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

[Tarek71]

We have to distinguish between historical fiction vs. AltHistory fiction and Trek. If you say, "we decided to reimagine the look of the German Army of 1940", (all those boring gray uniforms), then you have entered #AltHistory. It is no longer the "Prime" (historical) timeline. You can say the change is only "cosmetic". Yes, but the 1940s will always look like the 1940s. Forever. You can't change that.

You cant "reimagine" it and still say "it's not althistory, its the prime timeline, because the Germans still lose the war, etc. The larger events are kept". Doesnt matter. You cant give the Germans forehead ridges and green uniforms and say it's Prime timeline. Clearly it's not.

But Trek isnt historical fiction. It's a 1960s conception of the 23rd century. Vs a 1980s conception of the 24th century (TNG) vs a 2000s conception of the 23rd century (ST09). Because it is a projection into the future, we can and should update it. We are 50 years closer to Kirks time than they were in 1966. So it's ok to change uniform, console and backrounds, etc in a way not acceptable to WW2 fiction.

Reimagining the aliens however? Not as understandable. They talked about fetishes for how certain aliens looked and behaved. But it is not a "fetish", it is the established continuity. This is where I am with BillJ. It is a new timeline. I dont care what they say in interviews. Reimagining the aliens because you feel like it means new continuity. There is no basis for changing the aliens that is comparable to changing to computer displays to seem more "futuristic". The Klingons need to look as they did before for it to be Prime, no matter what Alex says in interviews. Maybe there is some in story reason, but it sounds like that just thought it was fun and interesting to reimagine things.

Ok. But that's a new timeline.

 

[Refuge]

There's a certain amount of over-analyzing. In dealing with the continuity of lived history we can only use recorded and memorized events. Using that logic.. continuity of fiction should follow the same ground rules. Continuity within pre-set parameters is what we have been asked to expect. We have been referenced TOS and not a new TOS. Start suggesting that we should also be re-imagining TOS to fit with a nu-imaged Discovery is a joke. If they want us to think Discovery is only ten years before Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise, fine. Sharpen up the production values to reflect 2017, but it won't make sense to change anything that doesn't arrive intact to the ten years later we already know about.

 

[Christopher]

Updating how it looks compatible to how it *looked* is fine by me. Updating how it looks to something re-imaged is bullshitting us.

First off, that doesn't make sense. How do you update something without changing it?

Second, what does "bullshitting" even mean in this context? If you mean telling us something false, that statement doesn't make sense, because Star Trek is a work of fiction to begin with. There is no "truth" to it, just a bunch of entertaining fantasies some people made up. Fiction is BSing.

Also, from what I can tell, BSing also means pretending knowledge of a subject you don't actually know anything about. I know that's not the case on Discovery. A friend of mine, fellow novelist Kirsten Beyer, is on the show's writing staff, and another friend/colleague, David Mack, is writing the first tie-in novel and working closely with the staff. So I am reliably informed that the show's staff is not ignorant of Star Trek continuity; Kirsten's presence alone guarantees that. If they present something differently from what you're used to, that isn't because of ignorance of the subject matter. It's because they, like previous Trek creators before them, are creating a work of fiction and imagination, and they're trying to make it appeal to a new audience so they can bring them into Trek fandom for the first time, because catering exclusively to the pre-existing fans would defeat the whole purpose of creating a new incarnation.

Reimagining the aliens however? Not as understandable. They talked about fetishes for how certain aliens looked and behaved. But it is not a "fetish", it is the established continuity. This is where I am with BillJ. It is a new timeline. I dont care what they say in interviews. Reimagining the aliens because you feel like it means new continuity. There is no basis for changing the aliens that is comparable to changing to computer displays to seem more "futuristic". The Klingons need to look as they did before for it to be Prime, no matter what Alex says in interviews. Maybe there is some in story reason, but it sounds like that just thought it was fun and interesting to reimagine things.

"Look at they did before?" Which version? You've got the first Fred Phillips version with swarthy skin and bifurcated eyebrows. You've got the second Phillips version with just beards. You've got the third Phillips version with a single vertebral ridge running down the middle of a smooth forehead with ridges on the bridge of the nose. You've got the Burman Studios version with individualized bony forehead plates and smooth noses, and barely any ridges on the females (i.e. Valkris). You've got the Richard Snell version with subtler individualized forehead plates, also with much subtler female ridges. You've got the Michael Westmore version with large, individualized bony plates and nose ridges, and with no gender dimorphism in plate size. Honestly, I wish they'd just established decades ago that Klingons are multiple different, perhaps related, species that share a common culture.

