Discovery Showrunners fired; Kurtzman takes over

[cultcross]

No. Of course not. It's fiction. Fiction is not reality. That's what the word means.

That's kind of what I suspected. I asked the question to see if there was any point in continuing the discussion I can't see eye to eye with this viewpoint at all, the idea that all stories are in another world and our own is rigid and immoveable, unable to wobble even slightly to incorporate a fiction. Given how much our own history bends to individual and group perspective, it seems an easy task to bend it to imagination.

I don't agree with, but can understand, the desire for Trek continuity to be sacrosanct and therefore its universe diverged more as reality bypassed its established history. But I can't get on board with the idea that it can't be about our future because simply because it is fiction. That's just bizarre to me.

 

[Jinn]

See this thread: link

Thanks

 

[cultcross]

The flying Ford Anglia in particular is extremely 60s and never once is the internet even mentioned even though it already existed when the first book was published in the 90s

That wouldn't be at all surprising, I got internet in 1999, and that was quite keen for consumer internet. Regular use of it was years off in Harry's time. I grew up in Harry's world and it was phones with cords and going to the library to do schoolwork until I was in high school (by which point Harry was totally ensconced in a world where electronics couldn't function).

 

[lawman]

Given how much our own history bends to individual and group perspective, it seems an easy task to bend it to imagination.

Reality is not mutable, bendable, or wobbly. It does not care what we believe. It simply is what it is. (Historically, people who think otherwise have a tendency to lead some disturbingly destructive movements.)

But I can't get on board with the idea that it can't be about our future because simply because it is fiction. That's just bizarre to me.

Not exactly the point I'm trying to make. Rather, it's that Trek can't be (and thematically, doesn't need to be) about "our future" for a couple of reasons: (1) there is no such thing as "our future" in any singular sense, only an array of possible futures, a wide variety of which can make for interesting and thought-provoking fiction, and (2) the details of this particular one happen to be largely extrapolated from a point over 50 years in the past.

 

[ITDUDE]

In light of new information, I agree we'll see the Borg again. Just not in Discovery.

Ok, fine, if I HAVE to see either the Borg or the Q, bring on the Swedish drones.
But here is a list of all things I'd like to see in Star Trek instead of any more rehashes of previous material:

Star Trek Academy - 4+ years of following same group of teenage cadets as they go from rookies to seasoned students to having been being called to action once in a while in emergencies. Think first few episodes of SAAB. Set it in..... early 24th century
Star Trek Time Adventures - Set on a ship that travels through space and time and sets things right (think Star Trek Quantum Leap). I think that's what Fuller was trying to do before being kicked out. Base the ship on some late 29th century design, but have them travel anywhere/anytime (20th century or earlier), 21st-24th century wide open. You can even go into "future" trek (25th century and beyond)
Star Trek Andromeda - Set on a ship lost in Andromeda galaxy. I suppose similar to Voyager premise, but they won't even try to get back. They will truly go and discover new worlds and civilization in that Galaxy. You could even have them establish a colony and have spin-offs from this show.
Star Trek Wars - Ship lost in space and time (long time ago in a galaxy far far away). You can guess what this one will be about

 

[jaime]

I've only seen the movies, which make the UK look like the pre-Ed Sullivan Beatles might be walking down the alleyway any minute.

The flying Ford Anglia in particular is extremely 60s and never once is the internet even mentioned even though it already existed when the first book was published in the 90s. So it really doesn't feel very modern.

The ford anglia is contraband, hidden in the wizarding world by a man who could have picked it up in the seventies. It’s deliberately an old car.
The films are set in a mosh mash of nineties (dates and accuracy to book, dudleys clothing in summer) and when they were filmed (Oyster card readers making a hash of a scene, the millennium bridge, fashions and landmarks) neither are remotely ‘swinging sixties’. If some of the roads and designs seem sixties to you, it’s probably because we tend to hang on to things a very long time and build them to last. Red phone boxes for instance are about a hundred now, and have outlived all their replacements. There’s a post box down the road from me right now that has G.R embossed on it, because it’s from our current queens dads era, and she’s been on the throne for a good half a century and then some.
I guess us brits are all either swingers in the sixties or chimney sweeps to our cousins out there.

Edit: outside of academia the internet was barely a concern for most people until the late nineties, roughly when the books end.

 

[cultcross]

there is no such thing as "our future" in any singular sense, only an array of possible futures, a wide variety of which can make for interesting and thought-provoking fiction

Which has no bearing on whether Trek is set in our future or not - nobody is suggesting the producers of Star Trek have special knowledge of what is to come, that they are writing the actual future that will occur. In fact, they've proven more than one that they do not. But that doesn't stop them writing one possible version of our future, a fictional future of our world. I would also argue that it is very thematically relevant to Star Trek in a way it isn't to, say, Firefly. Trek was, at least at one time (accounts vary as to when) a positive vision of the future, what could be if we just got over ourselves. It is damaging to that theme if it isn't us that gets there.

Reality is not mutable, bendable, or wobbly. It does not care what we believe. It simply is what it is.

I didn't say reality, I said history. As someone who practices law you must appreciate how open to interpretation and perspective the 'story of reality' is.

