Discovery Showrunners fired; Kurtzman takes over

[CaptGrumpy]

Or maybe they simply don't care about producing great Star Trek and prefer to complain about canon rather than admit that they'd rather be writing (or would be better qualified to write) something else.

"Great Star Trek" is subjective. I prefer a great story. I'm not focused on the visual minutiae. I'm happy to accept that Discovery is in the Prime Universe, even though it doesn't look like the iteration of Star Trek that aired when I was a child. Visual aesthetics change over time, so to keep the show looking futuristic, I accept the change.

 

[Spaceship Jo]

They wanted their cake (creative freedom from 50 years worth of canon) and to eat it too (convincing fans of the 50 years worth of canon to pay for a faux-continuation of it).

Why does everyone keep saying canon when they mean consistency & continuity? Those dang C words. It's all Canon. But really, why do the writers think they won't have to deal with 50 years of canon, continuity, or consistency in a prequel? If anything, it's a tighter bind than a sequel unless they plan on ignoring all subsequent stories, but again that leads to why not just start over entirely or play in a part of the pool that doesn't have obvious (or marketable, that's why) overlaps with the existing mythos.

Speaking of which, is 10 YEARS BEFORE KIRK & SPOCK really any different or more appealing to general audiences than 100 YEARS AFTER KIRK & SPOCK or 10000 GALAXIES AWAY FROM KIRK & SPOCK? Sure, the Enterprise showing up is a big marketable thing, but isn't the key part the KIRK & SPOCK, heck, they could even go with THESE AREN'T YOUR PARENTS' KIRK & SPOCK because it doesn't matter if they're attaching themselves to the names (because awesome!) or distancing themselves (because like them, but cooler and newer!), either way they get to use the names. So unless they pull a Back to the Future Part 2, it doesn't matter when in relation to K & S except to make it harder for them to be accepted.

 

[F. King Daniel]

He feeds off the nerdrage.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

What I'm not fine with is the DISCO creative team tossing out all the things I mentioned that helped make prime Trek what it was and yet still calling it prime.

Given that they’ve rebooted the visuals I still don’t understand how they can call it “prime”. To my mind it could only be “prime” if it looked the same as the existing visuals - like every other iteration of Star Trek to date. I can’t wrap my head around it being the same as TOS when it looks so vastly different. Is “amazing spider man” the same as “sensational spider man”? I honestly don’t know - but I’d guess not since there are two different versions of the same thing. Maybe DSC is “sensational Star Trek” and the rest of the shows are “amazing Star Trek”?

If "Space Seed" says the Eugenics Wars were 1992-1996, and Discovery says they are 2092-2096, both are canon. One doesn't have any more weight than the other from a canon perspective.

No, Canon is everything that is produced and shown on tv and in the movies. That can't be contradicted. Continuity can be contradicted.

Why does everyone keep saying canon when they mean consistency & continuity?

This discussion has finally illustrated what canon is in my brain. It has to be canon because it’s part of the body of Star Trek that has been shown on television. Everything that has been on screen from TOS to now is therefore canon.

The issue is continuity it seems. Because continuity (e.g. visual continuity) has indeed been contradicted (unless the first line of dialogue in s2 is “that’s not what the Enterprise looks like...” and it turns out it’s a romulan facsimile). There have of course been minor inconsistencies in Star Trek before DSC came along - but DSC is outrageously (hilariously, and seemingly deliberately) contradictory to the established continuity of Star Trek*. Some people seem fine with that - I don’t know, I prefer my Star Trek to make sense with itself visually.

*at least in terms of the visuals - no events have been contradicted (to my knowledge) yet...

 

[fireproof78]

but DSC is outrageously (hilariously, and seemingly deliberately) contradictory to the established continuity of Star Trek*

I know this is an oft repeated argument, but why do the visual changes from TOS to TMP (potentially in a shorter time frame, depending on how much time is accepted between the two) but not DSC to TOS?

 

[Groppler Zorn]

I know this is an oft repeated argument, but why do the visual changes from TOS to TMP (potentially in a shorter time frame, depending on how much time is accepted between the two) but not DSC to TOS?

For me it’s simply the fact that TMP follows TOS and assuming that there was some kind of technological leap forward I’m happy to accept that as a development from TOS to TMP. Maybe daystrom perfected multitronics, I don’t know. Or that the TMP technology was developed while the Enterprise was out on her mission*. But the fact that it follows TOS makes it ok in my book.

DSC is instantly problematic with the extent of the differences because it’s set before TOS and it violates the existing visual continuity. To my eyes DSC looks more advanced still than TMP even, and I just think they could have been more creative with their step back from TOS. Someone on here suggested that the buttons on the original E bridge could have in themselves been holographic and reconfigurable - that would have been cool to see on DSC.

* which I realise could explain how DSC looks more advanced and I know she was built later than the E.

Overall I’m fine with some changes between TOS and DSC. I’m not for one second saying “it should look like the 60s” because that would be insane. But it’s the extent of the changes that I’m not a fan of. The phasers and the communicators (and the Vulcans and Andorians) look great. They look like modern updates of the 60s designs. The aesthetics of the ships, the uniforms, the bridge layout, the LCARS design, the holograms (I know there are precedents in TOS - I’m just not a fan of hologram communicators - even in DS9)... for me, they’re just too different from the established visuals for me to accept that it’s the same timeline in muh brain.

I mean I’m still going to watch the show (and the other 5 when they debut), but I’m obstinate and intransigent and I want a reason why things look different dagnabbit and I don’t like things that are different

P.s. I’m pretty sure I undermined my own argument somewhere in that post. If I’m honest I don’t really care that much about the look of DSC. It’s just not what I was expecting. I’ll get over it haha!

