Spoilers Discovery and the Novelverse - TV show discussion thread

[Christopher]

I've documented in other threads that a focus on canon, and how/whether pieces of fiction "count" and fit together in a shared continuity, is a practice that stretches back decades.

Of course it is. Greg wasn't claiming otherwise. His point wasn't about the existence of continuity, but about modern fandom's preoccupation with it as an all-consuming priority, rather than just one option for telling stories.

...but the entire point of my previous post is that there is a spectrum of "laissez-faire" to "100% consistency," that franchises establish where they fall on that spectrum, and that audiences will adjust their expectations accordingly.

It would be unrealistic to expect a franchise that endures over decades and is created by a variety of different teams would remain perpetually unchanging in its approach. Every recurring theme can be expressed through many different variations; indeed, exploring those variations is an integral part of the creative process. Creators don't adopt existing themes to slavishly copy exactly what their predecessors did with them, but to find a new way to develop them that retains their essence while finding different layers within them.

A number of people in this very thread have essentially argued that Discovery couldn't possibly stick to the same visual aesthetic because makeup/set design/technology have advanced over time--as if we haven't seen other franchises (and Star Trek itself) do just that.

"Couldn't" is not what was argued. Nobody was saying that later creators were unable to recreate past designs -- we were saying it was understandable why the creators would find it desirable to take advantage of the increased potential that more advanced prosthetic technology made possible. Greg's point, specifically, was that a choice was made to replicate the effect of older designs rather than merely the superficial appearance thereof, because that appearance would not have the same impact on modern audiences who've seen so many other sophisticated makeup designs and would be less impressed by the old ones.

It makes no sense to cast creative discussions in terms of concepts like can/can't or should/shouldn't. Creativity is about individual choice, not physical laws or mandatory doctrines. The point is not to say that anything had to be done a certain way, just to say that it was done for a reason that made sense to the people who did it, even if you or I didn't like the result.

Again, you've already done a fantastic job articulating why it was artistically arbitrary to set this story in the TOS era, so marketing the nostalgia seems to have been a primary motivation--and if they wanted to market specifically to the audience for the Kelvin Timeline films, then (from that narrow perspective, at least) it was a mistake not to set this in that continuity instead of marketing one and producing the other.

I find it so bizarre the way some people think nostalgia or continuity is exclusively about visual design. The nostalgia came from the stories and characters and references. Most people care more about those than about how things look. They understand that a changed look is an update for the sensibilities of modern audiences, because most people don't want their futuristic space shows to look like they were made 50 years ago.

So no, of course they didn't want to "market specifically to the audience for the Kelvin Timeline films" -- except in the sense that both recent incarnations of Trek are independently marketed toward contemporary audiences who are used to spectacular, state-of-the-art visuals in their science fiction.

 

[SolarisOne]

 

[Sci]

I simply don't see that desire expressed in the same way when it comes to the theatre world...where, you know, people understand that it isn't the same fixed visual medium as film and television and more readily expect one script to have a wide variety of possible interpretations. Maybe I'm just not up on my Cabaret fandom--do people complain because Alan Cumming's performance doesn't fit into the continuity of Joel Grey's performance, as opposed to just liking one performance over the other?

You're missing the point. You seem to be suggesting that the idea of wanting a "true, definitive" version of Star Trek's continuity is inspired by a shared continuity, but I am arguing that the latter is caused by the former. I am arguing that the impulse to find one "true, definitive" version of a story is an impulse which predates the question of continuity. It is an impulse that can manifest in the idea of maintaining a perfectly consistent continuity across multiple productions that are set within a shared universe, or it can manifest in the form of wanting to declare that one out of multiple versions of the same story is the "best" or "definitive" version against which all other versions are measured. But it's the same impulse either way, the impulse to declare a particular artistic vision as "supreme" above others.

I don't think "they conveyed that this would be the same and it's too different to come across as the same" is that weird a reaction

Framing it as "questioning the creator's honesty" is what's weird. "You said it would be the same but I think it's too different" is a subjective reaction, not one that implicates the moral character of the artists.