 

[lawman]

outside of academia the internet was barely a concern for most people until the late nineties, roughly when the books end.

Is that really when it first made a big splash in the UK? Here in the US I remember I first got a personal Internet connection in '93, and it was all over the media in '94.

Heck, by '99 the first dot-com boom was already starting to crash. (And Google had barely even made an appearance yet!)

 

[cultcross]

Is that really when it first made a big splash in the UK? Here in the US I remember I first got a personal Internet connection in '93, and it was all over the media in '94.

Heck, by '99 the first dot-com boom was already starting to crash. (And Google had barely even made an appearance yet!)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/275999/household-internet-penetration-in-great-britain/

In 1998, the year Deathly Hallows is set, 9% of households had internet.

 

[BillJ]

Didn't happen in real life, so it will be ignored by future productions. Trek's been doing that since the movies at least, rewriting its own past to account for reality catching up and, generally, failing to live up to their predictions. If Trek is still being made come First Contact Day, that'll be ignored as well.

What you are talking about is a constant piecemeal reboot. Where things are constantly changing based on the changing times. From that viewpoint, there is no consistent universe and never can or will be.

The Prime universe is an illusion being sold to fans who can't handle the fact this is all constantly changing.

 

[ITDUDE]

Is that really when it first made a big splash in the UK? Here in the US I remember I first got a personal Internet connection in '93, and it was all over the media in '94.

This is in 1994

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[cultcross]

What you are talking about is a constant piecemeal reboot. Where things are constantly changing based on the changing times. From that viewpoint, there is no consistent universe and never can or will be.

The Prime universe is an illusion being sold to fans who can't handle the fact this is all constantly changing.

Or the prime universe was mutable and changeable from day one and that has continued ever since. That's more how I see it.

 

[ITDUDE]

The Prime universe is an illusion being sold to fans who can't handle the fact this is all constantly changing.

I am adding this to my sig!

 

[BillJ]

Or the prime universe was mutable and changeable from day one and that has continued ever since. That's more how I see it.

I think we're kinda saying the same thing, but from two different points-of-view.

They can call it "Prime", but this Prime isn't the same Prime from fifteen, twenty or fifty years ago. Maybe call it "Modified Prime"?

 

[fireproof78]

Indeed, there are some ways in which Trek's future is more poignant, thought-provoking, and inspiring if understood as divergent rather than as extrapolated from the here-and-now. "Look what we could have accomplished if only we hadn't abandoned the space program!" is a message worth thinking about, even if it's not one Trek's early creators expected to be delivering.

I don't think that is as thought provoking as it appears at first blush, any more than Turtledove's alternate history books are more poignant because, "What if, Nazis?" makes people stop and think. Acting as though it not being our future has less meaning (or possible future) than acting as though the hypothetical has more meaning. Regardless of what SF does in general (can we generalize that much?) Star Trek specifically tried something a little bit different. Part of that difference is attempting to allow Star Trek to grow, and change its own history to reflect our own.

Maybe that's a distinction without a difference. Maybe it is just an alien concept to others. I personally don't care one wit whether Trek is or is not our future. But, I do care that an work's theme's and artistic intent are carried through. And, I'm struggling with why this is such a problem.

 

[lawman]

I didn't say reality, I said history. As someone who practices law you must appreciate how open to interpretation and perspective the 'story of reality' is.

Fair point. History (much like journalism) is always incomplete; it's a question of not just what we know and how we know it, but also what we choose to emphasize. However, that doesn't mean that what we do know is malleable enough to incorporate actual fiction under the rubric of "history." That's an important distinction to maintain, as any historian will tell you.

At any rate, we know enough about both Trek's history and our own to establish that they are different, in innumerable ways. But I don't find that at all damaging to its themes, as I already discussed upthread.

(Minor addendum: although I am a lawyer, I don't actively practice. I'm actually finishing up a PhD right now. In my experience all the happiest lawyers are non-practicing...)

 

[BillJ]

Acting as though it not being our future has less meaning (or possible future) than acting as though the hypothetical has more meaning.

But it means Trek's past has no real meaning. Which really is a shame. They are pretty much tearing "Prime" Spock down to build up their shows.

 

[cultcross]

I think we're kinda saying the same thing, but from two different points-of-view.

They can call it "Prime", but this Prime isn't the same Prime from fifteen, twenty or fifty years ago. Maybe call it "Modified Prime"?

Well it was modified by episode 3, so I find it easier to just say Prime. But the principle is the same I suppose.

They are pretty much tearing "Prime" Spock down to build up their shows.

Prime Spock was constantly shouting and laughed at plants. At various points he had a weird alien power over women and could mind meld through walls. They've been changing Spock to fit the story pretty much as long as there's been Spock. That's sort of what I mean.

 

[BillJ]

Well it was modified by episode 3?

Spock's ancestry? I don't really see any conflict between "Where No Man..." and "Corbomite"? He just wasn't as forthcoming about who his human ancestor was.

 

[fireproof78]

But it means Trek's past has no real meaning. Which really is a shame. They are pretty much tearing "Prime" Spock down to build up their shows.

I don't see how.