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

[Tarek71]

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.

There's nothing "simplistic" about it, and it's certainly not a question of age. Many newer characters are far more iconic. You can think that She-Hulk, Batgirl, Spider-Woman and Supergirl don't have a problem in being derivative, unoriginal knock offs, and assign some other factors to why making female counterparts to iconic male characters doesn't ever seem to achieve a character of comparable iconic status. In my experience, that is exactly what the problem is and what I hear most consistently as I have had this discussion with female fans over decades. We can like these characters, but something about Harriet Potter seems less organic, compelling, authentic and interesting than Hermione.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Many newer characters are far more iconic.

Who?

 

[jaime]

Who?

Than Supergirl?

Storm, Jean Grey, Kitty Pryde in some circles....Caitlin and Roxy in Gen13 were a bigger noise in the nineties...Psylocke...moving away from Team Books and Uncanny X books, Kabuki was a bigger noise (most of my comic reading was done about two decades ago can you guess...) Zealot....Superhirl in my era was that 80s movie with a lamppost in, there were about a bazillion female superheroes and non hero comic characters who were a bigger noise. Not even sure she had an ongoing title in those days. Francine from Strangers In Paradise...that book was everywhere for a couple of years...over in Batman, Batgirl had become oracle and shed her Batstuff, and Huntress was a bigger noise...Catwoman is bigger than Batgirl or Supergirl...though the Kane Batgirl made a silent splash...there were those that sputtered out, not usually because of a lack of love for the characters so much as the creators wandering off...Danger Girl for instance.
However, gonna go with a personal fave, and say, of recent female superheroes who are not expies of males...a distinctly female superhero who ran and ran and ran and got TV shows and whatnot...gonna go with Witchblade. Bigger than Supergirl in my era, and in my understanding, she was still doing pretty well when the book ended and changed up a lot. Witchblade is the Womder Woman of the modern age.

 

[Nerys Myk]

You can think that She-Hulk, Batgirl, Spider-Woman and Supergirl don't have a problem in being derivative, unoriginal knock offs, and assign some other factors to why making female counterparts to iconic male characters doesn't ever seem to achieve a character of comparable iconic status. I

OTOH, the Carol version of Captain Marvel has pretty much eclipsed the Mar-Vell version.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Than Supergirl?

No. It was than Wonder Woman.

in some circles

That contradicts the unqualified state of being "more iconic."

Catwoman

Arguably bigger than Supergirl, but I doubt bigger than Wonder Woman.

 

[Jayson1]

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.



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.

I think you might be right that "Discovery" might better be labeled as a pure prequel if it works. Still makes sense to be skeptical though so close to "TOS." I wonder what people's reaction would have been towards a show set 10 years before TNG.

The tech of TNG was advanced enough that any alterations would seem more natural and since the only ship we saw that looked like a hotel in space, like it has been called is the Enterprise it means you could do almost anything with the design. I think the only thing people would feel protective of is Okuda looking graphics looking kind of the same and uniforms of course but even then I think people wouldn't mind another design as long as you kepth the color schemes. People didn't care that the DS9 uniforms looked different when that show started.

Jason

 

[Christopher]

I think you might be right that "Discovery" might better be labeled as a pure prequel if it works. Still makes sense to be skeptical though so close to "TOS." I wonder what people's reaction would have been towards a show set 10 years before TNG.

The only reactions that matter are the ones that come after seeing the show. If it had worked, most fans would've accepted it. Even if it hadn't worked that well, it would still be part of the canon that informed later shows.

 

[jaime]

No. It was than Wonder Woman.


That contradicts the unqualified state of being "more iconic."

Arguably bigger than Supergirl, but I doubt bigger than Wonder Woman.

I would say WW star was also descending at that time (90s) ...and she technically is derived in part as a superman clone. But no...Not more iconic than Wonder Woman. Than the other, male derived 'Woman/girl' characters? Easily. And having had a peek and seeing Sara is back...I would go again with Witchblade as WW of the modern era, and the two have much in common, when you think about it.
Supergirl...seems to exist only in public consciousness thanks to her cousin. Batgirl is probably the most successful 'put a bra on the suit' character.

 

[Jayson1]

The only reactions that matter are the ones that come after seeing the show. If it had worked, most fans would've accepted it. Even if it hadn't worked that well, it would still be part of the canon that informed later shows.

I agree but we got to talk about something. That means going over ever possible reaction that might happen. Even if it's their attempt to make it feel part of the prime universe I can see people not accepting that if they don't , feel it.