--and you spoke quite eloquently upthread about how you had that reaction to how Pike and Spock are portrayed on Discovery. For many people, visual congruence is part of that calculation, and their tolerance for what constitutes a "minor" or "major" discontinuity will depend on what the creators of a work communicate to them.

I mean, whatever. I have creative differences with the producers of DIS -- that doesn't mean I'm questioning their honesty or character.

Are you under the impression there was no negative reaction to that perceived bait-and-switch, precisely because Marvel had set up an expectation not reflected in the finished products when they could've had the same products with a different expectation?

I'm under the impression that AoS fandom endures and loves the show without regard to discontinuities between AoS and the MCU films.

Again, people understand the difference between recasting and redesign,

Is there a meaningful difference? Why is it so hard to suspend your disbelief for one instead of the other?

and how different factors lead to one versus the other. If Marvel could've had a perfect digital Edward Norton for the same amount of effort as recasting him, some people would've argued for doing so--and indeed, digital solutions are becoming more common for these issues as technology makes such options possible.

Just to be clear: A digital re-creation of Edward Norton would have been terrible. Recasting and reconceptualizing the entire character with Mark Ruffalo was a much better option, because the Edward Norton Hulk sucked. Sometimes retcons are good.

A number of people in this very thread have essentially argued that Discovery couldn't possibly stick to the same visual aesthetic because makeup/set design/technology have advanced over time--as if we haven't seen other franchises (and Star Trek itself) do just that.

Not "couldn't." "Shouldn't if they want to appeal to anything beyond an incredibly small niche audience that is too small to financially sustain CBS All-Access/Paramount+'s production costs." It's an artistic decision informed by financial necessity.

Again, you've already done a fantastic job articulating why it was artistically arbitrary to set this story in the TOS era,

Sure! But that's rooted in the lack of meaningful storytelling connection to the key elements of TOS. It's not rooted in, like, being upset that they have a window on the bridge or whatever.

so marketing the nostalgia seems to have been a primary motivation--and if they wanted to market specifically to the audience for the Kelvin Timeline films, then (from that narrow perspective, at least) it was a mistake not to set this in that continuity instead of marketing one and producing the other.

They wanted to set it in the Prime Universe and they wanted to use the aesthetics of the Kelvin films because the Kelvin films were recent major successes. None of that means they were marketing it on the basis of nostalgia per se.

 

[SolarisOne]

I'm under the impression that AoS fandom endures and loves the show without regard to discontinuities between AoS and the MCU films.

That ship sailed a LOOOOONG time ago. Fortunately, this AoS fan doesn't give a rat's ass about the MCU as a whole.

 

[TheAlmanac]

You're missing the point. You seem to be suggesting that the idea of wanting a "true, definitive" version of Star Trek's continuity is inspired by a shared continuity, but I am arguing that the latter is caused by the former. I am arguing that the impulse to find one "true, definitive" version of a story is an impulse which predates the question of continuity. It is an impulse that can manifest in the idea of maintaining a perfectly consistent continuity across multiple productions that are set within a shared universe, or it can manifest in the form of wanting to declare that one out of multiple versions of the same story is the "best" or "definitive" version against which all other versions are measured. But it's the same impulse either way, the impulse to declare a particular artistic vision as "supreme" above others.

I'm not missing the point--I simply disagree that this is the same impulse, because different meanings for "definitive" are being used in those situations.

To call back my earlier examples, the question of who played the "definitive" James Bond and which is the "definitive" Han-and-Greedo scene are fundamentally two different conversations. Some things are consistent with a shared continuity whilst sucking something awful, and other things depart from continuity whilst achieving more artistic success--and I'm not actually making a qualitative argument that one is "'supreme' above others," just pointing out that a franchise operating a certain way inevitably leads people to expect that franchise will...operate a certain way.

Framing it as "questioning the creator's honesty" is what's weird. "You said it would be the same but I think it's too different" is a subjective reaction, not one that implicates the moral character of the artists.

I mean, whatever. I have creative differences with the producers of DIS -- that doesn't mean I'm questioning their honesty or character.

I'm not making a moral argument, either. There is a world of difference between "Hey, wait a minute..." and "You're nothing but a filthy liar!" in terms of expressing that a statement was perceived as misleading, and perception is inherently subjective.

