The latest trailer, as well as showing what appears to be a dream sequence on Ten Forward, gives us a view of what appear to be futuristic Starfleet vessels.
First thoughts: quite a radical departure? The saucer remains, but now an angular trapezoid with forward-sweeping canards. No visible nacelles, instead there seems to be a central spine with a double glowing line. There seems to be a stepped section with lights in pointing aft - impulse engines?
If I understand it correctly, in the future novels Starfleet has slipstream technology (the Vesta-class uses it I think?) and parts of this design make me think of the USS Dauntless.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
It looks like a stingray, though I can't tell if that's a tail, or just streaks of light left behind because of its motion.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
A bit of both. There is definitely a tail, I think.
Those lights across the rear must be windows, I think. There’s another of these ships visible in profile in the bottom right hand corner of the image, and it appears to have an underslung deflector dish - and suggests the presumably bridge hump in top isn’t actually that high or prominent. I think I can detect traces of the Akira- and I]Saber-[/I]classes in its lineage.
There are also at least four or five of these vessels visible in the sequence, flying in close formation, almost swarming, which implies some significant changes in tactics over the decades.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
We’ve actually seen those ships before in the first trailer, attacking that space station thing and shooting phaser beams on a planet’s surface. They just never had Starfleet pennants until now. And what looks like glowing “tails” is actually the front of the ship.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
What? No they aren’t. In the latest trailer, where I capped this image from, they’re flying from right to left on the screen. A red phaser bean fires from the nose of the main ship in the image.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: What? No they aren’t. In the latest trailer, where I capped this image from, they’re flying from right to left on the screen. A red phaser bean fires from the nose of the main ship in the image.
Just watched the trailers again, and, well, heck, you are correct. Not sure why I thought they were flying backward...
However, I also noticed that the front of the ship seems to have been modified from the DSC Section 31 drone ship:
I hope this doesn't mean that they are 24th century Section 31 ships... Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Not sure why I thought they were flying backward..."
Probably because of the shape. They look like they have airplane wings on them, but they're swept forward instead of backward.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Awful.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
The shape says “fighter” but the detailing says “small/mid-size starship.” Apart from the humongous Starfleet emblem.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
A few more images from some of the recent trailers.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: A few more images from some of the recent trailers.
Unfortunately, the Short Trek “Children of Mars” shows both the DSC Magee and Tug classes as brand-new late 24th century starships built for the Romulan rescue armada (or at least that’s how I’m interpreting the scene.)
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
No visible Starfleet logos on these ships seen in "Children of Mars" - and while there are similar shots in CoM to the image at the top of this page (these ships attacking some sort of large space station) none are identical. So it could be these "Rogue Synths" use or have commandeered Starfleet ships and removed the badges. or maybe following the attack, Starfleet's examples of this class were prominently badged to differentiate them.
But as for the UP footage with a 150yr-old Magee-class, I mean, ffs. You have to wonder whether they're really even bothering anymore...
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I was so naive to think that ST:P would stick to the canon ships from their timeline... But now the producers are mixing (visually) the prime universe with the one from DSC. Of course there could be a reason why 23rd century ships are still around in the 24th century. But I would have expected the TOS or TNG ships (or complete new ones) and not the ones from DSC... Yes, yes, the real world explanation is that the producers have access to the 3D models of those ships, but not to the ones from TOS, TNG or DS9. Still very disappointing.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Thinking some more about the images above, it’s obvious they’re all from the same sequences - so whether the ships are labelled as Starfleet or not depends on where they’re being used. It would be really awful if this was actually Picard footage, depicting some other attack entirely, but being f ripped off just to provide some footage for CoM. It’s like all the battle scenes from “Sacrifice of Angels” being recycled for the DS9 finale.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
The mind boggles at how onerous it used to be to get screenshots.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Just watched the first episode: Do I get this right that there was no Starfleet starship in it? Not counting the Dream-Ent, the models in the archive or the shuttles... I guess this is a Star Trek first, is it?
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
There were starships on the newsfeed after Picard orders his tea at around 10:25. Not clear though if they were Starfleet.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Probably. I’m keeping an open mind about the ships in this thread though. They definitely had that Starfleet logo on the first time we saw footage of them, but not in anything since. But knowing what we know now about the origin of these “rogue synths,” where else were they going to get at least half a dozen warships but Starfleet?
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
I'm thinking this evacuation fleet were autonomous ships with AI. Obviously the Borg are a big part of this show, so somehow they got control of this fleet and attacked Mars. Maddox and Daystrom used Lore as the basis, Lore figured out what was going on, took over everything.
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
Odd how Lore doesn't seem to get brought up anymore. He was never brought up in Nemesis, and never brought up here either. We were told in "Descent, Part II" he would be dismantled, but where's he being stored?
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Spike: There were starships on the newsfeed after Picard orders his tea at around 10:25. Not clear though if they were Starfleet.
Yes, I noticed those as well. Reminded me of the fleet in Battle Star Galactica. Those ships looked to me more like civillian freighters.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
They are actually large cargo carriers with Tugs attached a la Franz Joseph’s Ptolemy. They seem to be new designs and definitely not reuses of the DSC tug seen in Children of Mars. So these tugs and the synth flyers are the newest Starfleet vessels to date.
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
What silluoette is that?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
MA notes it fits Eaves' stupid "Emmett Till" design for the DS9 S8 storyboard.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Michael Chabon tweeted that the ibn Majid's class name is "Curiosity" (presumably named after the Mars rover). However, that doesn't actually answer the question of if that's the same class as the Emmett Till. But I have a sneaking suspicion that it is. Leave it to Eaves to just recycle a ship design not specifically made for the show it’s being used in, just like his shuttle and his Discoprise.
For the love of fucking God, can we get someone who can design one damn original Starfleet ship?
[ March 13, 2020, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Can't hit the like button for Dukhat's speech fast enough.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
My nerd fantasy is Jefferies, Probert, Sternbach, et al. ready to go all MMA on his butt.