 

[Uhura's Song]

Given that they’ve rebooted the visuals I still don’t understand how they can call it “prime”. To my mind it could only be “prime” if it looked the same as the existing visuals - like every other iteration of Star Trek to date. I can’t wrap my head around it being the same as TOS when it looks so vastly different. Is “amazing spider man” the same as “sensational spider man”? I honestly don’t know - but I’d guess not since there are two different versions of the same thing. Maybe DSC is “sensational Star Trek” and the rest of the shows are “amazing Star Trek”?






This discussion has finally illustrated what canon is in my brain. It has to be canon because it’s part of the body of Star Trek that has been shown on television. Everything that has been on screen from TOS to now is therefore canon.

The issue is continuity it seems. Because continuity (e.g. visual continuity) has indeed been contradicted (unless the first line of dialogue in s2 is “that’s not what the Enterprise looks like...” and it turns out it’s a romulan facsimile). There have of course been minor inconsistencies in Star Trek before DSC came along - but DSC is outrageously (hilariously, and seemingly deliberately) contradictory to the established continuity of Star Trek*. Some people seem fine with that - I don’t know, I prefer my Star Trek to make sense with itself visually.

*at least in terms of the visuals - no events have been contradicted (to my knowledge) yet...

This is just nonsense.

They used floppy discs & memory tapes on TOS. Those technologies are out of date today. Now.

A futuristic show using technology that is 30 years out of date makes no sense. It CANNOT LOOK THE SAME. Large spacious computers with vacuum tubes. Heck, Voyager and TNG have laptops. That makes no sense in the future either.

Just accept that certain visual reboots have to happen because what was futuristic 50 years ago is now out of date. Or even 20 in some cases.

If you cannot get that, and you continually get your panties in a bunch about visual continuity, then I think you are beyond help.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

They used floppy discs & memory tapes on TOS.

No they didn’t. I think you’re mistaking what you think they look like (or possibly inspired) with outdated technology. You might want to take a closer look at TOS with a more unbiased eye.

A futuristic show using technology that is 30 years out of date makes no sense. It CANNOT LOOK THE SAME

I’m not arguing that it should. In fact I explicitly argued that above - it’s all up there if you’d like to double check.

If you cannot get that, and you continually get your panties in a bunch about visual continuity, then I think you are beyond help.

I’m awfully sorry that I’ve upset you. I hope we can put this behind us.

 

[jaime]

This is just nonsense.

They used floppy discs & memory tapes on TOS. Those technologies are out of date today. Now.

A futuristic show using technology that is 30 years out of date makes no sense. It CANNOT LOOK THE SAME. Large spacious computers with vacuum tubes. Heck, Voyager and TNG have laptops. That makes no sense in the future either.

Just accept that certain visual reboots have to happen because what was futuristic 50 years ago is now out of date. Or even 20 in some cases.

If you cannot get that, and you continually get your panties in a bunch about visual continuity, then I think you are beyond help.

People like laptops. People like typewriters.
There are no laptops in VOY anyway.

 

[Nerys Myk]

No they didn’t. I think you’re misfaking what you think they look like (or possibly inspired) with outdated technology. You might want to take a closer look at TOS with a more unbiased eye.

The did seem to call these "tapes". They didn't seem to have much storage capacity.

 

[Jinn]

The they didn't seem to have much storage capacity.

But they have fancy color patterns to make up for it!

 

[Groppler Zorn]

The did seem to call these "tapes". The they didn't seem to have much storage capacity.

I still say “tape” when I record something on my DVR. It’s a holdover from the vhs days I suppose.

I call usb drives “pen” drives but they’re not made of biros.

Tbf the “tape” drives above look like some kind of futuristic usb drive. I don’t know how they work - some duotronic magic probably. Doesn’t matter - it’s the future.

^ there’s an argument in that post somewhere, honest.

Plus if the data on them is ultra HD or even holographic, they may store several terra quads of data for all we know or the data is uncompressed or whatever.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I still say “tape” when I record something on my DVR. It’s a holdover from the vhs days I suppose.

I call usb drives “pen” drives but they’re not made of biros.

Tbf the “tape” drives above look like some kind of futuristic usb drive. I don’t know how they work - some duotronic magic probably. Doesn’t matter - it’s the future.

^ there’s an argument in that post somewhere, honest.

Plus if the data on them is ultra HD or even holographic, they may store several terra quads of data for all we know or the data is uncompressed or whatever.

They remind me of these,which I used back in the day.

A flavor of ice cream took up and entire tape in "And the Children Shall Lead"!

I

 

[Groppler Zorn]

They remind me of these,which I used back in the day.

A flavor of ice cream took up and entire tape in "And the Children Shall Lead"!

I

Isolinear circuitry couldn’t be invented fast enough - they could get at least 12 flavours on an isolinear data chip.

optolythic data rods were rumoured to hold up to 20 flavours by the mid 24th century. But the obsidian order made anyone who mentioned this fact disappear.

 

[Tuskin38]

Memory-Alpha calls them Microtapes as they were called that in the script for Charlie X

DSC uses them as well, with a slightly revised design.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Neapolitan ice cream was known to cause core meltdowns.

 

[Tuskin38]

They used floppy discs & memory tapes on TOS. Those technologies are out of date today. Now.

DSC still uses tapes that resemble the ones in TOS, they're just transparent.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Neapolitan ice cream was known to cause core meltdowns.

Like Ben and Jerry’s core flavours? You’d need a starship’s computer to deal with those.

 

[Nerys Myk]

They had to pull all ice cream parlor holo-programs until the technology was advanced enough to handle it.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

They had to pull all ice cream parlor holo-programs until the technology was advanced enough to handle it.

That’s why you never see ice cream in Vic Fonataine’s. For all his holographic sophistication, he couldn’t handle raspberry ripple, pally.