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

[Jayson1]

I think Discovery is making Enterprise's impact on the fan base look tame in comparison.

It will all fade once the show gets started. If people like it they will figure out how to make all fit. Whether it's prime or 3rd timeline. Whether it's fun hour of action adventure or some new edgy show that pushes the envelope.

If people don't like it they will simply move on to other shows they like and maybe be kind of sad or angry that Trek is no longer good but that is about it. Some might hate watch but that is whole different thing and something I think everyone does from time to time. I do that anytime I do a Trek marathon because I am someone who doesn't even skip the bad episodes. Feels wrong to me and naturally I have seen the "Star Wars" prequels way to much. Almost like self torture at times.

Jason

 

[Starfury]

It will all fade once the show gets started.

Or it will fade once a NEW show get's started (because then, that new show is going to be the worst that ever happened to Star Trek). Lots of Fans were pretty negative before and during the run of Enterprise. That changed only slightly with the Kelvin Movies ("...Not even Enterprise was that bad"). Now, with Discovery on the horizon they mellow on the kelvin movies. ("Not even the Kelvin-Movies were that bad") I'm sure the Haters of today are going to start loving Discovery once the next Star Trek Show is turning out to be the worst thing ever ;D

 

[Christopher]

I think Discovery is making Enterprise's impact on the fan base look tame in comparison.

Oh, no, the reactions at the time were just as intense as they are now. This is how it always goes -- the new version of Trek gets fierce backlash when it's new, but then years later the next new Trek gets all the backlash and people forget that it was just as bad the last time. Heck, the backlash against TNG was enormous for the first couple of years -- even some of the original cast members were vocally against it.

Indeed, I'd say the backlash against ENT was probably worse, because it was the first time a Trek prequel had been tried. The second prequel (third if you count Kelvin) naturally wouldn't get quite as strong a reaction, since people are more used to the idea now.

 

[Riley]

Speaking of uniforms, I always thought the TOS dress uniforms were cool and could have been updated into a jacket-style uniform. Had DSC gone that route, the in-universe explanation for the later dress unis could have been that they are based on a former uniform style. We saw that in DS9 with the admiralty and other dress uniforms until Insurrection.

 

[Tarek71]

No, you're completely and absolutely missing my point. We do NOT agree that the designs are "retro." I disagree with you utterly on that point. My point is that the difference in design between TOS uniforms and DSC uniforms is not about whether they're forward or backward along some sort of imagined temporal axis of design. It's just about the fact that they're from different designers with different tastes. They're both trying to design what they think are plausible and good-looking 23rd-century uniforms, but they have different ideas about what constitutes that, simply because they are not the same people. My point is that even if you take away any such considerations as "futuristic vs. retro," even if you just have two different creators designing to the same basic parameters, their designs will still be different simply because that's how human creativity works. You and other people here keep trying to "explain" the differences as an attempt to meet some kind of functional goal or objective standard, but they're simply due to a difference in the designers' imagination and the producers' preferences.

I didn't say we agreed that they are retro, even though they certainly are that. In the case of the Kelvin look, that was stated explicitly by the designer. And those considerations seem very evident to me in the DSC uniforms. What I said we agree upon was that "they didn't do it because it was more or less 'futuristic'". It is certainly due to individual creative choices. And the new uniforms are certainly not more plausible, modern, or futuristic. Though I do think a continuity does involve a design "axis", and they think so too on DSC as evidenced by a number of items that they are obviously designing to be in visual continuity.

But they also take direction. If they were told to recreate the TOS movie uniform maroons in exacting detail, that's what they would do. Because that's what the showrunner wants. This is not a personal art project. You can pitch something to them as a craft designer, but ultimately it is their vision, not yours. If JJ says the Imperial uniforms need to replicate the look of the 1977 film to a considerable degree, than that is your task. Not to overrule him because your an artist and you have a different vision. But obviously the silly Captain Neutron: Space Ranger look is something they were ok with.