Who's sucked enough to be on the Eaves team, though?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
So, no Starfleet ships in episode 9. Only one more episode to go. At this point, I'm actually hoping we don't see any new ships this season. Because if we did, they'd be designed by Eaves, and they'd be his usual boring derivative crap he's been doing for the last 25 years. Maybe by season two, with Chabon leaving and a new showrunner coming aboard, they'll get a new head ship designer.
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
What silluoette is that?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
You asked that already. Read the responses.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Well, fucking FINALLY. Even if it is only one new class - granted, about a hundred of the damn things, but whatever happened to infinite diversity in infinite combinations?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
It looks like all the ship designs are the same, but I see at least two different styles of nacelles; one type is more round and the other type is more angular. I suppose that’s a cop-out way of making multiple ship classes. They also seem to have the Kelvinverse glowing end caps. I’m just glad they didn’t show those godawful Luna and Odyssey classes.
Yeah, they’re pretty generic, but they’re good enough for me; they satisfy my ship porn need until DSC season 3 and Lower Decks. And this show was not about Starfleet, so I get it. Cheap 2399 uniforms and cheap 2399 ships. I would have preferred just one mega-badass ship like a new design for the Enterprise-F instead of a ‘squadron’ of 200 small nondescript ships sharing 95% the same design. But there’s always next season. From what I understand, the VFX were done at the last minute, so if they plan on having more ships for next season, they will have more time for R&D.
I just wish they had names and registry numbers, but I suppose if you’re going to just show multiple copies of the same ship, that would be redundant.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
You're right! There are two different types of nacelles, although the actual ship looks the same.
- One set has more angular nacelles, sloping out and up (basically at the same ange as the pylons). Like this: \ / You can spot them from behind because the glowing bit at the rear is rectangular. They also appear to have a sizeable glowing blue side cutout on top, which the other version doesn't. It's possible - but hard to confirm - that the rear 'hump' (where the saucer tapers back onto the secondary hull) runs further back along the secondary hull than on the second type, where it may bottom out sooner. - The other is more curvy and bulbous, and slopes up and in like this: / \ The rear glowing bit is lozenge-shaped (a rectangle with semicircular ends). I think they have a glowing blue cutout section but it's smaller and further back on the inner-facing surface of the nacelle, nothing on the outer surface.
... and if you can identify which of these two types the USS Zheng He is then you're doing better than I am!
[ March 26, 2020, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Lee ]
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Also, holy FUCK, was I holding my breath praying Riker wasn't gonna say "in command of USS Enterprise".
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
There’s a similarity to be sure. But with much of Eaves’s typical over-the-top detailing toned down (in fact, both classes seen look strangely like Battlestars with their ribbed-for-our-displeasure detailing).
If they do reveal class names I’ll bet neither has an overtly US-based name. I do wonder what THAT is all about; he didn’t use to be this, well, jingoistic (for want of a better word).
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
He'd always had an Air Force hard-on, but yeah, he misses the point a LOT.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
Kind of makes sense. Look at the Navy. There's usually only one main class of destroyers or cruisers. For example there's 67 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers so if they all showed it would be a bunch of identical looking ships too.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
That's only because they're going for that "one-stop shopping" shit again. Remember 40 years ago when everything was supposed to be based on the Spruance hull?
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
But these were Starfleet's most powerful vessels. And they all appeared in the same spot at the same time.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
... which, if you wanted to infer from that, might suggest that Starfleet now has a large fleet of warships held in reserve solely to deploy in situations such as this. Which, if you correlate it with other Starfleet opinions and attitudes we've seen in PIC, means that the organisation isn't even pretending to be a solely research & exploration entity now, but has become overly militarised.
That Riker could just turn up and get command of not just a ship but the whole fleet kinda confirms that. Most of those ships, which don't look to be much larger if at all than, say, an Intrepid-class, probably have little more than skeleton crews onboard, with standing senior officers who're Lt. Commanders at best.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
That's a horrible possibility, & I hate it for being most likely true.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
We could be reading too much into it, based on indications that DSC s3 is going to be Star Trek: Andromeda. And one would like to think there has to be more to it than that, otherwise what is PIC s2 going to be then? Star Trek: Starfleet Are Still Assholes But Guinan's In This One?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I'm still going with Star Trek: A-Team.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: ... which, if you wanted to infer from that, might suggest that Starfleet now has a large fleet of warships held in reserve solely to deploy in situations such as this. Which, if you correlate it with other Starfleet opinions and attitudes we've seen in PIC, means that the organisation isn't even pretending to be a solely research & exploration entity now, but has become overly militarised.
That Riker could just turn up and get command of not just a ship but the whole fleet kinda confirms that. Most of those ships, which don't look to be much larger if at all than, say, an Intrepid-class, probably have little more than skeleton crews onboard, with standing senior officers who're Lt. Commanders at best.
That sounds unfortunately logical.
Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on :
Curiosity-Class, according to Chabon. A beaut, but she needs a shiny deflector dish!
Quick and dirty screen caps:
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
No, the Curiosity class was the class of the ibn Majid, not these ships.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
"A beaut"? Nah, guy, these things are ugly af & look like the cheap mass-produced retreads they probably are.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Weirdly enough, Wes has screencapped almost exactly the same parts I did!
Looking at this fleet, I though to myself “multi-vector assault mode.” Or perhaps “swarming technology” would be better. It’s becoming very much a thing in military AI research. Like the Prometheus only massively scaled up, and without the need for any centralised control like that ship presumably had - each component of the swarm acts independently in response to the environment and what the other components do, exactly as in nature - murmurations of starlings, etc. - and therefore there’s no communications between components to block or disrupt. Where that would sit with post-Mars attitudes about AI I don’t know, but then the Federation isn’t immune to double standards...
And Clancy plainly says she’ll send a “squadron” to DS12. I’m not sure we’ve heard that term used before? They’ve always just talked about “the fleet” when referring to grouped units of starships. And note also there’s no talk of this grouping “assembling” there, or any of the other terms previously used. And the sheer number of vessels - far more than were assembled for more immediate threats like the three known Borg incursions (BoBW, STFC, Endgame).
