Discovery Showrunners fired; Kurtzman takes over

[Mad Jack Wolfe]

Because that is what the novels are, serving a very small portion of hardcore fans.

Good lord, I just realised the last Trek novel I read was "Vendetta". I think it's in a box in the basement. My bookcases long ago got overtaken by tomes on archaeology and the Golden Ages of piracy & fighting sail.

I guess I should turn in my phaser and comm badge...

 

[Nerys Myk]

I only read TOS and DTI novels. The rest hold no interest.

 

[fireproof78]

Good lord, I just realised the last Trek novel I read was "Vendetta". I think it's in a box in the basement. My bookcases long ago got overtaken by tomes on archaeology and the Golden Ages of piracy & fighting sail.

I guess I should turn in my phaser and comm badge...

Given your avatar

 

[lawman]

There are a hundred more important things to Star Trek in Space Seed and TWOK than that date. The date is almost meaningless to the stories at hand. It`s just an indicator that it takes place in our future (from a 1960's/80's perspective) and Kirk's past... It's an insignificant story element that has no actual impact on the story. Also, "1996" happened. Those are two very good reasons to ignore it.

It's not insignificant. Dates are what allow history to exist at a conceptual level, to be organized in some comprehensible fashion. And Trek's cumulative history is what allows it to have any approximation of a workable continuity. If you start retconning things arbitrarily, and especially if you reduce dates to abstractions as simplified as "past, present, or future," you'll reduce Trek to something as incoherent as... well, for example, the Marvel Comics timeline, as @Jinn already commented.

As for your second reason, it isn't one at all, since (as we've just been discussing!) Trek's history is blatantly, obviously not the history of the world we live in. There are myriad examples of how and why this is so. I honestly can't imagine why anyone would put on blinders at this late date and try to pretend otherwise.

it's a change to keep the franchise current and viable. To prevent it getting bogged down under the weight of it's own minutia and fanboy nostalgia.

If the only way to keep Trek viable as a "franchise" is to throw away actual Star Trek history... then fuck the "franchise," I'll take the history.

Seriously, otherwise you're tossing out the baby with the bathwater.

Because that is what the novels are, serving a very small portion of hardcore fans. I expect an actual TV series to strike out and give us new things that the novels can then embellish on later on.

Sadly (but perhaps not surprisingly), many of the Trek novels over the past couple decades have offered far, far better storytelling than anything that's appeared on screen during the same period as part of the official "canon." (This is one reason I'm not enthusiastic about the idea of a post-VOY series... it would almost certainly entail scrapping much or all of what the Litverse has developed, much as Star Wars did when the Disney films were greenlit.)

Since I know people who refuse to watch a show because it looks "Too 80s" or the effects are not up to par, yes.

Well, some people are narrow-minded idiots. TV ratings (not to mention national elections) have been demonstrating that for a long time. So what? You can't ever please everyone, so if you're going to pick someone to stop trying to please, let's start with the narrow-minded idiots.

Yep. This is not at all comparable the the cloaking device issue. The cloaking device being new and unheard of in Balance of Terror was a major plot point, '1996' is just a number, you can imagine it was some other number and the story does not change one bit.

So? You can imagine Spock said some other line of dialogue in "BOT," and the story does not change one bit.

(Note that I don't actually buy that argument, at all... about either BOT or the Eugenics Wars. But I've certainly seen people make it, in all seriousness, for the sake of defending "new" Trek over old. The examples are more comparable than you think.)

 

[fireproof78]

Well, some people are narrow-minded idiots. TV ratings (not to mention national elections) have been demonstrating that for a long time. So what? You can't ever please everyone, so if you're going to pick someone to stop trying to please, let's start with the narrow-minded idiots.

Why the hostile response? It was an observation and a response to another poster. this makes no sense.

 

[Arpy]

That's almost, "Relax, I was joking."

It's already been pointed out to you that "chick" in reference to a woman is often offense, whereas "guy" in reference to a man virtually never is. "[T]oward all sexes," my ass. Your text does not treat men and women with the same degree of respect.

But if you want to quadruple down, that's on you....




Derp.

This is one of my dictionaries.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chick

3 informal, sometimes offensive : girl, woman​

"Sometimes offensive" should be close enough to "offensive" to get the advice to handle with care, lest you offend someone.

