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

[Riley]

Because they want to do: Star Trek
Not Star Trek: The Next Generation (season 22)

That's a ridiculous argument and you know it. Next Gen IS Star Trek, as is everything that followed it outside of the Abrams movies.

Setting a new series 50 years after Voyager in the same timeline yet avoiding references to the TNG era series (like TNG did with TOS) would not prevent the series from "being" Star Trek, as you put it.

You blind DSC devotees pull the most idiotic ideas out of your rear shuttle bays to attack anyone who doesn't like what we've seen about DSC thus far.

 

[CorporalClegg]

That's a ridiculous argument and you know it. Next Gen IS Star Trek, as is everything that followed it outside of the Abrams movies.

Setting a new series 50 years after Voyager in the same timeline yet avoiding references to the TNG era series (like TNG did with TOS) would not prevent the series from "being" Star Trek, as you put it.

You blind DSC devotees pull the most idiotic ideas out of your rear shuttle bays to attack anyone who doesn't like what we've seen about DSC thus far.

Emphasis mine--simply for the sake of showing why not to take posts like these seriously.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Yeah, the claim that nuTrek isn't real Star Trek has been tiresome, well, always.

 

[Noname Given]

That's a ridiculous argument and you know it. Next Gen IS Star Trek, as is everything that followed it outside of the Abrams movies.

Setting a new series 50 years after Voyager in the same timeline yet avoiding references to the TNG era series (like TNG did with TOS) would not prevent the series from "being" Star Trek, as you put it.

You blind DSC devotees pull the most idiotic ideas out of your rear shuttle bays to attack anyone who doesn't like what we've seen about DSC thus far.

No, I'm just one of the old TOS fans (and someone who's been watching Star Trek since 1969 at age 6) who never really cared for the Star Trek retcon the was GR's TNG 'vison' that basically took a lot of what I enjoyed about the original Star Trek and threw it out the window because he was so old, he couldn't get any young actress on his casting couch any longer.

Sp yeah, excuse me if the fact that ST: D will be hearkening back to the ORIGINAL series that, to this day in popular culture is probably still more know, and recognized outside of the more hard core Star Trek fanbase then TNG or any of the other 24th century era spinoffs.

Now maybe some hard core TNG fans will know what it feels like when your franchise reinvents itself in a way that removes what your primary enjoyment from said franchise was when you first saw it. (Altough I guess TNG was more famtasy then Science Fiction because honestly, it often felt like a lot of the 1980ies 'family dramas' - just set on a space ship. The Federation was 'always right' (at keast with the way Picard pontificated during an episode) - and always tolorent (unless it was Worf doing something that was perfectly acceptable and hell expected in Klingon society - only to be dressed down by Picard because it violated one of Human/Federation society's 'always right' codes - like say killing the murderer of your mate in an honorable duel.

So yes, excuse me if I take issue with your belief that CBS is shooting themselves in the foot because they decided to go back with a POPULAR version of the Star Trek franchise - and not a version whose last feature film outing (Star Trek: Nemesis) was BEAT OUT in it's opening weekend by the Jennifer Lopez film 'Maid In Manhattan'

 

[Christopher]

I still don't understand why DSC isn't either set a decade or so after Generations or a few decades after NEM. If TPTB decided on a near-TOS setting to appease fans, they ended up shooting themselves in the foot. Either of the settings I just mentioned would allow much more room for "updating."

It's not about "appeasing" anyone, because setting is not an end in itself. Bryan Fuller set DSC in the 2250s because there was a specific story in the 2250s that he wanted to explore. He's said as much in interviews going back to last year, that the show's storyline would tie into an established event or situation referenced as part of Trek history, something that inspired an idea in him that he wanted to explore. Of course we don't know why he chose that period yet, because we don't know the storyline yet. We will know when we see the episodes and learn what the plot is about.

 

[Kor]

No, I'm just one of the old TOS fans (and someone who's been watching Star Trek since 1969 at age 6) who never really cared for the Star Trek retcon the was GR's TNG 'vison' that basically took a lot of what I enjoyed about the original Star Trek and threw it out the window because he was so old, he couldn't get any young actress on his casting couch any longer.

Sp yeah, excuse me if the fact that ST: D will be hearkening back to the ORIGINAL series that, to this day in popular culture is probably still more know, and recognized outside of the more hard core Star Trek fanbase then TNG or any of the other 24th century era spinoffs.

Now maybe some hard core TNG fans will know what it feels like when your franchise reinvents itself in a way that removes what your primary enjoyment from said franchise was when you first saw it. (Altough I guess TNG was more famtasy then Science Fiction because honestly, it often felt like a lot of the 1980ies 'family dramas' - just set on a space ship. The Federation was 'always right' (at keast with the way Picard pontificated during an episode) - and always tolorent (unless it was Worf doing something that was perfectly acceptable and hell expected in Klingon society - only to be dressed down by Picard because it violated one of Human/Federation society's 'always right' codes - like say killing the murderer of your mate in an honorable duel.