Nope, I think Starfleet isn’t in Kansas anymore. After a half-century of existential threats - Cardassian War, three or more Borg attacks, a Klingon war, the Dominion War, assorted Romulan unpleasantnesses and the Synths - they’ve gone the full military. All that “sorry about this but you’re the only starship in range” nonsense just ain’t fit for purpose no more.
Trying to think of an in-universe justification for having a starship class with two nacelle variants. Range vs. speed? Midway through an upgrade?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Trying to think of an in-universe justification for having a starship class with two nacelle variants. Range vs. speed? Midway through an upgrade?
"Bob, we're buildin' these things as fast as we can, but we're running out of the 8623 nacelles for them."
*looks at clock* "Ah, shit, Procurement's closed already. ...Well, what've we got still?"
"About 15 or so left, maybe 18."
"What else we got in stock, Frank?"
"Uhhhh....got like five 8073s, nine 8264s—"
"Any 8519s?"
"...Uh, yeah, looks like about 30."
"Fuck it, stick 'em on. Close enough, right?"
"You sure, Bob? The specs on 8519 are a little different, & you know how these people can be."
"You wanna wait & then deal with Procurement?"
"HELL no."
"Alright, then. Use the 8519s & let's get it done. ...Don't give me that look, Frank. Trust me, they will not give a single shit, as long as they're done & the damn things work."
"OoooKAY. You're the boss, Bob."
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Sometimes I think most of the linchpins of human history have been a Bob and a Frank improvising a solution to an unsolvable problem. They’d probably even beat the Kobayashi Maru test.
My attempts to refresh my memory on the exact details have failed, but I remember Geordi being engaged in some competition with the chief engineer of another vessel to see who could best fine-tune their warp engines and get more speed? Perhaps this is the logical extension of that. Both are now Captains (or higher) and, like in Ridley Scott’s The Duellists their rivalry has endured - and expanded to the point they each control a wing of the Quick Reaction Force and have implemented their own nacelle designs...
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Commander Donald Kaplan, CENG on Intrepid. An Academy friend, I think, & they were fine-tuning power conversion percentages. But possibly plausible.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Aha! Knew somebody else would remember - no amount of searching on Memory Alpha would nail it down.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
So apparently according to that Chabon guy, the 'Curiosity' class is also the class of those ships we saw in the finale, even though the silhouette of the ibn Majid we saw previously looks nothing like them.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Great. So the options are:
1. He doesn’t really care or see the distinction between different classes. 2. He thought they were all going to be the same class/design and doesn’t know (or care?) the Ibn Majid’s silhouette is quite different from the Zheng He’s. 3. When he said the Ibn Majid was Curiosity-class, he was actually thinking of the Zheng He. Which could I guess put the Emmett Till-type/-class name back in contention for Rios’s old ship...
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: No, the Curiosity class was the class of the ibn Majid, not these ships.
In the recent Trekmovie.com interview, Michael Chabon is giving the following answer:
Q: "Do we know what class of ship the USS Zheng He is?"
A: "Curiosity class."
And the next thing is interessting as well:
Q: "Why only one class of Federation ship?"
A: "I believe but am working to confirm that there are actually four distinct classes."
Not sure if we saw the same episode...
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
"Four distinct classes"....like how eggshell, ecru, cream, & off-white are four distinct colors.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
We have at least two different nacelle types, but that hardly defines a different class...
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Lots of people have understandably been looking at the scene quite closely and I’ve not seen anyone identify any differences (beyond the nacelles) yet!
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I see one hull with two different nacelles. That's it. If Chabon sees four distinct classes here, I'd love for him to point them out to me.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
"Distinct", like a Dodge Aries versus a Plymouth Reliant.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I read somewhere that the VFX work was completed only last week (the week before the last episode aired)- is it possible that they planned to have multiple ship classes, but due to time contrains were forced to concentrate on just one class?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Imagine if they fix that in time for the DVD release, and suddenly Riker is in command of a Vengeance-type behemoth...
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I'd buy that. Look at the shot where we see all the ships from behind; they couldn't even be consistent on what to have lit up as impulse engines, the outer or inner walls. Sometines it was one of both.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
I hope the Enterprise-E is still around. I don't trust them to come up with a decent looking Enterprise-F for Season 2.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
According to the the talk page on the Zheng He article at MA, the ship is meant to be an Inquiry-class vessel. The others that were supposed to be there were to be Equity & Seeker classes.
So, add this on top of "Curiosity class" & I submit we take naming rights away from Michael Chabon as well.
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
I dunno. I might approve of a Seeker-class, but only if there's a USS Starscream, a USS Skywarp, a USS Thundercracker... Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
The forward view definitely shows that the primary hull features a forward-facing shuttlebay (though some have suggested it’s a NX-style deflector, I think it’s set too far back and features a short landing/take-off apron). No amount of looking REALLY HARD at pictures of either variant suggests one saucer is more prongy than the other.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I don't think the others made it in.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
So we have the Inquiry-class, then... and, what about the other nacelle variant? Would that be the Enquiry-class?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Thinking about this then, rounding it all up, all we’ve got out of this show as starship nerds is:
- One and a half new classes, if you treat the Inquiry & Enquiry (!) sub-types as one, and while we have the name of the Curiosity-class we basically only have a top view of it... - OK, we’ll say two classes... - Two ship names, the USSes Ibn Majid and Zheng He - One registry, NCC-75710
Worst. Season. Ever!
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Don't forget the Wallenberg-class tugships.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Also don’t forget La Sirena itself (wish we’d gotten any details at all about it), plus the new Romulan warbird.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
All we know about La Sirena is that she's a Kaplan F17 speed freighter.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Ah, yes, the new Romulan warbird. That manages to be even more uninspiring than the ones we saw in NEM. And with the same nice huge picture windows in front that all ship bridges seem to have now - have always had, if the Discoprise retcon is any indication. I suspect that with a larger budget, Picard's dream wouldn't have been in Ten Forward, it'd have been on the E-D's bridge - with added picture window!