My gut feeling is that the tech and visuals will have less impact than how characters like Sarek and Mudd are handled along with any other established characters. That plus how extreme any continuity changes might be. If the new Klingons act like old klingons the looks will be forgiven just like we forgave the Berman shows for giving the Romulans forehead pieces for no logical reason but if they come off as monsters, which is how they are sold in the teaser, then I think people will be less than pleased, unless of course their is some reason given for this new behavior.

Jason

 

[Christopher]

I agree but we got to talk about something. That means going over ever possible reaction that might happen. Even if it's their attempt to make it feel part of the prime universe I can see people not accepting that if they don't , feel it.

A great many fans didn't accept TNG at first. Heck, most of the TOS cast didn't accept TNG at first. There was a large contingent of fandom insisting that TNG wasn't real Trek, that it was too different, that it was too bad, that it would never be a worthy successor to TOS.

Then "The Best of Both Worlds" happened and all that was forgotten. Anything can be accepted if it's good enough. And what I hear from David Mack about the quality of the Discovery scripts he's read is very encouraging.

My gut feeling is that the tech and visuals will have less impact than how characters like Sarek and Mudd are handled along with any other established characters.

I think the treatment of established charcters will have less impact than the treatment of the original characters. DS9 was much more about Sisko, Kira, Odo, etc. than it was about Picard, Lursa and B'Etor, Vash, or Q. And DSC is going to be far more about Burnham, Georgiou, Lorca, etc. than it is about Sarek or Mudd.

 

[USS Triumphant]

I just take it to mean that he said their sublight drive was a simple form of impulse power instead of the more sophisticated form Starfleet used, so that they'd be at a disadvantage in sublight combat.

Has anyone suggested that perhaps Scotty was looking at the sensors for the indications of a dilithium-based warp system like everyone he was familiar with used, and saw the familiar impulse engines, but didn't see the signs of a microsingularity based drive that he'd never seen before? Everyone has an off day at some point.

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.

First, a song that I always feel is relevant to the discussion of "white male privilege". Be warned - It is not entirely polite or work safe, and uses the "n word". (Not exactly as a slur, though - more as a synonym for "slave".)

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

If you're white, as I've always been told I am (but do not especially claim), and male, and not being defensive, then it's pretty obvious to see how there really IS something to the notion of "white male privilege", BUT, if you identify at all with the song above in the way you came up - and a lot of older middle America does - then even if you can see the privilege it's pretty hard to understand why fingers are being pointed at you angrily when, though you may benefit here and there a tiny bit from privilege, mostly you have reasons to be angry with the same elite *classists* that created the bad situation for the people pointing at you. It causes conflict where there doesn't need to be. Counterproductive conflict that serves the purposes of very elite that you should *really* be taking your issues up with the most strongly. "Nevermind the billions in corporate welfare, how DARE that food stamp recipient have a STEAK?!"

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

I thought Prince would make a good Joker after seeing him in the videos related to the first Michael Keaton Batman film. Dorn as Batman, Prince as Joker - I'd like to see that movie. Alas.

 

[Refuge]

'put a bra on the suit' character.

That's it in a nutshell..

I would much rather have Wonder Woman princess of the Amazons be that character, as a woman. Captain America be the scrawny male who fitted the role of who enlisted back then, as a man. As for a Captain Wonder who is a different character but playing off the qualities of an existing one, he's on his own.

Much prefer Janeway to Jamie Kirk as well.

There was always going to be greater potential to get over accepting shows post TOS. Prequels deserve to be held to a standard..

 

[Tarek71]

Who?

Iconic isn't a question of age. Luke, Leia and Han were more iconic before 1977 even ended than thousands of male and female characters who were far older. Harry and Hermione and Indiana Jones likewise dwarf innumerable literary, comic, TV and movie characters that came long before and achieved it in a tiny fraction the time. Only a small fraction of characters achieve significant stardom, let alone maintain it over generations. Sherlock is one of many characters created at the same time, but very few are well known today, including some that were successful at the time, but have faded badly since.

While there is a lot that goes into why some characters blow up into stars, and even maintain it decades and centuries later, what seems clear is that while serviceable and moderately successful characters have at times been created by gender switching iconic male characters, they seem to forever pale in comparison to the male they were copied from, and never become serious rivals to characters like Wonder Woman.

 

[Jayson1]

A great many fans didn't accept TNG at first. Heck, most of the TOS cast didn't accept TNG at first. There was a large contingent of fandom insisting that TNG wasn't real Trek, that it was too different, that it was too bad, that it would never be a worthy successor to TOS.

