Why the hate for Alex Kurtzman?

[CoveTom]

Eh. I'm old enough to remember when Berman was the boogeyman ruining Star Trek. Now his era is looked upon as the golden age of Trek and Kurtzman is said to be ruining that. I'm sure if I'd been old enough at the time, someone would have been blaming Harve Bennett for running Roddenberry's work.

At the risk of repeating myself, here's what I said on another thread:

The new series have not ruined anything for me. I still love what I always loved.

My wife and I watched every episode of Picard as it aired. Mostly simply due to our affection for TNG. Picard is certainly not my favorite series, but I watched it. I thought season 1 was awful, 2 was decent, and 3 was spectacular.

Other than that, I really don't watch the modern Trek. It's just not my cup of tea (Earl Grey, hot). I saw the first two Abramsverse movies in the theater, but I haven't even seen Beyond yet. (That was the first Trek film since TVH that I didn't see in the theater.) I've seen a couple episodes of SNW. A couple of Lower Decks. Not even a full episode of Discovery or Prodigy. For that matter, I've only seen a couple episodes of Enterprise.I don't anticipate I'll be watching the Section 31 film or the Starfleet Academy series.

Those shows just don't appeal to me. I don't find them offensive or anything. They're not ruining my childhood. I'm just not interested. They're not "my" Star Trek. My Trek runs from TOS through Voyager and ends there.

Yes, of course, I wish they would make Trek now that appealed to me. And I'll moan and complain about the fact that they don't. And I was happy that Picard season 3 seemed to be trying to please my generation of fandom. That aside, though, I know that my era of Trek is over. But I also realize that I've got something like a thousand hours of Trek from my era of the franchise that I can watch anytime I want. And if people like the new stuff, fine. I don't understand why these battles cause so much animosity.

 

[Daedalus]

Eh. I'm old enough to remember when Berman was the boogeyman ruining Star Trek. Now his era is looked upon as the golden age of Trek and Kurtzman is said to be ruining that. I'm sure if I'd been old enough at the time, someone would have been blaming Harve Bennett for running Roddenberry's work.

At the risk of repeating myself, here's what I said on another thread:

The new series have not ruined anything for me. I still love what I always loved.

My wife and I watched every episode of Picard as it aired. Mostly simply due to our affection for TNG. Picard is certainly not my favorite series, but I watched it. I thought season 1 was awful, 2 was decent, and 3 was spectacular.

Other than that, I really don't watch the modern Trek. It's just not my cup of tea (Earl Grey, hot). I saw the first two Abramsverse movies in the theater, but I haven't even seen Beyond yet. (That was the first Trek film since TVH that I didn't see in the theater.) I've seen a couple episodes of SNW. A couple of Lower Decks. Not even a full episode of Discovery or Prodigy. For that matter, I've only seen a couple episodes of Enterprise.I don't anticipate I'll be watching the Section 31 film or the Starfleet Academy series.

Those shows just don't appeal to me. I don't find them offensive or anything. They're not ruining my childhood. I'm just not interested. They're not "my" Star Trek. My Trek runs from TOS through Voyager and ends there.

Yes, of course, I wish they would make Trek now that appealed to me. And I'll moan and complain about the fact that they don't. And I was happy that Picard season 3 seemed to be trying to please my generation of fandom. That aside, though, I know that my era of Trek is over. But I also realize that I've got something like a thousand hours of Trek from my era of the franchise that I can watch anytime I want. And if people like the new stuff, fine. I don't understand why these battles cause so much animosity.

Similarly, im old enough to remember when Enterprise was seen as a "non-canon" and ruinous entry into the Star Trek family, I now know of a lot of people who have suddenly changed their minds about it. It's not universal, of course, but its a trend that can't be ignored. It's also the same with the Star Wars prequels.

I genuinely predict that a large chunk of current Kurtzman-era haters will turn around and be more positive towards it in about 20 years. Providing there is one, the 2040s era of Star Trek will no doubt be the worst that Star Trek has ever been.

Also, you might find that something that gave you as much joy as PIC S3 did, will turn up in a few years. It's worth keeping the door open a little.

 

[CaptainCalvinCat]

the divisive identity politics he injected into Star Trek

"Divisive identity politics"? What's that supposed to mean?

.Even without looking at the divisive politics of NuTrek and all the antagonization it caused (I don't want to go into that any deeper here), Alex Kurtzman's body of work is not just not good, it's outright horrible on every level.

Oh, please elaborate.

 

[Citiprime]

Similarly, im old enough to remember when Enterprise was seen as a "non-canon" and ruinous entry into the Star Trek family, I now know of a lot of people who have suddenly changed their minds about it. It's not universal, of course, but its a trend that can't be ignored. It's also the same with the Star Wars prequels.