And the Romulan one is SO large, it could just as well have a nice patio and maybe a few deckchairs added on.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
3 additional Starfleet ships
USS Leondegrance (from Picard's award plaques) USS Coleman (Ijeb's assignment) USS Reliant (technically first mentioned in the extended cut of "The Measure of a Man")
Inside Straight (Captain Crandall's ship) Shaenor (Romulan scout ship)
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Leondegrance doesn't count. It's contradictory bullshit.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
How so?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Mainly it being yet another Eavesian reuse, as anachronistic as DSC ships in the Picard time.
Also, I hate the idea because it's dumb. So mote it be.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I accept the existence of the Leondegrance, but I rationalize the depiction of the ship on that award as just a generic representation of a starship and not what the Leondegrance actually looked like.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I will accept your rationalization, although I do not accept its existence as far as my project is concerned.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I mean, as far as I'm concerned, Picard takes place in the Discovery timeline, which is absolutely not the prime timeline, so there really isn't anything for it to contradict.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
The thing is, there's nothing at all in PIC that links it to DSC other than the hologram of the Discoprise seen when Picard enters Starfleet Command, which immediately then morphs into a Galaxy class starship. The Discoprise does not have a name or registry, so for all we know, it's just another unknown ship class in the prime universe, and not the TOS Constitution class. Someone over at TrekBBS hypothesized that the holograms were actually representing the Yamato's lineage, and that the first ship was the Yamato NCC-1305. I can buy that.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Man, that's like GOP levels of rationalization right there. (The Yamato thing, not your post)
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: The thing is, there's nothing at all in PIC that links it to DSC other than the hologram of the Discoprise seen when Picard enters Starfleet Command, which immediately then morphs into a Galaxy class starship. The Discoprise does not have a name or registry, so for all we know, it's just another unknown ship class in the prime universe, and not the TOS Constitution class. Someone over at TrekBBS hypothesized that the holograms were actually representing the Yamato's lineage, and that the first ship was the Yamato NCC-1305. I can buy that.
And how about the shuttles?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2:
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: The thing is, there's nothing at all in PIC that links it to DSC other than the hologram of the Discoprise seen when Picard enters Starfleet Command, which immediately then morphs into a Galaxy class starship. The Discoprise does not have a name or registry, so for all we know, it's just another unknown ship class in the prime universe, and not the TOS Constitution class. Someone over at TrekBBS hypothesized that the holograms were actually representing the Yamato's lineage, and that the first ship was the Yamato NCC-1305. I can buy that.
And how about the shuttles?
They look coincidentally like DSC shuttles but can’t possibly be the same, as the DSC shuttles would be 150 years old at that point. It’s like that K’T’inga they used in an episode of ENT: just ignore the similarities.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Man, that's like GOP levels of rationalization right there. (The Yamato thing, not your post)
Actually, my theory (since you can see 1701-D on the Galaxy class hologram, invalidating the Yamato theory) is that the hologram represented Federation flagships. Since the Enterprise-D was the only ship canonically referred to as the Federation's flagship, I theorize that the other ship was a former Federation flagship of an unknown class circa the 2200's.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
The display could be on a random loop, and serendipitously just happened to flick to the E-D at that moment. Such coincidences do happen, however much one may scoff at such things happening in fiction. So, nah, I’m not going to worry too much about that other ship being the E-nil and/or Discoprise.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
It requires far too much in the way of mental gymnastics to keep STP in the STOU.
Indeed, rather than assert that they used Discovery assets out of laziness, it's probably more fair to say that they've used unmodified TNG assets* out of laziness . . . no one had a Fuller-esque visual (and more) reboot in mind.
(* ... except insofar as they can't get a single TNG- or STFC-style uniform to fit anyone properly... )
Indeed, one could argue that they intentionally avoided the "visual reboot" element, even as they rebooted the universe intentionally or otherwise . . . after all, they'd have figured first-run TOS nostalgiacs are old and useless so they could screw with it, but TNG nostalgiacs are still a thing.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
So on what basis then are you saying PIC is in an alternate reality?
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:The thing is, there's nothing at all in PIC that links it to DSC other than the hologram of the Discoprise seen when Picard enters Starfleet Command
What about Dahj's Xahean boyfriend?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Spike:
quote:The thing is, there's nothing at all in PIC that links it to DSC other than the hologram of the Discoprise seen when Picard enters Starfleet Command
What about Dahj's Xahean boyfriend?
Was he mentioned as being a Xahean in the episode?
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
I thought we saw one of discos starship abominations in a spacedock? Alongside the new tugs orbiting Mars?
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Yup.
quote: Boyfriend: So, what are we celebrating?
Dahj: Guess. Use those famous Xahean instincts.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Spike: I suppose there are Xaheans in the prime universe just like there are in the Discoverse.
Starship Freak: There were Magee and Zimmerman classes seen in the Short Trek “Children of Mars,” but no DSC ships other than shuttles were used in PIC. And I’m pretty sure those DSC ships were used because of time and budget constraints, since we saw more modern ships for the rescue fleet.
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
Alright, not in PIC, but the timeline is the same right? The short trek episode takes place in PIC time? So, we use our standard explanations, lack of time, other ship entirely, just look similar. We´ve used them all before. Another answer is that they don´t care about design continuity anymore. Either explanation, just sad. From a starship perspective, PIC sucks. And that "fleet" of one (sorry! two!) designs...Looked like a swarm of locusts. Makes me think longingly of Ds9.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
The thing is, Star Trek: Picard was absolutely not a show about Starfleet vessels, so much so that the VFX for Riker’s fleet were only done in a week. As much as people like to think this, Chabon didn’t really care about ships. He was just trying to tell a story (it’s debatable how good or bad that story was, but that’s another topic).
Perhaps with a new showrunner and a new story, maybe more emphasis will be put on Starfleet. My only concern is that John Eaves is still the principal ship designer, and all he does is recycle old designs he made for some video game decades ago. I’m not sure why they even pay that guy.
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
So very true Dukhat!
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
At least now Eaves's designs fit the general time period.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
... albeit only because he already befouled the post-TNG period with his one-trick-pony design style.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: So on what basis then are you saying PIC is in an alternate reality?
