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

[Christopher]

You make good points. There has been this approach to the cinematic audience for a long time now, with varying success and failure. For every Wonder Woman there's a couple of Ghostbusters.

Hey, now. Ghostbusters may not have had box-office success, but it's a pretty good movie and I love the new team. Heck, I like them better than the old team. They feel like richer, more relatable characters, instead of just a bunch of frat boys goofing around. Plus, they have Holtzmann! How can anyone not want more Holtzmann?

 

[Refuge]

Hey, now. Ghostbusters may not have had box-office success, but it's a pretty good movie and I love the new team. Heck, I like them better than the old team. They feel like richer, more relatable characters, instead of just a bunch of frat boys goofing around. Plus, they have Holtzmann! How can anyone not want more Holtzmann?

I have a soft spot for the first one, it fitted the times.......

 

[Christopher]

Sure, the original Ghostbusters is a better movie overall, but the new one had a lot going for it and deserved to be more successful than it was.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

The correct analogy would have been... for every Wonder Woman (2017) there's a... Supergirl (1984), Sheena (1984), Red Sonja (1985), Tank Girl (1995), Barb Wire (1996), Catwoman (2004), Electra (2005), Aeon Flux (2005), etc.
Don't get me wrong. Those movies didn't suck or bomb because they had female leads. There are plenty bad superhero/comic book films with male protagonists too.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

The correct analogy would have been... for every Wonder Woman (2017) there's a... Supergirl (1984), Sheena (1984), Red Sonja (1985), Tank Girl (1995), Barb Wire (1996), Catwoman (2004), Electra (2005), Aeon Flux (2005), etc.
Don't get me wrong. Those movies didn't suck or bomb because they had female leads. There are plenty bad superhero/comic book films with male protagonists too.

True...
Green Lantern was a critical and box office flop, but that doesn't mean people don't like male superheroes -- nor does it mean people don't like Ryan Reynolds.

 

[mos6507]

Because the modern audience won't watch a series that looks like it's from the 60s. At least not enough to make it viable. That's pretty obvious really. It's all about making it palatable to the audience that is watching it now.

Two things.

1) I do not respect producers dishing out a show that is really handled as if it's a reboot but not having the courage to label it as such. Call a spade a spade. That's called truth in advertising. By not labeling it properly it invites these sorts of debates. It needs proper "mental framing" on the part of the audience. The PR up to this point portrays a show that has a serious identity-crisis as it appears to be all things to all people at once.

2) Just because the look may need to be modernized does not mean that any and all approaches to modernization are good. So people should stop defending Discovery's look soley on the basis of "nobody would accept it if it looked like th 60s". A modernized show does not need Zap Brannigan style outfits or incongruously Steampunk transporter room with misaligned asphalt shingles behind those big radar dish/speakers. That's to say nothing of the Klingons or the Discovery itself. So even if we're totally open to a new look, we're going to still judge it purely on its own merits, and the design leaves much to be desired.

There are plenty of things within Prime canon that a lot of people never liked. The TMP Jammies, the Enterprise D cruise-ship aesthetic, etc... So it's not that purists knee-jerk love anything "canon" and reject any and everything that doesn't copy it perfectly. Some of the production design ideas in Axanar (sorry to say) I think were leaning in the direction of modernizing the TOS look in a way that would probably have done a better job of both fitting into canon and not appearing too-60s. But this idea that the only way to have modernized it is to do everything exactly as we're seeing (including reviving a 1970s rejected ship design that still has a sort of 70s clunky vibe to it) is just incorrect.

Note that CBS already dissolved its FX team so I think that there's truth to the idea that there's some chaos in their art department and what we're seeing is a direct consequence of that lack of direction / expertise. It's something that looks flashy....but somehow tacky, disjointed, and even sloppy here and there.

 

[Vger23]

Two things.

1) I do not respect producers dishing out a show that is really handled as if it's a reboot but not having the courage to label it as such. Call a spade a spade. That's called truth in advertising. By not labeling it properly it invites these sorts of debates. It needs proper "mental framing" on the part of the audience. The PR up to this point portrays a show that has a serious identity-crisis as it appears to be all things to all people at once.

2) Just because the look may need to be modernized does not mean that any and all approaches to modernization are good. So people should stop defending Discovery's look soley on the basis of "nobody would accept it if it looked like th 60s". A modernized show does not need Zap Brannigan style outfits or incongruously Steampunk transporter room with misaligned asphalt shingles behind those big radar dish/speakers. That's to say nothing of the Klingons or the Discovery itself. So even if we're totally open to a new look, we're going to still judge it purely on its own merits, and the design leaves much to be desired.