Are you under the impression there was no negative reaction to that perceived bait-and-switch, precisely because Marvel had set up an expectation not reflected in the finished products when they could've had the same products with a different expectation?

I'm under the impression that AoS fandom endures and loves the show without regard to discontinuities between AoS and the MCU films.

From everything I've seen/heard/read (including from people who love Agents of SHIELD), I can definitely say that "without regard" is an exaggeration.

The Netflix Marvel series are a more apt example of what I'm describing, since AoS made some initial efforts to keep to the MCU continuity whereas the Netflix shows would've been exactly the same without the claim that they took place in the same world--so the dashed expectations were entirely the result of comparisons invited from outside the text, as it were.

Again, people understand the difference between recasting and redesign, and how different factors lead to one versus the other.

Is there a meaningful difference? Why is it so hard to suspend your disbelief for one instead of the other?

Because recasting is comparatively rare--usually only done when a character is too central to be written off, have their absence explained, or get replaced with a suspiciously-similar-but-legally-distinct character to fulfill the same plot function--and almost never done for purely artistic as opposed to logistical reasons (despite the diplomatic "creative differences" publicity phrasing).

Even then, a different context can shift expectations. Recasting is much more common on soap operas and sitcoms, for instance--the audience for the former accepts that it comes with that particular territory, and the latter will usually make a meta joke to hang a lampshade on it. (The sitcom 'Til Death built an entire storyline out of a character gradually realising he lives in a sitcom because his girlfriend keeps "changing.") On the flip side, Doctor Who owes its longevity to coming up with an in-universe explanation for recasting the main character.

If Marvel could've had a perfect digital Edward Norton for the same amount of effort as recasting him, some people would've argued for doing so--and indeed, digital solutions are becoming more common for these issues as technology makes such options possible.

Just to be clear: A digital re-creation of Edward Norton would have been terrible. Recasting and reconceptualizing the entire character with Mark Ruffalo was a much better option, because the Edward Norton Hulk sucked. Sometimes retcons are good.

Just to be clear: I didn't express an opinion on which one would've been the better choice (or even which Hulk was better), only that both options would've been considered if they were equally feasible. We're already seeing this happen to a certain extent (even in the MCU, with younger versions of characters), and over time, some audiences may eventually come to expect unavailable actors to be digitally recreated instead of recast.

Again, you've already done a fantastic job articulating why it was artistically arbitrary to set this story in the TOS era,

Sure! But that's rooted in the lack of meaningful storytelling connection to the key elements of TOS. It's not rooted in, like, being upset that they have a window on the bridge or whatever.

I guess I don't understand the characterisation of some reasonings as "meaningful" and others as "bizarre" or "weird," as if one subjective reaction is valid and the other isn't--especially since my central point isn't that one reaction is "better" than the other, but that both reactions are caused by the expectations set up by an ongoing franchise.

They wanted to set it in the Prime Universe and they wanted to use the aesthetics of the Kelvin films because the Kelvin films were recent major successes. None of that means they were marketing it on the basis of nostalgia per se.

I think any revisit to an existing property is based on nostalgia at some level, whether it's a reboot or a revival--the makers of the sequel/remake/"reimagining" are counting on brand recognition and the goodwill that comes with it, and I would say all of the Star Trek productions from 2009 onwards (plus The Orville ) are tapping into said nostalgia in various ways.

 

[Christopher]

and I'm not actually making a qualitative argument that one is "'supreme' above others," just pointing out that a franchise operating a certain way inevitably leads people to expect that franchise will...operate a certain way.

What's so great about expectations? "It was what I expected" is anything but high praise for a creative work.

Because recasting is comparatively rare--usually only done when a character is too central to be written off, have their absence explained, or get replaced with a suspiciously-similar-but-legally-distinct character to fulfill the same plot function--and almost never done for purely artistic as opposed to logistical reasons (despite the diplomatic "creative differences" publicity phrasing).

I don't see what the frequency has to do with it. How many times does it have to be done before it magically becomes okay?

And I don't see what the reason has to do with it either. That's behind the scenes, outside the scope of the work itself. As far as the work itself is concerned, the character's face and voice and manner just change and the audience learns to cope with it. If they have the ability to do that, they have the ability to do the same with a changed design.