I genuinely predict that a large chunk of current Kurtzman-era haters will turn around and be more positive towards it in about 20 years. Providing there is one, the 2040s era of Star Trek will no doubt be the worst that Star Trek has ever been.

Also, you might find that something that gave you as much joy as PIC S3 did, will turn up in a few years. It's worth keeping the door open a little.

My feeling has been that it'll largely depend on the leadership of CBS/Paramount and the person they choose to be in charge of Star Trek after Kurtzman.

Depending on where things stand, I could see either a continuation, or some form of reboot. If they see Kurtzman's strategy as working, they'll continue what's being done and build off of it. If CBS/Paramount and the person that replaces him wants to go in a different direction, I think what is or isn't continuity for the Prime Timeline becomes an open question.

TOS and TNG are the major touchstones for Star Trek. And you could see a showrunner come in who does something similar to what's been done with Superman, Alien, or Halloween, where they don't want to have to live with someone else's choices. So you could have a new head honcho who doesn't want to be limited by "The Burn," Q's death, or other choices, and tells the audience that a new series proceeds from a certain point (e.g., everything connected to TOS and TNG) and ignores everything else like it didn't happen.

If something like that occurred, all of the Paramount+ shows would probably "officially" be shunted into their own universe (similar to how Star Wars put a lot of old material that was considered canon before the sequel trilogy into a separate continuity called "Legends").

 

[Danja]

TOS and TNG are the major touchstones for Star Trek. And you could see a showrunner come in who does something similar to what's been done with Superman, Alien, or Halloween, where they don't want to have to live with someone else's choices.

They're doing that RIGHT NOW.

Terry Matalas resurrected Data in Star Trek: Picard after he died in Star Trek: Nemesis.

 

[CaptainCalvinCat]

They're doing that RIGHT NOW.

Terry Matalas resurrected Data in Star Trek: Picard after he died in Star Trek: Nemesis.

And it's a good thing, they did that, because his death - and his other death in season 1 - was something, I was pretty annoyed with. Can now please someone bring Icheb back to live? I mean, don't get me wrong, Sevens "Mutter Bachmeier"-Moment was good and just, but can we find some mumbo-jumbo-reason to bring him back? Because the one thing, I'll always hold against Season 1 of Picard, was the killing-off of so many characters. Hugh, anyone? It went that far, that I was thinking "Oh no, please don't do that", when Jean-Luc visited Troi and Riker - I thought, they'd kill off these two, too. I literally imagined the romulan enter the building and killing off everyone, only Picard and Daj could escape. Thankfully, that wasn't the case.

 

[CoveTom]

They're doing that RIGHT NOW.

Terry Matalas resurrected Data in Star Trek: Picard after he died in Star Trek: Nemesis.

Well, season 3 did attempt to effectively undo some things that had gone before, but not overtly. Data's death in Nemesis, and his, er, re-death in season 1 still happened in the continuity, even though they brought him back yet again in season 3.

 

[HotRod]

"Divisive identity politics"? What's that supposed to mean?

It means the show had the audacity to show members of the LGBTQ+ community as actual character in the show. All while they dared to have a woman of colour as the lead character.

 

[CaptainCalvinCat]

It means the show had the audacity to show members of the LGBTQ+ as actual character in the show. All while they dared to have a woman of colour as the lead character.

So, it's basically "Mimimi, the show is stupid, because they have these people, I don't want to think about, included"? Good, then I was right, thinking "You don't actually need to read further, why does a person, like that watch 'Star Trek' in the first place? Can't be all because in the sixties Kirk was quicker with his fitsts."

 

[HotRod]

So, it's basically "Mimimi, the show is stupid, because they have these people, I don't want to think about, included"? Good, then I was right, thinking "You don't actually need to read further, why does a person, like that watch 'Star Trek' in the first place? Can't be all because in the sixties Kirk was quicker with his fitsts."

I can't speak for certain on what's in Charts heart. But whenever I see someone bring up Divisive Identity Politics, especially in regards to Discovery, it usually means they have a problem with The Gays.

 

[CaptainCalvinCat]

I can't speak for certain on what's in Charts heart. But whenever I see someone bring up Divisive Identity Politics, especially in regards to Discovery, it usually means they have a problem with The Gays.

