Kurtzman gets 5 1/2 year deal with 3 new shows in the works

[mswood]

Thing is, he goes through the same thing with Uhura in Trek09. From hitting on her, ogling her while she undresses and respecting(?) her in the end. You'd think his frat boy behavior would stop there, but for some reason 'Into Darkness' decided to dial it up by having Kirk wake up with two alien women in his bed and the film immediately cutting to him hitting on two more women on his way to meet Pike.

He will respect women he knows, but there was no indication in 'Into Darkness' that his constant hitting on women en mass is something he's ever going to stop doing. Beyond didn't feature any of that because the writers thankfully didn't put Kirk in that kind of position.

And yeah. I would have liked it if Carol stuck around. But sadly, if you're not Uhura, all women in NuTrek are one shots. Which is sad because that applies to Jaylah as well. At least Beyond remembered that Kirk has a living mother.

Yes Kirk is a player (not that there Is anything wrong with having multiple sex partners as long as all parties are fine with it). But some very key points to remember, outside of Beyond, the nuTrek Kirk is shown at an earlier stage of time, and has 20 yers of divergent experiences. But TOS Kirk isn't.exactly a shinning example of how to behave with women, let alone how to behave with people in the work place. And in those three years we see almost nothing showing a progress of learning, on this subject.

Now I have issues with every version of Trek, both from the lens of the immediate reaction and then to placing those shows, or films in the era that they are made. But there is a huge difference in that in TOS, we get 78 episodes with this person and we get to see how he (and everyone else) behaves, both their strengths and weaknesses. With nuTrek we got 2 brief moments in time (his childhood and bar fight leading to academy), and three missions. We get a tiny window into the characters. So every good or bad behavior is going to seem so much more significant than than any good or bad behavior.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

I don't do that at all. If a show interests me, I'll watch it. If it doesn't, I won't. I don't care what awards, accolades or acclaim it does or does not get.

Sure, if it interests me why Galactica 1980 was so poorly received, or what people see in The Expanse, I’ll watch them. There are shows and movies I’ll watch for all kinds of reasons regardless of quality. However, on top of that I like to seek out something I wouldn’t normally watch in order to get out of my comfort zone, and it’s usually a release with enough critical acclaim to further justify the detour.

I find this helps immeasurably in putting shows like Star Trek in their proper context, which is why it’s so curious when I see fans trying to hype up everything from a few Emmy nominations to an executive’s contract extension. Given the way these shows compare to some others it’s just not relevant: continued existence and business as usual, as opposed to making enough of an impact to carve out a sizable spot in the annals of television and film. As noted, how hard can it be on the most basic level to identify something that’s been overdone in the franchise and not do that again, like time travel? And if you’re highly familiar with the shows you’ll also be able to avoid the little things, like the aforementioned estrangement/reunion/reconciliation trope.

 

[Mirror Tuvix]

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

 

[garakvsneelix]

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

Hmm. I think, for me, it's always the balance. Let's take DS9: It obviously brought some darker places into the Utopian vision (e. g. Section 31) and also was a bit more drama- and action-driven with the Dominion arc, but it never felt like it wouldn't believe in Trek's idea that a peaceful universe could be possible someday.

Always wonder, if some of the thinks, people claim about DSC, PIC and Kurtzman, also were a point while DS9 was discussed at its first run. Of course, this doesn't make the arguments invalid or something, and of course, there are some differences between DS9's way of 'making Trek a bit more darker' and e. g. PICs way, but yeah, sometimes, I just have this question in my mind: Was DS9, my personal favourite Trek series, a kind of forerunner for DSC and PIC, the two Trek live action series I like the least?

 

[Steve Roby]

Kurtzman's Star Trek doesn't feature a better Humanity. In fact, Kurtzman's depiction of Humanity in Star Trek is rather uninspired and downright vile most of the time. And everyone involved with the franchise now is happy to keep it that way.

Vile. Interesting choice.

The new Star Trek shows, like the old ones, show humanity as diverse and comfortable with that diversity, and just as most Trek series gradually did more in that regard, the new ones continue by adding more diversity in gender identity and sexual preference along with racial diversity. But they're still characters who get along, who care about and fight for each other, who work together to make things better, in classic Star Trek fashion.

So... what's vile in the new Star Trek's depiction of humanity? I mean, my idea of a vile depiction of humanity would be something like The Turner Diaries.

 

[eschaton]

So... what's vile in the new Star Trek's depiction of humanity? I mean, my idea of a vile depiction of humanity would be something like The Turner Diaries.