It's part of the new CBS Canon, along with STD, and that new canon is distinct from the old. The inclusion of all past novels as canon, even if (as Kurtzman admitted) they are unable to maintain continuity with everything that came before, means the very content of the CBS universe during the previously observed Roddenberry-Berman era stories is wildly different than it was during the Roddenberry-Berman era of Trek.
Thus, there's no basis for putting it in the Star Trek Original Universe. The onus is on those who would seek to place it there. It's going to be a hard sell.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
... nope, still not following you.
The existing canon is the existing canon, it hasn't changed. WHAT past novels, and how are they (all?!) now regarded as canon? Canon is what has been onscreen, with a few offscreen facts generally accepted as canon until either proved or disproved.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Yeah, you kinda lost me too. As far as I'm aware, CBS has not made any novels, video games, comics, etc. part of canon. Although I'm the last person to accept that DSC is in any way in continuity or consistent with TOS/TNG/etc. (I've always been under the assumption that the 'prime universe' as dictated by CBS simply means 'not the Kelvin universe')...
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Canon is the guideline for writers what they can do and can't. So it's kind of pointless to declare all novels canon because A) they contradict each other and B) no writer can be expected to read them all.
Heck, the Discovery writers are not even able to use Memory Alpha properly to keep the facts from aired episodes straight.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Click above for proper formatting . . . text included here for ease of reference:
2018-10-25 Discovery and Trek Continuity In an interview with Digital Spy, Kurtzman, co-creator and showrunner of Star Trek: Discovery, was asked about keeping consistent with the novels and comics. Of course, any production staffer asked that in the 90s would've said they weren't part of the canon continuity, besides the little oops-broken handshake agreement not to use Shelby in DS9 while the Calhoun books used her . . . the exception proving the rule.
Kurtzman answered much differently, however, specifically placing them in the continuity that his universe as Trek show developer follows.
"Everybody is always trying to maintain continuity," Kurtzman told us. "But given the 50 plus years of Star Trek, it literally becomes impossible because people decide that they want to follow a character in a book series after the show has been cancelled, and so they'll invent stories." "And then 15 years later, a new show will come on that will take that character back and you can't be consistent with everything. Our goal is always to try, always, always to try and never to negate what has existed in the novels and graphic novels but it is a literal impossibility."
"And part of what has kept Trek going for so long is everyone's wonderful imagination to keep writing books and keep making graphic novels and keep making shows. And at a certain point, given the volume of things that are out there it's just impossible for everything to sync up perfectly. So we give it our best effort."
The big takeaway from that is that Kurtzman didn't mean what everyone thought he meant when he said they were working hard to avoid "violating canon" on the new CBS productions like Discovery.
Most assumed that he meant not going contrary to the prior live-action Trek, but that was assuming a definition for both "violating" and "canon". For the former, some have argued that canon isn't violated so long as no one in prior live-action Trek specifically stated that no such thing as spore drive existed in the 2250s, for example. I find such a requirement a rather unique point of view, as direct negation alone cannot possibly serve as a rational standard. For the latter, of course, the exact meaning of "canon" is rather important. Since he includes the books and comics, we now know his definition was never the same.
Such quotes don't come along often, but with further review we can confirm this reading. Ten years prior, Kurtzman said:
Alex Kurtzman: We did a lot of reading of the books. I think we consider the books canon to a large degree so it’s very important to us to stay consistent. But there is a bit of a hole and there’s actually different mythologies about {Kirk & Spock's} history so it’s a matter of staying consistent but also figuring out how you can play around a little bit anchored by the rules Source: https://trekmovie.com/2008/09/19/orci-kurtzman-trek-very-true-to-canon-even-books/
TrekMovie even identifies it as him treating the "Star Trek EU" as canon.
Thus, Kurtzman has revealed that the canon policy he's operating under is totally different than the one used during the Roddenberry- and Berman-era of Trek production, instead matching the JJ-verse's. Through the end of Enterprise and the Viacom split, Star Trek canon included only live-action Trek, with ultra-rare, explicit exception.
By adding in novels & comics generally, most never intended to be canon anyway, Kurtzman has fundamentally altered the Trek universe. This is more than the references we had before of them consulting "The Final Reflection" by John Ford for background material… that's little different in principle than using a WW2 submarine flick for inspiration. Making it canon, however, is a much different animal.
For example, if I take Battlestar Galactica and declare that Stargate SG-1 is suddenly canon in that universe, I just radically altered Battlestar Galactica at the stroke of a pen. But can I say I altered it, or is it that I have made a new universe different from what existed before?
Clearly, the answer can only logically be the latter, because such a fundamental shift in meaning and fact cannot work any more than one can have a visual-only reboot of an audio-visual medium (e.g. replacing TOS visuals with clips from Star Wars).
Still, many view Discovery as true Trek because it is, to borrow a phrase, the next closest continuer of the Trek shows of the past. It was marketed that way, after all. And naturally, one can argue that the rights-holder can modify their universe via a change in canon policy as they see fit. I agree.
Indeed, in the case of subtraction, this can have only a limited effect on the universe. If one were to decanonize DS9 or The Empire Strikes Back, for instance, we would lose information but there'd still be the same story thereafter. Similarly, a minor clarification in the margins, or even minor additions, don't break the universe. Major additions, however, do.
In the earlier 'BattleStargate' example, BSG's owners could claim that it was the same BSG universe as before, but this is a fundamental impossibility. Even had they been written so as not to contradict (in which case they'd have already been in the same universe), any new production of BSG that referenced SG-1 would be a break from what came before.
They can change the universe with a penstroke, in other words, but that doesn't negate the fictional reality and continuity that existed prior to the shift.
In effect, what we have here is Tuvix, the being created when a transporter accident merged the characters of the Vulcan Tuvok and the nutty alien Neelix. If the classic Trek canon is Tuvok and the books and comics continuities are Neelix, what Kurtzman has done with Discovery is not to give us more Tuvok, but to execute a transporter accident and give us Tuvix.