Which is, why I asked Char to elaborate. I mean, you're right, it could be code for "Mimimi, there are Schwuchteln on Discovery" (Schwuchteln being the german word for 'f******), but maybe he does mean something different. I mean - yeah, Paul and Hugh are in a homosexual relationship, so what? Seven and Raffi are, too. I don't care, actually, I think, both are actually quite awesome couples - more Paul and Hugh, because they go for each other through hell, while Seven and Raffi, in the second Season of Picard, are written as "constantly at each others throats". Not such a great depiction, actually. They could've used more of Pauls and Hughs "going for each other through fire", if you ask me. But in season 3, they are at least together and working together on the ship, at the end.

 

[Daedalus]

My feeling has been that it'll largely depend on the leadership of CBS/Paramount and the person they choose to be in charge of Star Trek after Kurtzman.

Depending on where things stand, I could see either a continuation, or some form of reboot. If they see Kurtzman's strategy as working, they'll continue what's being done and build off of it. If CBS/Paramount and the person that replaces him wants to go in a different direction, I think what is or isn't continuity for the Prime Timeline becomes an open question.

TOS and TNG are the major touchstones for Star Trek. And you could see a showrunner come in who does something similar to what's been done with Superman, Alien, or Halloween, where they don't want to have to live with someone else's choices. So you could have a new head honcho who doesn't want to be limited by "The Burn," Q's death, or other choices, and tells the audience that a new series proceeds from a certain point (e.g., everything connected to TOS and TNG) and ignores everything else like it didn't happen.

If something like that occurred, all of the Paramount+ shows would probably "officially" be shunted into their own universe (similar to how Star Wars put a lot of old material that was considered canon before the sequel trilogy into a separate continuity called "Legends").

I don't see them moving all the P+ shows into an alternate timelime unless something dramatic happens. I'm not sure what that could be, if I'm honest. A massive tax write off, or horrendous controversy? Skydance will hold on to it all for a while, I have no doubt. But could they reboot it sooner than we think?

Expanded media is always ripe for removal of course, it's one of the main reasons I don't buy it anymore. A valuable lesson was learnt with Star Wars...very much so. Live-action is another thing altogether.

Anyway, who is to say a person is in charge of Star Trek in 20 years? Someone could own the property, but running it is another thing...(This is only a partial joke inspired by my paralysing fear of the future)

 

[Michael]

"Mimimi, there are Schwuchteln on Discovery" (Schwuchteln being the german word for 'f*****')

I understand that you mean well, but please don’t reproduce the f-word without really needing to. Mind you, I’m not telling you this as a mod (since I don’t mod this forum), I’m just asking as a fellow poster. (And if this were a German-speaking forum I would ask the same about the German equivalent you used, which most here won’t recognize of course.)

But rest assured, @HotRod is correct in his assessment about this particular poster. I’m reasonably certain this is a raging homophobe, transphobe and racist. Because while they might not be so stupid that they would openly post this crap here, they are not clever enough to post it under a different screen name at other places on the internet. I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Danja]

Can now please someone bring Icheb back to live? I mean, don't get me wrong, Sevens "Mutter Bachmeier"-Moment was good and just, but can we find some mumbo-jumbo-reason to bring him back?

Picard really leaned into Seven being the Kirk analogue:

Seven is a soldier (just like Kirk).
Seven lost a son (just like Kirk).
Seven is now Captain of the Enterprise (just like ... well, you know ).

 

[Nyotarules]

Which is, why I asked Char to elaborate. I mean, you're right, it could be code for "Mimimi, there are Schwuchteln on Discovery" (Schwuchteln being the german word for 'f******), but maybe he does mean something different. I mean - yeah, Paul and Hugh are in a homosexual relationship, so what? Seven and Raffi are, too. I don't care, actually, I think, both are actually quite awesome couples - more Paul and Hugh, because they go for each other through hell, while Seven and Raffi, in the second Season of Picard, are written as "constantly at each others throats". Not such a great depiction, actually. They could've used more of Pauls and Hughs "going for each other through fire", if you ask me. But in season 3, they are at least together and working together on the ship, at the end.

I know you do not mean to offend, please edit the f word you posted.

 

[Nyotarules]

Only people with a corporate toxic-positivity fanboy mindset ("Don't ask questions, just consume product and then get excited for next product") or people who like the divisive identity politics he injected into Star Trek can like what he created (or is responsible for as the man in charge). Even without looking at the divisive politics of NuTrek and all the antagonization it caused (I don't want to go into that any deeper here), Alex Kurtzman's body of work is not just not good, it's outright horrible on every level.

Feel free to take off your gatekeeper hat and that other hat you have twirling on your finger.....
I never understand why its 'divisive' to recognise in society everyone does not look like or live the life of the person you see in the mirror and to have that reflected in public entertainment.

