Star Trek Discovery in trouble, and a de facto reboot?

[norse_sage]

Occasional fan here, one that was really looking forward to Discovery.
I've heard some offhand remarks here and there about things being slightly off with Discovery, and Fuller leaving under somewhat dubious circumstances, but haven't thought too much about it till now.

Because now Midnight's Edge, a Youtube channel that specializes in production trouble, posted this:

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

In short, the prime timeline is out, the licensees hate the visuals, Netflix hates the progress and no one is really happy about anything. They warn that these are just rumors, and I hope that is all this is - but they did the same thing with Ghostbusters and the 2015 Fantastic Four, and time proved all of those rumors to be legit, no matter how far fetched they seemed at the time.

I can live with alternate designs (to a point) but what's this about replacing the prime timeline?
Have any of you heard anything about this?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Those "occasional remarks" can be traced back to the usual group of change-fearing nutjobs on Facebook. Particularly the one about licensees - that's from Doug Fitz fka Para Mobius. The same schmuck who claimed the new Trek series was going to debut on Jan 1 2015 and be a return to Roddenberry's Trek (as opposed to that evil JJ Abrams stuff) and has now done a comical 180 now the first pictures of Discovery have been released and decided that Axanar (you know, the fan film from the guy who raised $1.4 million from Trekkies and used it to pay for new tyres for his car, for his girlfriend's gasoline and phone bill for two years, for salaries for himself and his friends and to fund a film studio and somehow forget to actually make a movie) is the only True Trek around.

 

[norse_sage]

Interesting, except I never heard of any ParaMobious, am not hardcore enough to follow any Star Trek FB group (this is the only Star Trek forum/group I follow), and couldn't care less about fanfilms or how their makers fund their girlfriends car expenditures. Also, I happen to think the JJ movies are awesome.

What I care about is continuity and consistency, and the offhand remarks I'm referring to come from various talking heads in the Collider Movie talk videos - one of several such instances is even referenced in the video.

I can live with new designs, huge fan of what they did in the JJ-verse. But can someone please assure me that this trans-dimensional drivel isn't happening? Because I draw the line at discarding the prime timeline.

 

[BillJ]

But can someone please assure me that this trans-dimensional drivel isn't happening? Because I draw the line at discarding the prime timeline.

What does it matter if the stories are good? I think it will end up being a stealth reboot, the society and values of the 1960's are different than today. No one expects women to curl up to a man and state that they're frightened in a possible dangerous situation.

The 1960's vision of the 23rd century isn't compatible with how the early-21st century will see the 23rd century.

 

[BillJ]

And, no... the show isn't in trouble any more than TNG was in trouble during its early bumpy development.

 

[norse_sage]

"What does it matter if the stories are good?"

Because I don't want all the good stories of TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9 and VOY negated, that's why. My brand of OCD works that way. I'd have no issue if the series took place after Nemesis, and I'd have no problem if they openly said this is yet another reboot in a new timeline.

What I have a problem with is if something that is supposed to take place between ENT and TOS end up altering the universe and negate everything afterwards, leaving only ENT canon.

"the society and values of the 1960's are different than today".
No argue there. I don't mind strong females, female captains, or black female captains.

"I think it will end up being a stealth reboot".
"And, no... the show isn't in trouble any more than TNG was in trouble during its early bumpy development."
And here I was hoping you would prove the contents of the video wrong...

 

[psCargile]

From a writing point of view, rebooting the whole thing is easier as it eliminates time consuming continuity checking and frees up creativity.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Judging by the updated look of everything and comments I've read, I suspect Discovery is "prime universe" in name only. Or perhaps based on the prime universe in the same way Smallville was based on/inspired by the Christopher Reeve Superman movie universe.

I'm in the camp that says as long as it's good, that's all that matters. My days of trying to mentally squeeze all of Trek into a cohesive whole are long past.

 

[psCargile]

Because I don't want all the good stories of TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9 and VOY negated, that's why.

Think of it as a new iteration.

 

[BillJ]

Because I don't want all the good stories of TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9 and VOY negated, that's why.

I can't speak to OCD. But, from my perspective, the Abrams films are a backdoor reboot and I had no issue watching and enjoying "The Naked Time" and "The Enemy Within" last night. "My" Star Trek is the original and no amount of tinkering or changes by later productions (though I've enjoyed them all to varying degrees) will change that for me.

YMMV.

 

[norse_sage]

Judging by the updated look of everything and comments I've read, I suspect Discovery is "prime universe" in name only. Or perhaps based on the prime universe in the same way Smallville was based on/inspired by the Christopher Reeve Superman movie universe.

Smallville was openly a reboot from day one. They never claimed "These are the events that happened to Christoper Reeve's Clark Kent in Smallville back in the early seventies".