Just to be clear: I didn't express an opinion on which one would've been the better choice (or even which Hulk was better), only that both options would've been considered if they were equally feasible. We're already seeing this happen to a certain extent (even in the MCU, with younger versions of characters), and over time, some audiences may eventually come to expect unavailable actors to be digitally recreated instead of recast.

That word "expect" again. So what if people expect it? It's not the job of professionals to limit themselves to what laypeople expect. It's their job to think of things that would never have occurred to laypeople.

I think any revisit to an existing property is based on nostalgia at some level, whether it's a reboot or a revival--the makers of the sequel/remake/"reimagining" are counting on brand recognition and the goodwill that comes with it, and I would say all of the Star Trek productions from 2009 onwards (plus The Orville ) are tapping into said nostalgia in various ways.

Which, again, does not require looking exactly like the old thing. There are more layers to the work than that, and you can balance nostalgia in story elements with modernity in visual elements, as Doctor Who has done.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

What's so great about expectations?

Seven of Nine: You have exceeded expectations
One: Then expectations were insufficient.

 

[Sci]

Negative views of works of art are often a function not of how well-executed the work of art is, but of the distance between the work the audience expected the artist to create and the work the artist wanted to create.

 

[JD]

This isn't about the novelverse, but it is a bit of interesting Discovery related news.
I haven't read it yet, but according to The Trek Collective, the new issue of TOS Year Five is the start of a new arc dealing with Harry Mudd, and they are using Rain Wilson's likeness rather than Roger Carmel's.
Is this the first time we've seen something from Discovery play a big role like that in a story for one of the other series?

 

[David cgc]

There's a practical element to that, likely; Roger Carmel's likeness rights are notoriously unavailable. Off-hand, I remember the Star Trek: 25th Anniversary PC game only showed Mudd's face in shadow, and one of the John Byrne photocomics got around it by having Mudd somehow assume the form of Captain Kirk. The fact that they can just make Harry Mudd look like a totally different actor who is also Harry Mudd on-screen was probably seen as a far-superior solution to "recasting" him with a non-Carmel but Carmel-esque face.

Come to think of it, I wonder if this has anything to do with why the ST09 tie-in comics had the "Mudd Incident" center on Harry's half-Bajoran daughter rather than Harry himself.

 

[Enterprise1701]

Come to think of it, I wonder if this has anything to do with why the ST09 tie-in comics had the "Mudd Incident" center on Harry's half-Bajoran daughter rather than Harry himself.

Haha, that would make a lot of sense. Harry Mudd never struck me as the type to already have a child that old.

 

[Christopher]

Come to think of it, I wonder if this has anything to do with why the ST09 tie-in comics had the "Mudd Incident" center on Harry's half-Bajoran daughter rather than Harry himself.

I doubt it, since they didn't usually use TOS actor likenesses in the Kelvin comics. Indeed, the usual conceit in those comics is that the Kelvin characters actually do look different from their Prime counterparts, ignoring the '09 movie's explicit plot point that Spock Prime recognized Kirk and Scotty on sight.

 

[JD]

There's a practical element to that, likely; Roger Carmel's likeness rights are notoriously unavailable. Off-hand, I remember the Star Trek: 25th Anniversary PC game only showed Mudd's face in shadow, and one of the John Byrne photocomics got around it by having Mudd somehow assume the form of Captain Kirk. The fact that they can just make Harry Mudd look like a totally different actor who is also Harry Mudd on-screen was probably seen as a far-superior solution to "recasting" him with a non-Carmel but Carmel-esque face.

Come to think of it, I wonder if this has anything to do with why the ST09 tie-in comics had the "Mudd Incident" center on Harry's half-Bajoran daughter rather than Harry himself.

Yeah, they did mention that in the article.
Another example of using one of Carmel's characters without his likeness is the Batman '66/Green Hornet comic book crossover. They brought back Colonel Gum, the villain he played in the TV crossover, but they had him wearing a mask so you couldn't see his face.