 

[Noname Given]

I think Discovery is making Enterprise's impact on the fan base look tame in comparison.

Not really - the reaction to what people preceived as canon violations were the same:

- Some were trouting out the claim that Spock was "the first Vulcan in Starfleet" (which was NEVER stated anywhere in TOS or the films - not to mention the U.S.S. Intrepid from TOS - "The Immunity Syndrome" crewed by 430 Yulcans all in Starfleet; and if there was a Vulcan Captain, said Captain had probably been in Starfleet longer than Spock )

- The cries of 'Akiraprise' lasted for YEARS.

- The "Phase Pistol" problem in that it didn't jive with the crew having "Hand Lasers" in the TOS pilot "The Cage" set 100+ years later.

- The "The NX-01 Bride looks more advanced than the TOS Enterprise Bridge" (finally dispelled in the ENT "In A Mirror Darkly" two-parter - Where it was shown the TOS bride was all inlaid high-resolution computer monitors )

- There were also the - "Set it after ST:VOY (ST:NEM hadn't come out and bombed yet), why go backwards..." cries too.

The ST: D reaction is somewhat the same compared to what fans were saying regarding ENT

 

[Christopher]

I didn't say we agreed that they are retro, even though they certainly are that.

Wow, you really don't realize how insulting it is to say your opinion is "certainly" the right one at the same time you acknowledge mine is different? Your opinion is just your opinion, not a cosmic truth.

But they also take direction. If they were told to recreate the TOS movie uniform maroons in exacting detail, that's what they would do. Because that's what the showrunner wants.

Exactly. That's what I've been saying all along -- that it's both the designers and the producers whose opinions matter. This show has different designers and producers from TOS, so that means there's twice as much reason for the designs to be different. I mean, it's pretty clear that Alex Kurtzman's involvement as executive producer is probably the main reason for the show's stylistic similarities to the Kelvin films -- just as the fact that Rick Berman was EP of all four previous Trek series was the reason they were so stylistically similar to each other. If Berman had walked away sooner, if VGR or ENT had had a different person in charge, those shows would probably have made a sharper stylistic break with their predecessors. I think maybe having just one man as the ultimate arbiter for nearly 2 decades and 4 series ended up conditioning the fans to expect a certain look and thus be more surprised by a change.

Not really - the reaction to what p[eople preceived as canon violations were the same:
...
- The cries of 'Akiraprise' lasted for YEARS.

To be fair, the execs did specifically ask for an Akira-like design. But it's easy enough to assume that the Akira was a retro design modeled on NX-01.

- The "Phase Pistol" problem in that it didn't jive with the crew having "Hand Lasers" in the TOS pilot "The Cage" set 100+ years later.

And Roddenberry regretted ever calling them "lasers," which was why he changed them to "phasers" in the very second production. If he'd gone back and done a pre-"Cage" prequel, he would've absolutely called the weapons phasers. And really, the word "laser" is spoken exactly twice in "The Cage," so it's an easy enough detail to overlook. "Lithium" is uttered 17 times in "Mudd's Women," but we still have no trouble accepting that they were dilithium crystals all along. And nobody believes James Kirk changed his middle name after Gary Mitchell died. So why do people have so much trouble accepting that "laser" was just a rough-draft term that got abandoned?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

But it's easy enough to assume that the Akira was a retro design modeled on NX-01.

Isn't there an actual Trek novel which suggests that very thing?

 

[cultcross]

The Akiraprise was one of those few fanrages I did kind of understand. It wasn't just the general shape, even tiny hull details were copied without any real reason behind them. It was a lazy design choice, in my view. The other hero ships, Discovery included, are new (or in Discovery's case mostly new in the sense of not been prominent before) and quite iconic. The NX01 design process just felt like a kitbash.
I can't say I was upset about it exactly, but it was a bit disappointing. I don't even like Discovery's ship design much and I still prefer it to that!