And of course other species have been repeatedly redesigned too. Tellarites went through 2-3 makeup variations in their 3 TOS appearances (later background Tellarites lacked the sunken eyes and three-fingered hands, and the dead one in "The Lights of Zetar" didn't even have the nose), then went to a more porcine look with less sunken eyes in TVH, then underwent a massive redesign in ENT. Andorians have had multiple designs across TOS, TMP, TVH, TNG, and ENT, with many variations of antenna shape, size, and position. The Ktarian makeup design changed completely from the big arched forehead ridges in TNG: "The Game" to just a few tiny horns in Voyager (because they needed a simple makeup to put on the baby and child actors playing Naomi Wildman). The Borg underwent a major redesign in First Contact and beyond. And so on.

This is just something Star Trek does. It's not like Star Wars where every tiny detail is religiously recreated. It's always had room for new creators to reimagine its look, to put their own stamp on it. There's nothing happening here that hasn't been done multiple times before. It's just that today's fans are already used to the older changes, or weren't there when they were first made. The new changes always take more time to get used to, and far too many fans mistake novelty for wrongness. But keep in mind that the whole driving philosophy of Star Trek is the opposite of that -- that the new and different are not wrong, that they're something to be sought out with open, welcoming curiosity.

 

[BillJ]

So I am reliably informed that the show's staff is not ignorant of Star Trek continuity...

I'm not sure that is a good thing for the show.

 

[cultcross]

The Klingons need to look as they did before for it to be Prime,

As they did before... which time?

If different Klingons are the mark of a new universe, Trek already exists in a sprawling multiverse.

 

[Tuskin38]

I'm not sure that is a good thing for the show.

Why?

 

[fireproof78]

We have to distinguish between historical fiction vs. AltHistory fiction and Trek. If you say, "we decided to reimagine the look of the German Army of 1940", (all those boring gray uniforms), then you have entered #AltHistory. It is no longer the "Prime" (historical) timeline. You can say the change is only "cosmetic". Yes, but the 1940s will always look like the 1940s. Forever. You can't change that.

You cant "reimagine" it and still say "it's not althistory, its the prime timeline, because the Germans still lose the war, etc. The larger events are kept". Doesnt matter. You cant give the Germans forehead ridges and green uniforms and say it's Prime timeline. Clearly it's not.

But Trek isnt historical fiction. It's a 1960s conception of the 23rd century. Vs a 1980s conception of the 24th century (TNG) vs a 2000s conception of the 23rd century (ST09). Because it is a projection into the future, we can and should update it. We are 50 years closer to Kirks time than they were in 1966. So it's ok to change uniform, console and backrounds, etc in a way not acceptable to WW2 fiction.

Reimagining the aliens however? Not as understandable. They talked about fetishes for how certain aliens looked and behaved. But it is not a "fetish", it is the established continuity. This is where I am with BillJ. It is a new timeline. I dont care what they say in interviews. Reimagining the aliens because you feel like it means new continuity. There is no basis for changing the aliens that is comparable to changing to computer displays to seem more "futuristic". The Klingons need to look as they did before for it to be Prime, no matter what Alex says in interviews. Maybe there is some in story reason, but it sounds like that just thought it was fun and interesting to reimagine things.

Ok. But that's a new timeline.

Ok, so TMP is a new timeline? This is not sarcasm-it is a genuine question because the Klingons were completely reimagined, multiple times, as @Christopher pointed out in his post. Which design is "canon?"

For me, there is absolutely precedence in reimagining alien species as advances in make up and FX becomes easier to apply. You can create more variation on the skull plates, the hair styles, add piercings, body art, etc, because the effects budget will allow it. Now, the aliens are no monolithic but a culture of individuals.

Kind of like humanity.

 

[BillJ]

Ok, so TMP is a new timeline? This is not sarcasm-it is a genuine question because the Klingons were completely reimagined, multiple times, as @Christopher pointed out in his post. Which design is "canon?"

I treat TMP and Enterprise both as new timelines. And both are canon. Canon and continuity are not the same thing, no matter how many times people treat the two as the same thing.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

I have seen this topic come up so many times here in the last few months - but I think the two "sides" aren't hearing what the other is actually talking about sometimes.

You can update a show AND be faithful to it.

Say you have a 60s show. It's budget and materials look dated, but the general intent and premise is amazing still. You can make an alteration that is quite profound, and tie it into the original as if it were historical fiction, simply by updating designs and material, but also leaving enough plausible room to say that they are things that could exist together - we never saw them, but the TOS Enterprise probably had a fleet of work bees onboard - we never saw it fire it's RCS thrusters, but it had them.