 

[Christopher]

Another example of using one of Carmel's characters without his likeness is the Batman '66/Green Hornet comic book crossover. They brought back Colonel Gum, the villain he played in the TV crossover, but they had him wearing a mask so you couldn't see his face.

Rather, his face was permanently covered in his trademark glue as the result of an accident.

I don't know why they bothered, though, since the Batman '66 comic portrayed numerous other characters they didn't have likeness rights to, simply redesigning them (e.g. Chandell was blonde, Black Widow was much younger, etc.).

 

[David cgc]

I doubt it, since they didn't usually use TOS actor likenesses in the Kelvin comics. Indeed, the usual conceit in those comics is that the Kelvin characters actually do look different from their Prime counterparts, ignoring the '09 movie's explicit plot point that Spock Prime recognized Kirk and Scotty on sight.

They used TOS actor likenesses all the time. While the TOS/KT crossover went with the idea that both versions of the main characters looked as different in-universe as they do to the audience (KT!Kirk describing TOS!Spock as a younger version of Future!Spock, not just KT!Spock wearing a shirt made of different fabric), pretty much every TOS character who hadn't already been in the movies (or didn't have their name assigned to a character from the movies, like "Cupcake" getting Hendorff's name, which was later adopted by the movies) was drawn as resembling the TOS actor, starting with Gary Mitchell on the first page of the first issue. There was also Sam Cogley in the Khan miniseries that followed "Countdown to Darkness" (and Khan himself, prior to his cosmetic surgery courtesy of Admiral Marcus), and the strange case of Yeoman Zahra, who initially appeared as she did in "Operation—Annihilate!", but later became the short-haired white-blonde extra on the bridge after Into Darkness came out.

 

[Christopher]

They used TOS actor likenesses all the time.

Okay, but the very nature of the comic should've made it self-evident that they didn't have to, that they were perfectly free to redesign any character they wanted. And heck, DC Comics did two Harry Mudd stories by redesigning Mudd's features to be a more generic fat, balding man. So I find it hard to believe that the bizarre "Mudd's half-Bajoran daughter" thing was purely the result of a likeness issue.

 

[The Wormhole]

The Kelvin comics do later feature Harry Mudd himself, or rather his Mirror counterpart in the second Mirror Universe storyline they did, done in a completely new likeness. Still, I suspect the likeness rights may have played a part in him having a half-Bajoran daughter in Countdown to Darkness. They felt compelled to work in what is described as "Mudd's ship" from the movie, but upon realizing they don't have the rights to Roger Carmel's likeness, they began thinking things over in a manner which led somehow to him having a half-Bajoran daughter.

 

[Christopher]

Still, I suspect the likeness rights may have played a part in him having a half-Bajoran daughter in Countdown to Darkness. They felt compelled to work in what is described as "Mudd's ship" from the movie, but upon realizing they don't have the rights to Roger Carmel's likeness, they began thinking things over in a manner which led somehow to him having a half-Bajoran daughter.

I still don't see why it would've been a factor at all. After all, it's hardly unique to Carmel. Lack of likeness rights for guest characters is more the rule in TV tie-in comics than the exception. And it has never, ever, ever been a problem for comic books to simply redesign a character when they didn't have the rights. DC's Trek comics did it constantly, including twice with Harry Mudd, but also with many other characters, from Kor and Koloth to Robert Fox to Marlena Moreau to Tongo Rad to Akuta to Garth of Izar. Heck, Sutton & Villagran's likenesses of the main cast weren't that accurate to begin with. I can't even tell if their Captain Styles is based on James Sikking or not; it's in the ballpark but far from exact.

 

[The Wormhole]

But then why bother creating a Bajoran daughter instead of just using Harry Mudd to begin with? Indeed, it was you who originally suggested it was due to rights issues back in 2016:

I bet the reason the Countdown to Darkness interpreted "Mudd" as someone other than Harry was because IDW doesn't have the rights to use Carmel's likeness

 

[Christopher]

But then why bother creating a Bajoran daughter instead of just using Harry Mudd to begin with?

Yes, that's exactly my question. It was a bizarre idea that had no obvious reason for it.

Indeed, it was you who originally suggested it was due to rights issues back in 2016:

Then that was a foolish thing for me to say. I must not have thought it through.