 

[Christopher]

The Akiraprise was one of those few fanrages I did kind of understand. It wasn't just the general shape, even tiny hull details were copied without any real reason behind them. It was a lazy design choice, in my view.

Honestly, I hate the Akira design but I rather like the NX class. They have some broad similarities but massively different proportions and details -- like a hippo vs. a race horse. Also, the NX is loaded with all sorts of subtle design homages to the pilot and TOS Enterprise, because Doug Drexler and the design team were determined to cram in as many authentic details as they could despite the execs' insistence on an Akira-based look. It's a design that's more impressive in fine detail than in broad strokes.

 

[Noname Given]

The Akiraprise was one of those few fanrages I did kind of understand. It wasn't just the general shape, even tiny hull details were copied without any real reason behind them. It was a lazy design choice, in my view. The other hero ships, Discovery included, are new (or in Discovery's case mostly new in the sense of not been prominent before) and quite iconic. The NX01 design process just felt like a kitbash.
I can't say I was upset about it exactly, but it was a bit disappointing. I don't even like Discovery's ship design much and I still prefer it to that!

I honestly thought the NX-01 design was great - a Primary saucer-type hull with warp nacelles. <--- makes simple and good sense for a first Human warp ship and you can extrapolate it forward to see it's influence on later designs (including the Akira.)

And hell, after ST:FC fans were WANTING an 'Akira-like' hero ship. I think alot of the backlash was because all the 24th century fans wanted a new show in that era or later - and anything else (much like ST: D is for some of those same fans) was/is a huge disappointment to them.

For me? Hell - ST: D is what I would have LOVED ST:TNG to have been back in 1987. YMMV.

 

[Ovation]

Of course, no one has yet settled the most important detail of all: stardates.

TOS semi-random 4 digit before the "point"?
Well-ordered 5 digit before the "point" from TNG?
ENT style regular Gregorian calendar?
Kelvin international date version?

Each is "canon in Prime". But only one can be used. I shan't sleep until this mystery is resolved.

 

[Jayson1]

Am I the only one who wants a new ship that really feels different like the Defiant did on "DS9?" Why do they always have to go with nacelles and a sauser? If they did that almost all the issue's about the sets and stuff would be not be as intense because the ship itself would tell you were not on a typical starfleet ship.

Jason

 

[Christopher]

Am I the only one who wants a new ship that really feels different like the Defiant did on "DS9?" Why do they always have to go with nacelles and a sauser?

Realistically, that should be like asking why airplane designers always have to go with wings and a tail, or why boats always have to have keels. The design of a vehicle should be shaped by physical and functional necessity. Sometimes there can be a few different ways to achieve the same basic result -- you can have a helicopter instead of a fixed-wing craft, or use a catamaran instead of a keel -- but there are certain constants of physical law that put limits on what designs you can use. I feel the wild variety of different ship designs in Trek post-TOS is unrealistic. It makes it more obvious that these are just imaginary constructs on a TV show rather than plausible technology. I'd be happier if all starships had to have nacelles, or if there were maybe just one or two other major types of ship design that all ships would have to conform to.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Realistically, that should be like asking why airplane designers always have to go with wings and a tail, or why boats always have to have keels. The design of a vehicle should be shaped by physical and functional necessity.

I would assume that when aerodynamics or hydrodynamics aren't a concern (read: in space), there is more freedom when it comes to the outer shape of something, though.

 

[Tarek71]

Why should it be preserved?

Are you really suggesting that no matter how well acted and scripted the show is, no matter how well it engages the viewer, how intelligently it makes one think, what issues it raises the real question is whether they used the same uniforms as The Cage?

Are you serious? Absolutely no one says that. But it can be well written, we'll acted and fit in with the continuity it says it fits with. The phaser and communicator don't look the way they do because, by some incredible coincidence the people working on the props just so happen to have the same personal design aesthetic as the 60s prop designers.