That TOS era PADD above - some people on this forum see a piece of plywood painted black - with a bit of imagination, the PADD could have been a stylus-to-text military-hardened personal computer for writing logs in and stuff. All Discovery needs to do is show a similar device - but one that uses all the modern detailing you would expect, in order to add a flair of faithfulness. When ENT showed TOS era technology, they did a pretty good job of showing how ridiculously more powerful it was than their own, despite it's strange 2260s styling.

Sometimes I see people who think we should outright reject TOS - they can be very insulting to traditionalists, at times, misrepresenting their points.

Sometimes I see people who are too literal in their traditionalism - they can be stubborn to the extent they miss the point of Trek, and reject changes.

Star Trek fandom always retroactively came up with great rationals for how TOS could exist with newer stuff - its practically a cornerstone of the Star Trek hobby.

The thing that some traditionalists are worried about is that a given change might be so ridiculously unprecedented that there is no way to fit it in the same setting - i.e. the controversial Klingons - but again, we have no way of knowing at this stage whether there is some explanation for them, or perhaps if the change isn't as drastic as it first appeared. And of course, they have changed before without explanation - it's just perhaps harder now in light of their heavier attestation in TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT.

Being concerned that a change will be too big, isn't an unreasonable fear, as some people make out - Star Wars is very faithful to it's source material - but, there is nothing about Discovery that we have seen so far that demonstrates this level of discontinuity with Trek - everything I saw in the trailer can be rationalized as taking place in the Prime Timeline - we will have to wait and see if there is anything truly canon-breaking, like Klingons that can walk through walls by nature, or fantasy wizards show up with an army of darkness, or whatever.

But there is nothing we have seen so far that is beyond the realms of TOS era technology - Spock wore a similar suit to the one above in The Motion Picture - we can safely assume Starfleet vessels had them during TOS, and have probably carried them for centuries since the earliest warp vessels - they were just never shown on TV before for budgetary reasons.

At the same time there is no reason not to respect some old design choices provided they don't conflict with modern science - and little does.

 

[fireproof78]

I treat TMP and Enterprise both as new timelines. And both are canon. Canon and continuity are not the same thing, no matter how many times people treat the two as the same thing.

Even though that is not original intent of the creators?

 

[BillJ]

Even though that is not original intent of the creators?

Original intent? You mean like having an all white bridge crew in "The Cage", or that females can't command starships mentioned in "Turnabout Intruder"?

 

[fireproof78]

Original intent? You mean like having an all white bridge crew in "The Cage", or that females can't command starships mentioned in "Turnabout Intruder"?

Yes. What gets kept and what gets discarded is based upon authorial intent, not audience interpretation.

Regardless of my feelings towards Lucas, the Special Editions and the Prequel Trilogy are stories reflecting his intent to tell that story. I don't have to like the final product, but I'll still respect his intent.

 

[BillJ]

Yes. What gets kept and what gets discarded is based upon authorial intent, not audience interpretation.

Regardless of my feelings towards Lucas, the Special Editions and the Prequel Trilogy are stories reflecting his intent to tell that story. I don't have to like the final product, but I'll still respect his intent.

But Rick Berman ignored Roddenberry's authorial intent when he created Captain Hernandez for Enterprise. Not to mention they often said they put a mask on the Roddenberry bust in his office when making decisions about DS9 that ignored the "Roddenberry box". If one author can ignore the other where they see fit, then I can choose how I interpret the material.

 

[Refuge]

I have seen this topic come up so many times here in the last few months - but I think the two "sides" aren't hearing what the other is actually talking about sometimes.

You can update a show AND be faithful to it.

Indeed, updating and being fiction doesn't require change at the cost of continuity. In the case of Discovery it is 'introducing' us to the ten years prior to milestones we already have experienced.
I don't think anyone is expecting current production values to be those of a past era however that era was referenced. If you don't want to appeal to pre-existing fans then referring to Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise would be redundant. You are asking for comparisons otherwise.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Didn't Roddenberry want a female first officer (Number One) and the studios hated on him for it?

How much that throwaway line from Turnabout Intruder means is debatable.

From Tor.com:

JANICE LESTER: "Your world of starship captains doesn’t admit women."