Then "The Best of Both Worlds" happened and all that was forgotten. Anything can be accepted if it's good enough. And what I hear from David Mack about the quality of the Discovery scripts he's read is very encouraging.




I think the treatment of established charcters will have less impact than the treatment of the original characters. DS9 was much more about Sisko, Kira, Odo, etc. than it was about Picard, Lursa and B'Etor, Vash, or Q. And DSC is going to be far more about Burnham, Georgiou, Lorca, etc. than it is about Sarek or Mudd.

I also think the new characters will have a bigger impact on whether the show is good. I was just thinking that Sarek and Mudd and the continuity will have a bigger impact on how they define the goodness they are watching. Will it be another link in the chain or something different.

I also have lots of faith in the show being good. On that level the only things I haven't liked was Fuller being fired and the Klingons. Not just because they look different I just don't like how the look period. The Blue alien and the Doug Jones alien looked great though. I can live with bad looking Klingons if I have to if the writing is good. Wasn't a huge fan how all the Changlings looked like Odo which never made sense because they have better ability when it comes to taking shapes and his hair was him oviously copying the hair of Dr Mora. Still loved DS9.

My other concern is I don't want them to be like Jem Haddar where I have a hard time telling them apart and I think the makeup was so complex it hurt the actors ability to give a good performance. It says something to me that the most defined Jem Haddar of all time was Taran a Tar(I think that is his name) from the DS9 relaunch novels.

Jason

 

[CorporalClegg]

People need to stop using the word "iconic."

Seriously.

 

[{ Emilia }]

The background stories of superheroes have changed regularly. I don't see why all those reboots are fine but changing their gender or ethnicity to reflect our modern diverse societies a little better would be a particularly huge and unacceptable change.

Quick google fu has told me Thor used to originally be a regular human and now he's a god. So turning him from human to god is an acceptable change but changing his skin color or gender is too much?

Gimme a break.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The background stories of superheroes have changed regularly. I don't see why all those reboots are fine but changing their gender or ethnicity to reflect our modern diverse societies a little better would be a particularly huge and unacceptable change.

Quick google fu has told me Thor used to originally be a regular human and now he's a god. So turning him from human to god is an acceptable change but changing his skin color or gender is too much?

Gimme a break.

This is a fanbase that had fits over Quinto's earlobes and Pine's eye color.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Iconic isn't a question of age. Luke, Leia and Han were more iconic before 1977 even ended than thousands of male and female characters who were far older. Harry and Hermione and Indiana Jones likewise dwarf innumerable literary, comic, TV and movie characters that came long before and achieved it in a tiny fraction the time. Only a small fraction of characters achieve significant stardom, let alone maintain it over generations. Sherlock is one of many characters created at the same time, but very few are well known today, including some that were successful at the time, but have faded badly since.

While there is a lot that goes into why some characters blow up into stars, and even maintain it decades and centuries later, what seems clear is that while serviceable and moderately successful characters have at times been created by gender switching iconic male characters, they seem to forever pale in comparison to the male they were copied from, and never become serious rivals to characters like Wonder Woman.

I know what "iconic" means. I was asking for examples of the claim you were making, specific examples.

Many newer characters are far more iconic.

 

[Mr Awe]

I was also not a fan of another prequel or inbetweenquel for this series, mostly because I anticipated the level of complaining and arguing it would cause because of the level of changes that were inevitable, partly because of the 'we know the ending' issue (in a global sense), and partly the bland awfulness of the prequel made so far. My preference would have been for either a post Nemesis series, or a Kelvinverse show contemporary with the movies.
But I'm over it, and on the Discovery train. Now they're doing a prequel again, there's every sign they're going to make this one good.

Ditto here for the same reasons. I was thinking that the money made Prime a logical choice but was surprised by a prequel. Setting the new series a 100 or whatever years after Nemesis would have allowed the series to to do what it wanted. It could use pre-existing elements as it wanted but it could also change things up. And, I mean both the visual and storytelling/timeline elements.

However, that being said, if I were to suggest a prequel, it would've been the time Discover is set so I'm good with that too, but a bit surprised.

 

[Refuge]

I

While there is a lot that goes into why some characters blow up into stars, and even maintain it decades and centuries later, what seems clear is that while serviceable and moderately successful characters have at times been created by gender switching iconic male characters, they seem to forever pale in comparison to the male they were copied from, and never become serious rivals to characters like Wonder Woman.

I couldn't agree with you more, though as far as present 'fame' (might be a stretch) Doctor Who's 'Missy' has had a run in the sun. Probably more a popular chapter than anything more.