Nor is it the case that if the communicator and ray gun design don't fit with the Cage/TOS era, that the show will fail, or that continuity of design Trumps stories and characters. They all go together.

Design isn't more important than writing, but not many designers think what they do for living as artists is just some insubstantial, superfluous window dressing for story tellers. They obviously do think that it needs to fit and think it's important that it does.

 

[Mudd]

Oh yeah, they could come up with much more interesting design variations than Trek ever does - heck, that big starliner or whatever from Passengers is more plausible looking and really different than anything in Trek.

They keep using the same design elements for the same reason that they keep slapping the Starfleet chevron on everything, for whatever reason that is - oh yeah, familiarity and product recognition.

The best evidence that expecting this series to "adhere to canon" is a hollow hope can be seen in the online response since yesterday to the revelation of Burnham's relationship to Sarek. The perception of respect for canon can't be created and maintained just by making sure you adhere to what's been definitively established - fans have assumptions and expectations based upon past stories that must be satisfied and what those are can't be predicted and addressed without becoming so timid that almost nothing can be done story-wise.

 

[Jayson1]

Realistically, that should be like asking why airplane designers always have to go with wings and a tail, or why boats always have to have keels. The design of a vehicle should be shaped by physical and functional necessity. Sometimes there can be a few different ways to achieve the same basic result -- you can have a helicopter instead of a fixed-wing craft, or use a catamaran instead of a keel -- but there are certain constants of physical law that put limits on what designs you can use. I feel the wild variety of different ship designs in Trek post-TOS is unrealistic. It makes it more obvious that these are just imaginary constructs on a TV show rather than plausible technology. I'd be happier if all starships had to have nacelles, or if there were maybe just one or two other major types of ship design that all ships would have to conform to.

For me I always seen all of them being kind of unrealistic so It wouldn't bother me that much. Perhaps if it got out of hand and every ship you see looks weird and like starfleet has no specific look to it's ships it bug me but I don't mind exceptions. That's kind of how I except and liked the Defiant.

One other reason is if starfleet is made up of 100 or so different worlds it makes sense to me that each alien culture would have it's own design look and it's own technology so why wouldn't ships reflect on all the different imput you would have when creating ships. Why no starfleet ships for example that kind of look like some of the Vulcan ships on "Enterprise" once the Federation gets started.

Jason

 

[Christopher]

I would assume that when aerodynamics or hydrodynamics aren't a concern (read: in space), there is more freedom when it comes to the outer shape of something, though.

But when we're talking about something like warp drive, about the kind of technology that can do something as difficult and delicate as distorting spacetime to allow effectively faster-than-light travel, that should be something that can only be done in a very finite number of ways. The physics of the situation should constrain the design there at least as much as in the case of a boat or aircraft.

For that matter, there are certain physical limits on the plausible design of a spacecraft just by virtue of being in space, although film and TV spacecraft designs routinely ignore them. The optimal shapes for a large pressurized vessel in vacuum are a sphere, a torus, and a cylinder with hemispherical endcaps. Anything else will have points or edges where the forces get concentrated and create the risk of a rupture. Something designed for atmospheric entry will need some kind of nose cone or aerodynamic surfaces. Also, spaceships need some kind of heat radiators -- contrary to popular myth, space doesn't insta-freeze you, because vacuum is actually a great insulator and there's more risk of overheating than freezing, especially if you have powerful engines or weapon systems at work inside your ship generating waste heat. This is another design element that should be essential but that fiction routinely ignores.

 

[{ Emilia }]

But when we're talking about something like warp drive, about the kind of technology that can do something as difficult and delicate as distorting spacetime to allow effectively faster-than-light travel, that should be something that can only be done in a very finite number of ways. The physics of the situation should constrain the design there at least as much as in the case of a boat or aircraft.

That's assuming the shape of the ship even has much of an influence on how effective the FTL drive works.
I'm not saying you're wrong but given that all this tech is fictional, it's pretty much open for debate how much variety in ship shapes is too much.