I mean, I can think of individual examples that seem fucked up:

• Michael Burnham serving time in a penal colony doing hard labor. Obviously it's before TOS, when prisons were abolished, but many countries (other than the U.S.) think the idea of forcing prisoners to do labor is barbaric, considering its literally slavery. There's lots of other examples of a certain "meanness" to Discovery's first season, though these have generally been excused away as being due to Lorca's influence by the writers, though in reality they retconned a bit to make it more optimistic seeming.
• In Picard, Raffi's whole tirade against Picard living in a nice house with fancy things while she is in a trailer in the desert implies that Earth has a class structure still, and is not post-capitalist/post-scarcity. Trek never explicitly said one way or another, but lots of people believed the whole "no money" thing (and almost no references to businesses existing in the core Federation) meant Earth was more or less communist. Picard walked this way back in a lot of ways. Even if you grant that Freecloud itself isn't part of the Federation, the overall inferences of the story suggest a capitalist economic structure to some extent.
• I suppose someone could make an argument related to Lower Decks as well, though I thought other than the awful episode where Captain Freeman tried to eliminate "buffer time" the command structure of the ship generally acted as competently as any other in Trek - just a lot goofier.

 

[fireproof78]

I never understood Raffi as prime evidence. She is clearly bitter and an unreliable narrator due to her anger at, well, everyone.

 

[eschaton]

I never understood Raffi as prime evidence. She is clearly bitter and an unreliable narrator due to her anger at, well, everyone.

I can understand that. Chabon had some sort of response, IIRC, which was along the lines of "Raffi is an addict, and didn't want help, and the Federation considers it unethical to provide help without consent, which is why she is where she is."

But that's sort the same rationale that people use today to say "poverty is a choice, if someone wanted to change, they could snap out of it." Maybe it really is different in the Trekverse - there really are no people poor against their will - but thematically it's a remarkably conservative point for the series to make.

 

[The Old Mixer]

The often-asserted idea that the Federation's utopia should force help upon people like Raffi whether they want it or not seems disturbingly Stepfordish to me.

 

[Precious Tritium]

I can understand that. Chabon had some sort of response, IIRC, which was along the lines of "Raffi is an addict, and didn't want help, and the Federation considers it unethical to provide help without consent, which is why she is where she is."

But that's sort the same rationale that people use today to say "poverty is a choice, if someone wanted to change, they could snap out of it." Maybe it really is different in the Trekverse - there really are no people poor against their will - but thematically it's a remarkably conservative point for the series to make.

What exactly about her situation made it seem like she was poor? She wasn't starving. She had internet access. A lot of freedom to simply hop off-world when she wanted. Financially, she wasn't hanging on by a thread at all. She's in self-exile, but hardly destitute. I mean, do you truly believe if she tried to move into an apartment in the city she'd be denied? The help is always there for her. The means to enter back into society are right there and I seriously doubt there are any barriers to that beyond the one's she herself has erected.

And she's kind of got a point about Picard. He does own a mansion, and the only reason he does is because of his bloodline. It's been passed down from generation to generation and was probably acquired way back when through the means of capitalism. Can everyone on Earth own a mansion with all that land? No, there's not enough space. So why does Picard get one? Oh, well he was born lucky. In the Federation all people are equal, but maybe some are born more equal than others.

 

[fireproof78]

I can understand that. Chabon had some sort of response, IIRC, which was along the lines of "Raffi is an addict, and didn't want help, and the Federation considers it unethical to provide help without consent, which is why she is where she is."

But that's sort the same rationale that people use today to say "poverty is a choice, if someone wanted to change, they could snap out of it." Maybe it really is different in the Trekverse - there really are no people poor against their will - but thematically it's a remarkably conservative point for the series to make.

But, she isn't poor by all visuals. We just have her statements which are supremely biased.

I don't think current real world poverty is the same analog.

 

[Steve Roby]

I mean, I can think of individual examples that seem fucked up:

• Michael Burnham serving time in a penal colony doing hard labor. Obviously it's before TOS, when prisons were abolished, but many countries (other than the U.S.) think the idea of forcing prisoners to do labor is barbaric, considering its literally slavery.

At the end of "Battle of the Binary Stars," she is sentenced to be stripped of her rank and be imprisoned for life. No mention of hard labour.

• In Picard, Raffi's whole tirade against Picard living in a nice house with fancy things while she is in a trailer in the desert implies that Earth has a class structure still, and is not post-capitalist/post-scarcity. Trek never explicitly said one way or another, but lots of people believed the whole "no money" thing (and almost no references to businesses existing in the core Federation) meant Earth was more or less communist. Picard walked this way back in a lot of ways. Even if you grant that Freecloud itself isn't part of the Federation, the overall inferences of the story suggest a capitalist economic structure to some extent.

The no money stuff never made sense. The existence of the Chateau Picard wine business pretty much contradicts the whole communism thing, and its existence was established in the Berman era, so confusion over Trek economics goes back to TNG. Or does everyone on Earth have that much land for their hobbies? Raffi is where she is because she's fucked up and resisting help.