So yes, excuse me if I take issue with your belief that CBS is shooting themselves in the foot because they decided to go back with a POPULAR version of the Star Trek franchise - and not a version whose last feature film outing (Star Trek: Nemesis) was BEAT OUT in it's opening weekend by the Jennifer Lopez film 'Maid In Manhattan'

+1

To me, TNG isn't Star Trek.

If we were to be subjected to yet more of the 24th century (or later)... I, for one, wouldn't be watching.

Kor

 

[Spot261]

That's a ridiculous argument and you know it. Next Gen IS Star Trek, as is everything that followed it outside of the Abrams movies.

Setting a new series 50 years after Voyager in the same timeline yet avoiding references to the TNG era series (like TNG did with TOS) would not prevent the series from "being" Star Trek, as you put it.

You blind DSC devotees pull the most idiotic ideas out of your rear shuttle bays to attack anyone who doesn't like what we've seen about DSC thus far.

And therein lies the problem,

we haven't seen discovery yet

 

[Refuge]

That's a ridiculous argument and you know it. Next Gen IS Star Trek, as is everything that followed it outside of the Abrams movies.

Setting a new series 50 years after Voyager in the same timeline yet avoiding references to the TNG era series (like TNG did with TOS) would not prevent the series from "being" Star Trek, as you put it.

You blind DSC devotees pull the most idiotic ideas out of your rear shuttle bays to attack anyone who doesn't like what we've seen about DSC thus far.

Sigh.. I agree with those sentiments in that the makers have set the stage, it's up to them to make it work. The devil in the detail is that they have allowed only ten years of the 'unknown' for their wiggle room.

 

[BillJ]

Sigh.. I agree with those sentiments in that the makers have set the stage, it's up to them to make it work. The devil in the detail is that they have allowed only ten years of the 'unknown' for their wiggle room.

Or one could just watch it to be entertained...

 

[Tuskin38]

Well the discovery is meant to be out on the frontier so that is more wiggle room.

 

[fireproof78]

That's a ridiculous argument and you know it. Next Gen IS Star Trek, as is everything that followed it outside of the Abrams movies.

Setting a new series 50 years after Voyager in the same timeline yet avoiding references to the TNG era series (like TNG did with TOS) would not prevent the series from "being" Star Trek, as you put it.

You blind DSC devotees pull the most idiotic ideas out of your rear shuttle bays to attack anyone who doesn't like what we've seen about DSC thus far.

Pretty certain that its not "blind devotion" to want to wait and see what Discovery is actually about, rather than making assumptions based upon limited promotion stills, trailers and sound bites.

Also, Abrams Trek=Star Trek. It's in the name, really. Logical.

 

[Refuge]

Or one could just watch it to be entertained...

Hope so, though I've been reliably informed of late that if you don't enjoy something it is because you might not understand every nuance and production value within an inch of its life Simply liking or not liking it doesn't exist.

 

[Mudd]

Hope so, though I've been reliably informed of late that if you don't enjoy something it is because you might not understand every nuance and production value within an inch of its life.

I think folks actually make judgments about what posters understand or don't based on the content of their posts. Anything else is illogical.

 

[fireproof78]

Hope so, though I've been reliably informed of late that if you don't enjoy something it is because you might not understand every nuance and production value within an inch of its life Simply liking or not liking it doesn't exist.

You have now moved up in to the next stage of enlightenment

By the way, how does one enjoy trailers and production stills?

 

[Refuge]

You have now moved up in to the next stage of enlightenment

By the way, how does one enjoy trailers and production stills?

Just view them through your own 'filter' and if you like, you like. Same goes with any of this.

 

[fireproof78]

Just view them through your own 'filter' and if you like, you like. Same goes with any of this.

But how do I know if I'm doing it right?

 

[Refuge]

But how do I know if I'm doing it right?

Lol, someone is bound to tell you..

 

[fireproof78]

Lol, someone is bound to tell you..

Clearly. I was just told I've been watching Star Wars wrong this whole time.

 

[Phoenix219]

Clearly. I was just told I've been watching Star Wars wrong this whole time.

Yup. You're supposed to skip 1, and watch 4, 5, 2, 3, 6 in that order, now. ;D

It keeps the mystery of Vader thru the first 2 movies, then flashes back to Vader's story after the reveal, culminating in his redemption at the end. I think you can "open" with the end of 1 if you really want to.

 

[Jayson1]

Actually "Discovery" isn't going to be TOS or TNG. It's going to be "Discovery" which is it's own thing. Most likely won't even matter to much what time period they had set the show in.

Jason