You're missing the point. It's supposed to be offensive. THAT'S the ironic part. My only regret is that I wasn't #more offensive to guys.

EDIT: no, I'm going to comment further, because I just saw the "my ass" line in your reply, and now I'm really dismayed. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and think you're a decent enough person, going through a tough time right now. Lord knows I'm disgusted enough by the political climate, myself. But not every bit of, in your opinion, questionable humor on the internet is cause to wage a proxy political battle and think the worst of people. If context matters, then we should remember that not everything is easily contextualized.

It's not insignificant. Dates are what allow history to exist at a conceptual level, to be organized in some comprehensible fashion. And Trek's cumulative history is what allows it to have any approximation of a workable continuity. If you start retconning things arbitrarily, and especially if you reduce dates to abstractions as simplified as "past, present, or future," you'll reduce Trek to something as incoherent as... well, for example, the Marvel Comics timeline, as @Jinn already commented.

As for your second reason, it isn't one at all, since (as we've just been discussing!) Trek's history is blatantly, obviously not the history of the world we live in. There are myriad examples of how and why this is so. I honestly can't imagine why anyone would put on blinders at this late date and try to pretend otherwise.


If the only way to keep Trek viable as a "franchise" is to throw away actual Star Trek history... then fuck the "franchise," I'll take the history.

Seriously, otherwise you're tossing out the baby with the bathwater.


Sadly (but perhaps not surprisingly), many of the Trek novels over the past couple decades have offered far, far better storytelling than anything that's appeared on screen during the same period as part of the official "canon." (This is one reason I'm not enthusiastic about the idea of a post-VOY series... it would almost certainly entail scrapping much or all of what the Litverse has developed, much as Star Wars did when the Disney films were greenlit.)


Well, some people are narrow-minded idiots. TV ratings (not to mention national elections) have been demonstrating that for a long time. So what? You can't ever please everyone, so if you're going to pick someone to stop trying to please, let's start with the narrow-minded idiots.


So? You can imagine Spock said some other line of dialogue in "BOT," and the story does not change one bit.

(Note that I don't actually buy that argument, at all... about either BOT or the Eugenics Wars. But I've certainly seen people make it, in all seriousness, for the sake of defending "new" Trek over old. The examples are more comparable than you think.)

Trek's always adjusted for changes in the real world, and I think it should continue to. You say "fuck the franchise" in favor of an ever increasingly esoteric canon, but I'd like to have my cake and eat it too. I dare the franchisers to dazzle us with their agility walking the tightrope between canon and novelty, if only because forced to choose one...well...franchisers gonna franchise.

 

[lawman]

Why the hostile response? It was an observation and a response to another poster. this makes no sense.

I wasn't being hostile toward anyone... merely judgmental about the anonymous people you mentioned who apparently refuse to consider watching something for trivial or spurious reasons. In whatever numbers such people exist (hopefully small), it's entirely possible that they may never watch Star Trek. And if so, fine... my point was simply that Trek doesn't need to bend over backward trying to please everybody.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

You're missing the point. It's supposed to be offensive. THAT'S the ironic part. My only regret is that I wasn't #more offensive to guys.

EDIT: no, I'm going to comment further, because I just saw the "my ass" line in your reply, and now I'm really dismayed. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and think you're a decent enough person, going through a tough time right now. Lord knows I'm disgusted enough by the political climate, myself. But not every bit of, in your opinion, questionable humor on the internet is cause to wage a proxy political battle and think the worst of people. If context matters, then we should remember that not everything is easily contextualized.

Here's the thing.

When you try to make a joke using language that can be offensive, but it backfires and someone actually doesn't find it funny, you apologize. What you don't do is tell them that it's their loss that they didn't find it funny, which in this case is all the more bizarre since, now by your own admission, you're trying to argue that it's supposed to be funny because it's offensive.

As for the "proxy political battle" remark, you're the one who kept the conversation going in a public forum that other people were subscribing to, including me, and in so doing engaged in conversation that I honestly thought was quite rude, quoted below.

Your loss.

Anyhow, I've said my piece. You've said yours. I'm dropping it.

 

[Arpy]

Here's the thing.