Why would I, to learn about Tuvok, waste my time on Tuvix? Tuvix can tell me things about Tuvok but only via a distorted lens, so I might as well stick with what Tuvok said. This is doubly true when Tuvix seems to sometimes "reimagine" assorted Tuvok things, add in new contrary info, and otherwise get Tuvok details wrong.
This is not to suggest Tuvix is bad, mind you, or that it is bad for you to like him. However, pretending he is Tuvok is pretty silly.
Some might argue the analogy and say the change is merely an addition of new information, as if giving Tuvok new memories, but that's not the case. The very identity of Trek is altered just as surely as Tuvok's DNA was . . . and his uniform, too.
While perhaps not as emotionally satisfying as having CBS explicitly say it is a reboot, the same effect is achieved over and above Fuller's previous "reimagine" comments or listing all the myriad differences in history, technology, culture, et cetera ad nauseum. STD's universe is not the same as the one first seen in Star Trek: The Original Series and last seen in Star Trek: Enterprise. It inhabits a new universe that includes other material, like the Star Wars EU before it.
Indeed, calling it a reboot might be unfair, as a reboot is usually something new. This is just something completely different.
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
Putting aside my feelings on the word "canon" as applied to Star Trek (which can be summed up as "it should be shot from an actual cannon into the sun"), I would point out that "trying to not negate" is not the same thing as "actively adopting and making part of".
Discovery and Picard are part of the prime timeline. They're in the same universe as Enterprise, TOS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager, which is the clearly stated intention and position of the creators of the shows. I think the creators taking a respectful position towards books / graphic novels etc is a good thing but they're right - keeping everything straight in over a half century of creative output is impossible because the Star Trek universe from the very start was never intended to be a consistently told story with an overarching external historical and scientific framework. The best they can do is try not to go out of their way to contradict stuff.
But like I said, "trying to not negate" is not the same thing as "all this stuff is canon now".
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Maybe this will help:
Click above for proper formatting . . . text included here for ease of reference:
2018-10-25 Discovery and Trek Continuity In an interview with Digital Spy, Kurtzman, co-creator and showrunner of Star Trek: Discovery, was asked about keeping consistent with the novels and comics. Of course, any production staffer asked that in the 90s would've said they weren't part of the canon continuity, besides the little oops-broken handshake agreement not to use Shelby in DS9 while the Calhoun books used her . . . the exception proving the rule.
Kurtzman answered much differently, however, specifically placing them in the continuity that his universe as Trek show developer follows.
"Everybody is always trying to maintain continuity," Kurtzman told us. "But given the 50 plus years of Star Trek, it literally becomes impossible because people decide that they want to follow a character in a book series after the show has been cancelled, and so they'll invent stories." "And then 15 years later, a new show will come on that will take that character back and you can't be consistent with everything. Our goal is always to try, always, always to try and never to negate what has existed in the novels and graphic novels but it is a literal impossibility."
"And part of what has kept Trek going for so long is everyone's wonderful imagination to keep writing books and keep making graphic novels and keep making shows. And at a certain point, given the volume of things that are out there it's just impossible for everything to sync up perfectly. So we give it our best effort."
The big takeaway from that is that Kurtzman didn't mean what everyone thought he meant when he said they were working hard to avoid "violating canon" on the new CBS productions like Discovery.
Most assumed that he meant not going contrary to the prior live-action Trek, but that was assuming a definition for both "violating" and "canon". For the former, some have argued that canon isn't violated so long as no one in prior live-action Trek specifically stated that no such thing as spore drive existed in the 2250s, for example. I find such a requirement a rather unique point of view, as direct negation alone cannot possibly serve as a rational standard. For the latter, of course, the exact meaning of "canon" is rather important. Since he includes the books and comics, we now know his definition was never the same.
Such quotes don't come along often, but with further review we can confirm this reading. Ten years prior, Kurtzman said:
Alex Kurtzman: We did a lot of reading of the books. I think we consider the books canon to a large degree so it’s very important to us to stay consistent. But there is a bit of a hole and there’s actually different mythologies about {Kirk & Spock's} history so it’s a matter of staying consistent but also figuring out how you can play around a little bit anchored by the rules Source: https://trekmovie.com/2008/09/19/orci-kurtzman-trek-very-true-to-canon-even-books/
TrekMovie even identifies it as him treating the "Star Trek EU" as canon.
Thus, Kurtzman has revealed that the canon policy he's operating under is totally different than the one used during the Roddenberry- and Berman-era of Trek production, instead matching the JJ-verse's. Through the end of Enterprise and the Viacom split, Star Trek canon included only live-action Trek, with ultra-rare, explicit exception.
By adding in novels & comics generally, most never intended to be canon anyway, Kurtzman has fundamentally altered the Trek universe. This is more than the references we had before of them consulting "The Final Reflection" by John Ford for background material… that's little different in principle than using a WW2 submarine flick for inspiration. Making it canon, however, is a much different animal.
For example, if I take Battlestar Galactica and declare that Stargate SG-1 is suddenly canon in that universe, I just radically altered Battlestar Galactica at the stroke of a pen. But can I say I altered it, or is it that I have made a new universe different from what existed before?
Clearly, the answer can only logically be the latter, because such a fundamental shift in meaning and fact cannot work any more than one can have a visual-only reboot of an audio-visual medium (e.g. replacing TOS visuals with clips from Star Wars).
Still, many view Discovery as true Trek because it is, to borrow a phrase, the next closest continuer of the Trek shows of the past. It was marketed that way, after all. And naturally, one can argue that the rights-holder can modify their universe via a change in canon policy as they see fit. I agree.
Indeed, in the case of subtraction, this can have only a limited effect on the universe. If one were to decanonize DS9 or The Empire Strikes Back, for instance, we would lose information but there'd still be the same story thereafter. Similarly, a minor clarification in the margins, or even minor additions, don't break the universe. Major additions, however, do.
In the earlier 'BattleStargate' example, BSG's owners could claim that it was the same BSG universe as before, but this is a fundamental impossibility. Even had they been written so as not to contradict (in which case they'd have already been in the same universe), any new production of BSG that referenced SG-1 would be a break from what came before.
