of the original series. Then you have things like the Kelvin films and the past few X-Men films, which use time travel to have it both ways -- they're part of the same narrative continuity but they alter its events, so it's effectively a reboot while still being a continuation.

So anyway, by that terminology, Discovery is not a reboot, it's just another prequel series like Enterprise was.

 

[jaime]

Political irony at its finest. The Left champions of the downtrodden and ethnic minorities everywhere, when it comes to political leadership is far, far, far down the progressive list. Still dominated by working class grammer school boys or middle class grammer school boys..who all went to Oxbridge.

Nothing really wrong with grammar schools, as long as the tech side gets some funding. My school was ex-grammar and we were all as working class/under class as it gets lol. Mind you...I don't think anyone went into politics from there, maybe some of us made it oxford in the olden days...big maybe, as it's expensive so even if we had the grades, living out was...unlikely.