There are plenty of things within Prime canon that a lot of people never liked. The TMP Jammies, the Enterprise D cruise-ship aesthetic, etc... So it's not that purists knee-jerk love anything "canon" and reject any and everything that doesn't copy it perfectly. Some of the production design ideas in Axanar (sorry to say) I think were leaning in the direction of modernizing the TOS look in a way that would probably have done a better job of both fitting into canon and not appearing too-60s. But this idea that the only way to have modernized it is to do everything exactly as we're seeing (including reviving a 1970s rejected ship design that still has a sort of 70s clunky vibe to it) is just incorrect.

Note that CBS already dissolved its FX team so I think that there's truth to the idea that there's some chaos in their art department and what we're seeing is a direct consequence of that lack of direction / expertise. It's something that looks flashy....but somehow tacky, disjointed, and even sloppy here and there.

It will likely be the worst form of visual fiction in human history.

 

[Kor]

Have you ever seen Once Upon A Time? I quite enjoyed the first three seasons but when they got to the Camelot story it was like Arthur and Lancelot and Merlin had all gone to the same modelling school and were the same age. That was sweet and gratifying to eye.. but crap! Merlin should be old, that's where wisdom comes from. Of course tell me he's aged in dog years and I'll buy it because I'm flexible.

I reckon why not have a female Batman and male Batgirl.? Yeah, fab idea. Can't wait for the next version of Sherlock Holmes he'll be five years old and Watson will be his pet hamster.

I think there's some wiggle room with Arthurian characters, since our notion of the Camelot myth is itself a much later amalgamation and streamlining of a number of wildly different storytelling traditions including people that didn't even exist in the earliest versions of the stories.

Kor

 

[Christopher]

1) I do not respect producers dishing out a show that is really handled as if it's a reboot but not having the courage to label it as such. Call a spade a spade. That's called truth in advertising. By not labeling it properly it invites these sorts of debates. It needs proper "mental framing" on the part of the audience. The PR up to this point portrays a show that has a serious identity-crisis as it appears to be all things to all people at once.

Only a minority of fans care enough about continuity to worry about the distinction between a reboot and a continuation. Most people just want to see new stories with the characters and worlds that they love, and don't worry about the bookkeeping of what fits with what. And, as I keep pointing out, the main goal of creating a new version of a franchise is to attract a new audience, people who aren't already fans and don't even know about the continuity issues, let alone care. There will be many people for whom Discovery is their first exposure to Star Trek, and that is why it needs to work as something new rather than just an extension of something old.

2) Just because the look may need to be modernized does not mean that any and all approaches to modernization are good.

Of course not, but "good" is a matter of individual taste. Anything that leaves a strong enough impression to be hated by some people will be loved by others, and vice versa. It's also premature to condemn a look based on first impressions rather than giving it time. As I said earlier, there have been a number of cases where I had an initial antipathy to a design style that I eventually became quite fond of. We're not supposed to stop thinking at the moment our first impressions form.

Note that CBS already dissolved its FX team so I think that there's truth to the idea that there's some chaos in their art department and what we're seeing is a direct consequence of that lack of direction / expertise. It's something that looks flashy....but somehow tacky, disjointed, and even sloppy here and there.

I think that's reading too much into it. Fans always look for justifications for their fears, so they read all these frankly paranoid conspiracy theories into what are really fairly routine business practices -- like the way every big feature film's reshoots are taken as "proof" that the production is in trouble and the movie is terrible and all that, even though it's a normal practice that happens with every big-budget movie these days and is planned to happen all along.

Considering that Discovery was delayed quite a bit beyond its original planned release date, I'd guess that, if this story was true at all, then maybe the FX artists were just let go so they could pursue work on something else. In a case like that, it makes sense to let people move on and hire different people who can work with the new schedule -- like when Rogue One changed composers because the original composer couldn't accommodate the new post-reshoot schedule. But there's no shortage of talented FX artists in the industry, so there's no reason to think there'd be any loss of expertise or ability.

 

[SG-17]

I'm just annoyed that this is another prequel. Why can't we have a series set after the destruction of Romulus?

 

[Christopher]

I'm just annoyed that this is another prequel. Why can't we have a series set after the destruction of Romulus?

It's not that we "can't," it's just that that wasn't the story Bryan Fuller wanted to tell. Creators are individuals. They aren't following some generic, universal, mechanical set of rules, they're telling the stories that excite them as individuals. Whoever gets hired to create the next new Trek series may very well want to set it after the destruction of Romulus. Or they might want to set it 35 years before TNG. Or they might want to reboot the universe altogether. We can't know, because creators are individuals and different ones come up with different ideas.