They can change the universe with a penstroke, in other words, but that doesn't negate the fictional reality and continuity that existed prior to the shift.
In effect, what we have here is Tuvix, the being created when a transporter accident merged the characters of the Vulcan Tuvok and the nutty alien Neelix. If the classic Trek canon is Tuvok and the books and comics continuities are Neelix, what Kurtzman has done with Discovery is not to give us more Tuvok, but to execute a transporter accident and give us Tuvix.
Why would I, to learn about Tuvok, waste my time on Tuvix? Tuvix can tell me things about Tuvok but only via a distorted lens, so I might as well stick with what Tuvok said. This is doubly true when Tuvix seems to sometimes "reimagine" assorted Tuvok things, add in new contrary info, and otherwise get Tuvok details wrong.
This is not to suggest Tuvix is bad, mind you, or that it is bad for you to like him. However, pretending he is Tuvok is pretty silly.
Some might argue the analogy and say the change is merely an addition of new information, as if giving Tuvok new memories, but that's not the case. The very identity of Trek is altered just as surely as Tuvok's DNA was . . . and his uniform, too.
While perhaps not as emotionally satisfying as having CBS explicitly say it is a reboot, the same effect is achieved over and above Fuller's previous "reimagine" comments or listing all the myriad differences in history, technology, culture, et cetera ad nauseum. STD's universe is not the same as the one first seen in Star Trek: The Original Series and last seen in Star Trek: Enterprise. It inhabits a new universe that includes other material, like the Star Wars EU before it.
Indeed, calling it a reboot might be unfair, as a reboot is usually something new. This is just something completely different.
But here's the thing: Have you actually watched Star Trek: Picard? Everything Kurtzman is quoted as saying here about sticking to the 'canonicity' of the novels is in diametric opposition to that show. There is literally nothing in STP that is consistent or in continuity with the novels, video games, comics, etc. that have been published since the end of ENT (the last on-screen thing that showed the prime universe.)
So I don't know if Kurtzman was just misquoted, led on by the interviewer (remember Anthony Pasquale?) or just flat-out lying, but nobody involved with the production of Star Trek television shows on CBS considers the books to be canon or adhered to.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
What FawnDoo and Dukhat said. The quoted blogger is, frankly, talking utter bollocks, cherry-picking the bits of the interview he wants to justify his obvious anti-Kurtzmann stance. And trying to back it up with another interview from TWELVE YEARS AGO? And his Tuvix analogy is nothing short of risible.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I agree, the novels/comics argument is silly.
Now, we can certainly argue about the whole “visual reboot” approach, in which the producers seem to feel that everything that we thought we saw didn’t actually look that way. (Exhibit A: Discoprise) I get why they’re doing it... once they decided to set their show in the TOS-era they had to either make it look like the 1960s cardboard sets, or redesign things. We can second-guess and debate and wish they’d done things differently, but we can also just enjoy the show if we want.
And besides, aside from just a couple of little details like the Discoprise, Picard doesn’t contradict anything we saw in TNG.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: Now, we can certainly argue about the whole “visual reboot” approach, in which the producers seem to feel that everything that we thought we saw didn’t actually look that way. (Exhibit A: Discoprise) I get why they’re doing it... once they decided to set their show in the TOS-era they had to either make it look like the 1960s cardboard sets, or redesign things. We can second-guess and debate and wish they’d done things differently, but we can also just enjoy the show if we want.
While I'm no fan of Kurtzman's approach to 'maintaining consistency with canon' by essentially throwing the ship 1,000 years into the future, classifying everything about the spore drive, and giving gag orders to Spock, Sarek, etc. about never speaking of Michael Burnham again (which IMHO was a complete cop-out and Kurtzman really should have just declared DSC as another alternate universe), I also don't think he's the Star Trek antichrist that people formerly complained that J.J. Abrams was.
As for the visual continuity, it's obvious that CBS has no intention of going back to the '60's visual style, or changing things over time so that by the 2360's, DSC will look exactly like TOS. And if it were any other show, I probably wouldn't care so much about the change. But as you say, they are essentially retconning TOS out of existence with a show that isn't going to be nearly as fondly remembered as the show it's trying to invalidate. And that kind of irks me.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
The thing is, we don't know what DSC was meant to be. Bryan Fuller was the driving force in its original conception, and he left before an episode even aired. The official line for that continues to be because of his commitments to American Gods (which he then had to leave because of his commitments to Amazing Stories ffs) whereas the line continually trotted out by all the YouTubing Doomsayers is that Les Moonves canned him because Fuller wanted a more retro look than we got.
I've recently learned that initially there was a whole different uniform planned, using the primary colours, which was a bit of a hybrid of the classic TOS look and the TOS pilots uniforms. I wonder how closely they resembled the Discoprise uniforms?
So we don't know if the plan was always to go to the future - in which case, why take two seasons to do so? It does strike me as an interesting choice - if they'd started with a post-VOY set-up then sent them to the future, it might have been regarded as a cop-out (plus we know now that the post-VOY Federation isn't a nice place to begin with; sending a crew from a time when the UFP was new and bright to a time when it';s a distant tarnished memory opens up all sorts of possibilities.
Basically at this stage I'm not going to worry about it. It's a done deal, whayever the Fuller Discovery was going to be is mooot. Let's see whether taking the show into truly unknown territory becomes the making of it.
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: As for the visual continuity, it's obvious that CBS has no intention of going back to the '60's visual style, or changing things over time so that by the 2360's, DSC will look exactly like TOS. And if it were any other show, I probably wouldn't care so much about the change. But as you say, they are essentially retconning TOS out of existence with a show that isn't going to be nearly as fondly remembered as the show it's trying to invalidate. And that kind of irks me.