"For what it’s worth, I never bought the whole idea that Lester’s comment about, “Your world of starship captains doesn’t admit women” was meant to literally be taken that women were forbidden to command starships. It makes no sense, given what’s been preached to us as the series progressed. Besides, anybody remember Captain Pike’s first officer, “Number One?” Are we supposed to believe that she’d hit a glass ceiling and wouldn’t have moved up to command the Enterprise if anything had befallen Pike? Instead, I think Lester’s comment was a bit of unfortunately awkward phrasing, and she really meant that Kirk himself had no room for any sort of long-term commitment because he was set on commanding a starship. That, at least, is consistent with what we saw of Kirk over most of Star Trek’s run." - Dayton Ward

"Should we interpret this remark—from a woman who subsequently demonstrates herself to be mentally unhinged and motivated by jealousy and resentment—as an empirical statement of fact that indicts Starfleet as an organization that bars women from serving as starship commanders? I don’t think that’s a reasonable conclusion, for the reasons that Dayton cites above." - David Mack​

 

[BillJ]

How much that throwaway line from Turnabout Intruder means is debatable.

We simply have no choice but to interpret the line the way Ward and Mack do. Or else being Trek fans would mean we are okay with the exclusion of women.

But it is clear in the episode that women are seen differently than others...

KIRK: Her life could have been as rich as any woman's, if only. If only.

 

[Noname Given]

Didn't Roddenberry want a female first officer (Number One) and the studios hated on him for it?

How much that throwaway line from Turnabout Intruder means is debatable.

From Tor.com:

JANICE LESTER: "Your world of starship captains doesn’t admit women."

"For what it’s worth, I never bought the whole idea that Lester’s comment about, “Your world of starship captains doesn’t admit women” was meant to literally be taken that women were forbidden to command starships. It makes no sense, given what’s been preached to us as the series progressed. Besides, anybody remember Captain Pike’s first officer, “Number One?” Are we supposed to believe that she’d hit a glass ceiling and wouldn’t have moved up to command the Enterprise if anything had befallen Pike? Instead, I think Lester’s comment was a bit of unfortunately awkward phrasing, and she really meant that Kirk himself had no room for any sort of long-term commitment because he was set on commanding a starship. That, at least, is consistent with what we saw of Kirk over most of Star Trek’s run." - Dayton Ward

"Should we interpret this remark—from a woman who subsequently demonstrates herself to be mentally unhinged and motivated by jealousy and resentment—as an empirical statement of fact that indicts Starfleet as an organization that bars women from serving as starship commanders? I don’t think that’s a reasonable conclusion, for the reasons that Dayton cites above." - David Mack​

1) Not really. Yes, GR wanted a Female First officer - as long as the part went to his current Mistress (Majel Barett - who GR WASN'T married to at the time, but he was married.) So no, they didn't object to the character being a woman; they object to who he cast in the role.

2) As for Janice Lester - remember, she was:

- Kirk's Ex.
- Had failed a psych test at the Academy.

So, that whole exchange could be how she saw the situation (IE she wasn't given Captain rank, or command of a ship because she was a Woman. The psych test failure was just the excuse. As for Kirk not really challenging the comment, and looking like he agreed <-- It may have been the situation that ended their relationship; and instead of re-hashing an old fight in response to her line Kirk said, "No it isn't..."

(And lets be honest here in that it WAS the last script of the Third Season, everyone knew the series was not going to be renewed; and NO ONE expected the audience to debate such a throwaway line in one episode 48 years later; and it probably WAS the writer's intent to infer Starfleet didn't give Women a Starship command; but you CAN rationalize it away as I've done above. )

 

[Vger23]

It will all be ok.

I promise.

 

[fireproof78]

But Rick Berman ignored Roddenberry's authorial intent when he created Captain Hernandez for Enterprise. Not to mention they often said they put a mask on the Roddenberry bust in his office when making decisions about DS9 that ignored the "Roddenberry box". If one author can ignore the other where they see fit, then I can choose how I interpret the material.

That is your right as an audience member.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

Right. Some people get so fixated on the details of design that they forget that fiction is about story, character, and theme. The design elements are merely in support of those.

Think of it like different productions of Shakespeare that use different set and costume designs, even modernize the setting while keeping the words intact.

Admittedly, I'm surprised at just how different things like the costumes are. I'd expected them to be more a refinement of the original look than such a complete departure. But these things can be rationalized. Maybe we've been wrong to assume that all of Starfleet uses only one uniform style throughout. Maybe different divisions have different looks.

They want a fanflim, what they want would only make a tiny group of fans happy and kill it before it aired.

Updating how it looks compatible to how it *looked* is fine by me. Updating how it looks to something re-imaged is bullshitting us.

TMP must have filled you with rage at the amount of BS

I have seen this topic come up so many times here in the last few months - but I think the two "sides" aren't hearing what the other is actually talking about sometimes.

You can update a show AND be faithful to it.

.

This looked gods awful, the TOS ship looked so campy and primitive next to the NX. I laughed and rolled my eyes every time the script demanded the TOS ship be powerful and more advanced when its clearly the older and less advanced of the two.