Then again, the destruction of Romulus happened in a movie from Bad Robot and Paramount, so CBS would probably have to involve them in the production of a series that built on those concepts, and maybe they'd rather not do that. Although they could set it far enough afterward that it's a remote historical event that doesn't come up much.

 

[Kemaiku]

I'm just annoyed that this is another prequel. Why can't we have a series set after the destruction of Romulus?

Lengthy, pain in the asss legal issues. And the fucking tedious 24th century again so lets really really really not.

 

[SG-17]

Legal issues?

 

[Kemaiku]

Bad Robot has the rights to the Kelvin universe with Paramount. Paramount/CBS owns various aspects of the Prime universe, CBS/Pocket/Schuster/Penguin etc etc the novel, CBS/Paramount/Cryptic the ST:O.

They can't all reference each other without a sign off from all parties involved.

Now, isn't it easier to have a series with CBS that technically takes place in an era not really used with a new ship and crew with any cameo of person or ship thought out in advance so that legal barriers are taken care of ahead of time?

And one the public can get onboard with fast, can be re-imaged easier, etc etc all costing less money and time?

It just makes more sense.

 

[Mr Awe]

Two things.

1) I do not respect producers dishing out a show that is really handled as if it's a reboot but not having the courage to label it as such. Call a spade a spade.

Why would they refer to it as a reboot when it's not a reboot? That makes no sense!

2) Just because the look may need to be modernized does not mean that any and all approaches to modernization are good.

Discovery looked GREAT in the trailer so they must have used a good modernization approach!

 

[Christopher]

Bad Robot has the rights to the Kelvin universe with Paramount. Paramount/CBS owns various aspects of the Prime universe, CBS/Pocket/Schuster/Penguin etc etc the novel, CBS/Paramount/Cryptic the ST:O.

They can't all reference each other without a sign off from all parties involved.

Strictly speaking, CBS owns all of it. Nobody else can make anything set in the Trek universe (at least, not for profit) without CBS's permission and without paying them a cut. But Bad Robot and Paramount are production partners on the Kelvin movies and so they have a copyright on their specific contents, even though the overall universe, characters, and distinctive entities belong to CBS and are used with its permission. So CBS can use Spock, but if it's the version of Spock whose planet was destroyed and who dated Uhura, then they'd probably need to do that in partnership with Paramount/Bad Robot, or at least pay them for the use. It's not that they don't own it, it's just that the rights to use those specific elements are shared with someone else.

But that doesn't apply to the novels, the comics, or (as far as I know) the games. Those are licensed merchandise created on a work-for-hire basis, and CBS owns all their concepts and can pretty much do whatever they want with them. Which is how the movies ended up using Vonda McIntyre's first names for Kirk's parents and Sulu and William Rotsler's first name for Uhura.

 

[Kemaiku]

TOS is still the only era more easily portrayed for everyone involved. And updating the look to reflect the current advances of technology and diversity, rather than the now frankly embarrasing 60's rendition.

 

[SG-17]

So set a show in the 2480s. It would allow for a post-Romulus future to be explored far enough away that the destruction isn't outright referenced, just some vague reference to an uprising and establishment of a Romulan Republic or something would be needed. It would also allow for modern designs without messing with canon ship design.

 

[Christopher]

TOS is still the only era more easily portrayed for everyone involved.

It's "easy" for CBS to portray any era that doesn't rely specifically on Bad Robot concepts, because they own the entire franchise. In most cases, they're the only ones involved. The Kelvin movies are different only because of the split of the Trek movie and TV rights that happened when Viacom split into two companies. As far as anything TV-related is concerned, CBS is the sole owner and there are no complications with other companies.

The setting of DSC is not the result of corporate dicta. It's the result of Bryan Fuller wanting to set a story there.

So set a show in the 2480s. It would allow for a post-Romulus future to be explored far enough away that the destruction isn't outright referenced, just some vague reference to an uprising and establishment of a Romulan Republic or something would be needed. It would also allow for modern designs without messing with canon ship design.

And maybe the next show will do that. But this show isn't, because Fuller had a different idea he wanted to do. There were many different options for what the next Trek show could've been, but only one was going to get done. It just happened to be this one, because they picked Fuller to create it instead of somebody else.

 

[Kemaiku]

So set a show in the 2480s. It would allow for a post-Romulus future to be explored far enough away that the destruction isn't outright referenced, just some vague reference to an uprising and establishment of a Romulan Republic or something would be needed. It would also allow for modern designs without messing with canon ship design.

And outside of a small portion of the fandom, who the fuck would care that a studio would sign off millions of dollars to show this to 98% of an audience other than us?

Really, why? it's a TV show that needs simplicity. No one wants a university course consisting of 50 years+ reading before watching, that would die minutes into the pilot.