If they did the same thing here, if they openly said "This is a reboot, taking place at this time in a third timeline, with another Kirk and Spock out there somwhere, but it won't connect to any past Star Trek series ..."
- I'd have no issue.

I'm a huge fan of the JJ movies, I actually prefer the first and the third to most of the prime movies. But they very clearly take place in another timeline, so that is all good and well.

Discovery, we've been told takes place in the Prime timeline. If they bring that transdimensional drivel there, that is something else entirely.

If they come out say it's a reboot, I'll be back onboard. But if the rumors are true (and based on the responses here, they sure seem to be) then color me apprehensive.

 

[BillJ]

...transdimensional drivel...

This is a Star Trek staple!

 

[Ryann866]

And, no... the show isn't in trouble any more than TNG was in trouble during its early bumpy development.

This is an entirely different beast from what went on in the early days of TNG. As many of the recent docs and books on the making of TNG detail (the blu-ray docs, Shatner's doc, The 50 Year Mission book), Paramount had given complete support to that series from the start. The turmoil behind the scenes was in the writing of the first season, conflict between Gene and the writers (due to his erratic behavior, health, and definition of what ST is and isn't) , the interference of Gene's lawyer, Maurice Hurley's power grab, and the revolving door of staff writers. It was from WITHIN the production itself, not from the top down. Berman, David Livingston, and others say that after the pilot, they rarely received creative notes from the studio -- and there was no network, as TNG was syndicated.

Discovery's situation seems to be the all too familiar result of "corporate filmmaking". Using the Star Trek "brand" as a device to boost the sales of their streaming platform, with CEO's and businessmen involved on a micromanaging level with creative people. It's essentially what happens on every big budget Hollywood project or franchise today. The stakes and costs are too high, and too many corporate jobs are on the line. It's about pushing the product rather than making something true to form, or great. They are probably operating on the "well, the Abrams movies made a ton, so make it like that". Seems pretty clear thats why Kurtzman is involved.

What seems really unfortunate with Discovery is that there doesn't seem to be a strong leading, singular, unifying vision to lead the direction on the series -- there's no Ron Moore, no Nic Pizzalotto, no Weiss and Benioff. Regardless of the studio, that's what you need on a project like this. And it's never is a good sign in Hollywood when a release date is pushed more than once.

 

[BillJ]

...there's no Ron Moore...

Thank God!

 

[F. King Daniel]

Smallville was openly a reboot from day one. They never claimed "These are the events that happened to Christoper Reeve's Clark Kent in Smallville back in the early seventies".

No, but ultimately it was heavily based on concepts and visuals from those movies. Essentially, it was the first 40 minutes of Superman: The Movie, transplanted into the 2000's and padded out to 10 years. That's kind of what I'm expecting here.

If they did the same thing here, if they openly said "This is a reboot, taking place at this time in a third timeline, with another Kirk and Spock out there somwhere, but it won't connect to any past Star Trek series ..."
- I'd have no issue.

Fair enough.

 

[cultcross]

Because I don't want all the good stories of TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9 and VOY negated, that's why

Well they won't be. Unless they've invented actual time travel, those stories will always have been told and always be available to watch. This isn't even a George Lucas situation, they're not changing what went before, it's just a new show in a future that's imagined differently due to 50 years elapsing in the real world.

They warn that these are just rumors,

Exactly

There's no substance in these speculations, only rumour started by those who wanted something else or don't like what they see. Same thing happened with ENT, and TNG.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

However different DSC looks, it will be easy to explain away the differences and still have it be in the prime timeline.

 

[The Wormhole]

What I care about is continuity and consistency,

Then one wonders what's drawn you to Star Trek?

I can live with new designs, huge fan of what they did in the JJ-verse. But can someone please assure me that this trans-dimensional drivel isn't happening? Because I draw the line at discarding the prime timeline.

Wait, so you're okay with the Abrams movies, but Discovery not being set in the Prime Universe is apparently The Line and grounds not to watch it? WTF, do you need a TOS actor to show up just to say "it's cool, I'm still alive, those 79 episodes and six movie still happened. And that other stuff, I guess."

 

[Jedman67]

In various interviews and articles they've stated that it's a reboot, using words like "re-imagining" and "updated visuals" etc. They haven't actually used the word "reboot" to avoid offending the hypersensitive fans who will be offended regardless.
But it's still a fucking reboot whatever you want to call it.

 

[jamestyler]

"Rumours! We have unsubstantiated rumours!"

That gets posted all over the internet.

"Hi, I'm Les Moonves and I'm excited by what I've seen so far!"

Barely mentioned.

That's how the internet works.