 

[HotRod]

Feel free to take off your gatekeeper hat and that other hat you have twirling on your finger.....

Sure it's a hat and not a hood?

 

[BillJ]

People hate Alex Kurtzman because his "creative" output is just bad. It always was, even before Star Trek.

All this talk about about how people hate him because he is the face of Star Trek or Star Trek fans always hated change (TNG was a ratings hit) is just deflection.

Only people with a corporate toxic-positivity fanboy mindset ("Don't ask questions, just consume product and then get excited for next product") or people who like the divisive identity politics he injected into Star Trek can like what he created (or is responsible for as the man in charge). Even without looking at the divisive politics of NuTrek and all the antagonization it caused (I don't want to go into that any deeper here), Alex Kurtzman's body of work is not just not good, it's outright horrible on every level.


Kurtzman was the wrong choice for Star Trek:

Alex Kurtzman collaborator with Michael Bay on multiple projects. That alone should disqualify him to work on Star Trek.

Alex Kurtzman wrote 3 Michael Bay movies:
The Island 2005
Transformers 2007
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen 2009

One reason why I don't like JJ Abrams' Star Trek 2009 is because the Kelvin timeline Kirk is written as an immature, brattish, infantile, bumbling buffoon, like Shia LaBeouf's Sam Witwicky.
Chris Pine's Kirk was written like Shia LaBeouf's Sam Witwicky. The screaming, the running, the Shia LaBeoufing, the timing of some of the "comedic" scenes (Kirk/Witwicky bed scene). And Chris Pine does his darndest job trying to do a Shia LaBeouf impression.
Thanks Alex Kurtzman (and JarJar Abrams).

Alex Kurtzman also wrote:
Cowboys & Aliens 2011
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 2014

And Alex Kurtzman wrote and directed The Mummy 2017, a total disaster on every level.

"The Mummy", the last project Alex Kurtzman worked on before Discovery, got him 8 Golden Raspberry Awards nominations and Tom Cruise, the actor he directed and wrote the script for won the Golden Raspberry for "Worst Actor".

Alex Kurtzman has a "Worst Screenplay" Razzie for "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" and Transformers 2, the movie he wrote, also got a Razzie for "Worst Picture", Michael Bay got a Razzie for "Worst Director" and Transformers 2 got 4 additional Razzie nominations.

Before he was involved with Star Trek Alex Kurtzman killed two franchises.
The second iterations of Sony's Spider-Man franchises with Andrew Garfield (Sinister Six) and Universal Pictures's Dark Universe cinematic universe. The "Dark Universe" was dead on arrival and is still dead and Spider-Man had to be revived by Kevin Feige, a far more talented producer.


BTW:

The current showrunner of Strange News World (and Picard S1/S2), Akiva Goldsman, also worked for Michael Bay. He wrote the fifth and last Michael Bay Transformers movie. A financial and critical disaster.

Both Alex Kurtzman and Akiva Goldsman had huge cinematic disasters in 2017 before working on Star Trek Discovery.
Akiva Goldsman's "Transformers: The Last Knight" has even more Golden Raspberry Awards nominations (10) than Alex Kurtzman's "The Mummy" (8).
Akiva Goldsman had a second cinematic disaster in 2017 with "The Dark Tower".

Alex Kurtzman and Akiva Goldsman are both in director's and writer's jail.

And these ware the people who are in charge of Star Trek.

Can we have people in charge of Star Trek that
A) Didn't work with Michael Bay
B) Don't have Golden Raspberries (and even one Raspberry, and no even nominations)


It's also a logical fallacy to say that after 2005, the direction Abrams/Kurtzman took Star Trek was the only possible way for Star Trek to move forward.

Most everyone here knows what I think of CBS Trek, but this is just silly non-sense. Whatever one thinks of Kurtzman, he is obviously hitting whatever metrics CBS needs from Trek or else he wouldn’t have been left in charge for nearly a decade.

 

[Danja]

My wife and I watched every episode of Picard as it aired. Mostly simply due to our affection for TNG. Picard is certainly not my favorite series, but I watched it. I thought season 1 was awful, 2 was decent, and 3 was spectacular.

I liked S1. I'm not crazy about S2. I could've done without the TNG reunion in S3.

 

[1001001]

I know you do not mean to offend, please edit the f word you posted.

I edited all the instances of the word (we can do that, you know).

Sure it's a hat and not a hood?

Easy, tiger.

Anyway, who could have possibly known that this subject would lead to insults and slurs?

Oh, that's right. Me.

I will leave this open for now, but I'm asking everyone to discuss respectfully. Any further nonsense and the thread will be closed and warnings given out.

That is all.