• I suppose someone could make an argument related to Lower Decks as well, though I thought other than the awful episode where Captain Freeman tried to eliminate "buffer time" the command structure of the ship generally acted as competently as any other in Trek - just a lot goofier.

Overall, I'm not seeing anything I'd describe as vile. Poorly thought out on the part of writers and producers, maybe, but vile? Not so much.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Kurtzman gets a new contract and somehow it comes to this...

 

[Boris Skrbic]

The no money stuff never made sense. The existence of the Chateau Picard wine business pretty much contradicts the whole communism thing, and its existence was established in the Berman era, so confusion over Trek economics goes back to TNG. Or does everyone on Earth have that much land for their hobbies?

The Picards would’ve continued as stewards of their vineyard as a quaint bit of Earth history, because they clearly displayed passion and skill for it, so the authorities would’ve seen no reason to take it away from them. If Jean-Luc had proven to be massively incompetent, I’m sure someone would’ve very politely suggested that maybe he should stick to writing books, and here’s a number of great candidates to follow Robert’s dream!

The main idea is not for the Picards to make money, but to continue with self-actualization as long as maintaining and modernizing that vineyard is a means to that end. Maybe there isn’t enough room on Earth if everyone wanted to do just that, but what about other planets? That’s why all those colonists go out there in the first place, not because they couldn’t survive on Earth.

 

[Steve Roby]

The Picards would’ve continued as stewards of their vineyard as a quaint bit of Earth history, because they clearly displayed passion and skill for it, so the authorities would’ve seen no reason to take it away from them. If Jean-Luc had proven to be massively incompetent, I’m sure someone would’ve very politely suggested that maybe he should stick to writing books, and here’s a number of great candidates to follow Robert’s dream!

Is there any bit of onscreen dialogue to support any of that?

 

[UssGlenn]

the authorities would’ve seen no reason to take it away from them

If the Federation has the authority to take away your family estate based on some bureaucrats assessment of how you are using it, then the Federation is a dystopia.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Is there any bit of onscreen dialogue to support any of that?

I’m just extrapolating from Picard’s comments in “The Neutral Zone”.

If the Federation has the authority to take away your family estate based on some bureaucrats assessment of how you are using it, then the Federation is a dystopia.

You could argue that, but they’d say it’s about making sure every single individual is following their passion, and is Jean-Luc’s passion really to keep that vineyard going? It certainly wasn’t for most of his lifetime. Is it now? It looks that way, so let’s not mess with the brand. Maybe he’s lacking skills in certain areas, but see, he’s hired specialists (out of his generous ‘allowance’ and/or Federation subsidies), and they live with him on that estate.

 

[Precious Tritium]

You could argue that, but they’d say it’s about making sure every single individual is following their passion, and is Jean-Luc’s passion really to keep that vineyard going? It certainly wasn’t for most of his lifetime. Is it now? It looks that way, so let’s not mess with the brand. Maybe he’s lacking skills in certain areas, but see, he’s hired specialists (out of his generous ‘allowance’ and/or Federation subsidies), and they live with him on that estate.

What if someone else on Earth has more of a passion for winemaking? Too bad, you weren’t born a Picard, better luck next time. There’s no reason Picard is any more deserving of that place than anyone else.

In a perfect Federation world no one would live there and it would simply be a place of work where anyone can go instead of someone’s private property.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

What if someone else on Earth has more of a passion for winemaking? Too bad, you weren’t born a Picard, better luck next time. There’s no reason Picard is any more deserving of that place than anyone else.

In a perfect Federation world no one would live there and it would simply be a place of work where anyone can go instead of someone’s private property.

I’m saying it’s not Picard’s private property. He is there because it looks good for a Picard to be on the grounds, but he has help, and if the Federation “politely suggested” that maybe these unessential bits could be converted into a museum for people to visit, with no improvement to Picard’s ‘allowance’, I’m sure he’d say “Absolutely; education is of the utmost importance, make it so!” If he’s “rich” in any way, it’s mostly due to his achievements as a Starfleet officer, not by owning property.

And if someone else has more of a passion for winemaking, why would they insist on taking over Picard’s vineyard if they can leave Earth and settle on a far less crowded colony?

 

[Steve Roby]

PICARD: That's what this is all about. A lot has changed in the past three hundred years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We've eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions. We have grown out of our infancy.

PICARD: This is the twenty fourth century. Material needs no longer exist.
RALPH: Then what's the challenge?
PICARD: The challenge, Mister Offenhouse, is to improve yourself. To enrich yourself. Enjoy it.

Pure philosopher king Roddenberry. Never mind that Picard values his own possessions. He gets his hands on a rare surviving artifact from the long dead Ressikan civilization, and he keeps it for himself instead of donating it to Federation archaeologists or a museum.