When you try to make a joke using language that can be offensive, but it backfires and someone actually doesn't find it funny, you apologize.

You were offended by it, and only because I regret seeing people in pain, know that I am sorry for yours.

I do not apologize for being what I thought was ironically clever.

What you don't do is tell them that it's their loss that they didn't find it funny, which in this case is all the more bizarre since, now by your own admission, you're trying to argue that it's supposed to be funny because it's offensive.

I replied that it was their loss to their comment that we shouldn't be able to laugh at ourselves, not that they didn't laugh at my joke. That is heading for disaster.

As for the "proxy political battle" remark, you're the one who kept the conversation going in a public forum that other people were subscribing to, including me, and in so doing engaged in conversation that I honestly thought was quite rude, quoted below

I matched the tenor of the post to which I was replying, and I was sincere in what I said -- they were doing themselves and their cause harm.

From my perspective, you were joining in to mischaracterize and attack a caricature.

Anyhow, I've said my piece. You've said yours. I'm dropping it.

I'm okay with dropping something once it's clear what we're dropping. (Or when we're too tired or bored to continue. The internet is so big and our time and energy sadly finite.) But I think it's important to recognize that people are not caricatures.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Like I said, I'm dropping it. I'm not replying further on the matter, whether I agree with what you're saying or not.

 

[fireproof78]

I wasn't being hostile toward anyone... merely judgmental about the anonymous people you mentioned who apparently refuse to consider watching something for trivial or spurious reasons. In whatever numbers such people exist (hopefully small), it's entirely possible that they may never watch Star Trek. And if so, fine... my point was simply that Trek doesn't need to bend over backward trying to please everybody.

Since I wasn't suggesting trying to please those people the point is rather mute.

Also, very confusing.

 

[CaptGrumpy]

I can't believe people think a small piece of the lore being in 1996 would somehow chase off people from watching the show.

I can't believe being a stickler for a year would do the same. Plus, the date was retconned in DS9 anyway. Why, to keep the EW in the future.

 

[XCV330]

I can't believe being a stickler for a year would do the same. Plus, the date was retconned in DS9 anyway. Why, to keep the EW in the future.

ENT has it in the 90s.

 

[eschaton]

I can't believe being a stickler for a year would do the same. Plus, the date was retconned in DS9 anyway. Why, to keep the EW in the future.

Yeah, once again, if the Khan miniseries Meyer is doing is covering the Eugenics Wars, there is approximately a 0.00001% chance that it will take place during the 1990s.

 

[BillJ]

I can't believe being a stickler for a year would do the same.

I never said it would chase people away.

Plus, the date was retconned in DS9 anyway.

It was Ira Behr or Ron Moore who admitted they got it wrong.

 

[XCV330]

Yeah, once again, if the Khan miniseries Meyer is doing is covering the Eugenics Wars, there is approximately a 0.00001% chance that it will take place during the 1990s.

He'd have a good case to do that, per his own writing, Khan was around in the late 21st century, though a product of late 20th century genetic engineering. Khan mentions he was a prince on earth 200 years earlier at least twice in TWOK, which would put the events in the 2080's.
I like the 1990 dates, but there IS That.

 

[CaptGrumpy]

It was Ira Behr or Ron Moore who admitted they got it wrong.

That may have been the intent, but if you're a stickler for canon and continuity, the published version shows a retcon. So, again, it's just a date for a fictitious event. In the scheme of things, it's not a big deal, IMO

 

[Tuskin38]

He'd have a good case to do that, per his own writing, Khan was around in the late 21st century, though a product of late 20th century genetic engineering. Khan mentions he was a prince on earth 200 years earlier at least twice in TWOK, which would put the events in the 2080's.
I like the 1990 dates, but there IS That.

Khan also said 1996 in TWOK.

 

[BillJ]

That may have been the intent, but if you're a stickler for canon and continuity, the published version shows a retcon. So, again, it's just a date for a fictitious event. In the scheme of things, it's not a big deal, IMO

I'm a stickler for TOS. The rest of it can jump off the proverbial cliff if it can't keep it straight.

 

[Tuskin38]

I'm a stickler for TOS. The rest of it can jump off the proverbial cliff if it can't keep it straight.

Then why care?