In my head, to borrow from the next franchise over, I just tag the difference in the visual style between TOS and shows set before it (Enterprise) and at roughly the same time (Discovery) as being the work of a perception filter. TOS has it's own style, and is fantastic, but it was never intended to work as part of a larger body of work and no-one back then gave the hugest amount of thought to consistency even from one episode to another. The technology in TOS is obviously just as advanced as that used in Discovery (more so, given it's ten years later) but the perception filter just means I don't see that version of the desktop :-)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I was under the impression that Fuller's original plan was for each season of Discovery to be set in a different time period, or was that only ever an unsubstantiated rumor?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Yeah, I recall he'd wanted an anthology series, which would've been tits af.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Fargo has shown that, done right, an anthology show can work really well. And now that show's creator is our last best hope for any remotely-decent Trek movie.
I know that Fuller was enamoured of the anthology concept, but I don't think it was ever an approved part of the DSC pitch. I've always liked the idea, but didn't see how they could make it work in budgetary terms; after seeing how they've done three seasons and a dozen-odd minisodes of quite diverse nuTrek (especially using virtual sets), I think that they could have pulled it off quite easily!
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by FawnDoo: But like I said, "trying to not negate" is not the same thing as "all this stuff is canon now".
He said both.
Indeed, in the process of the former he identified the once-non-canon as being part of the continuity of Trek. Such a phrasing is contrary to merely tipping the proverbial hat.
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: There is literally nothing in STP that is consistent or in continuity with the novels, video games, comics, etc. that have been published since the end of ENT (the last on-screen thing that showed the prime universe.)
Many would argue the same applies to the previous shows.
quote: nobody involved with the production of Star Trek television shows on CBS considers the books to be canon or adhered to.
Kurtzman does, and has for years. Indeed, as I recall, the lady running Picard, herself a Trek author, was seated beside him in the more recent interview quotes. I'll double-check that.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: What FawnDoo and Dukhat said. The quoted blogger is, frankly, talking utter bollocks, cherry-picking the bits of the interview he wants to justify his obvious anti-Kurtzmann stance. And trying to back it up with another interview from TWELVE YEARS AGO? And his Tuvix analogy is nothing short of risible.
Right?!? He's almost as bad as that Phasers.net jerk. :-P ;-)
I don't view it as cherry-picking. I simply went with what he said, and whipping out the older quote just shows the continuity of his opinion. That would be a common way of establishing the validity of a point about someone's beliefs, would it not?
(It worked well enough when I gave the quotes of Lucas the same treatment and proved dual canons for Star Wars when no one wanted to believe it and when their licensing people were trying to sell it as one big universe. Now, years later, they openly admit it.)
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Many would argue the same applies to the previous shows.
Yeah, but I'm not sure how that helps your point.
quote:Kurtzman does, and has for years. Indeed, as I recall, the lady running Picard, herself a Trek author, was seated beside him in the more recent interview quotes. I'll double-check that.
You're thinking of Kirsten Beyer. Whose own Voyager novels are now no longer in continuity with the show based on what we see of 7 of 9. And whether Kurtzman thinks what you think he thinks, or not, is pretty irrelevant when there hasn't been a single instance in either DSC or PIC where anything was consistent with a Star Trek novel. Heck, the one DSC novel that's been written isn't even in continuity with the show.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Yeah, but I'm not sure how that helps your point.
Perhaps I was unclear. The sentence meant that many would say STP is inconsistent with previous shows.
quote: Whose own Voyager novels are now no longer in continuity with the show based on what we see of 7 of 9. And whether Kurtzman thinks what you think he thinks, or not, is pretty irrelevant
Respectfully, that is backwards. If Beyer lifted quotes from her novels for STP yet Kurtzman said they weren't canon, the former wouldn't disprove the latter. Why, then, should the reverse be different?
quote:Heck, the one DSC novel that's been written isn't even in continuity with the show.
There are several STD novels, and they're considered as in-continuity.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I’m not even sure what you’re talking about now. There’s nothing about PIC that is consistent with the novelverse. Please give me some quotes from Beyer’s novels that have made it into the show.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
So, uh, apparently Fuller intended to have the MU be a major component of his show, which....really does not soothe my cramping anus in the least.
Sounds like he’s not really talking about the MU at all, but just one or more parallel universes. It’s basically more like “Parallels” but exploring the point(s?) at which these PUs diverged. Plus it’s canon that the (baseline branching skein of possible universes known as the?) MU had already diverged at some ineffable point prior to 2151, so it’d be moot. Really, if he was proposing to explore divergence points but specifically within the MU, the answer to why people made those exact decisions which led to those outcomes is “because they’re evil gold-sash-wearing goatee-sporting space lesbians who are a product of their environment.”
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: He said both.
Did he? Did he really?
As others have pointed out, there's nothing in Discovery or Picard that backs up this point, that Alex Kurtzman is somehow ushering into canon a half century of printed works. Nothing.
And to go back to my broader point - this discussion serves as a perfect example of why it's dangerous to allow reverence for canon to become such a prime motivator that it gets in the way of telling an engaging story. It becomes less about getting into / enjoying the story and whatever broader truths we might want to take away from it, and more about getting angry because that shuttle in episode 3F15 that Character A takes off in (after making a heartbreaking choice between two morally grey options that could be quite a thought provoking story) has two intake manifolds on the port nacelle when episode 2H20 clearly states that two intake manifolds on the one engine nacelle causes explosive subspace inversions and this STINKS THIS IS TOTAL BS
I've read my Star Trek tech manuals, timeline books and am as happy as the next person to go plot-holing. But I have to say that this elevation of canon just threatens to turn everything boring because it becomes an extended exercise in "What about this?" "No, you can't do that." "Well what about this?" "No, you can't do that either."
Sandboxes are only fun if we're allowed to play in them. If they're fenced off because someone's worried we won't play in them right, what's the point?
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Sounds like he’s not really talking about the MU at all, but just one or more parallel universes. It’s basically more like “Parallels” but exploring the point(s?) at which these PUs diverged.
The Myriad Universes books were fun explorations of those sorts of "what if" scenarios. Would have been nice to see something like that on screen. Hopefully if Trek's return to TV continues to grow, maybe a project like that might happen in the future. Would be expensive, though - they couldn't sink costs into a lot of standing sets if they were having to change the setting a lot of the time, not sure if that would impact on the likelihood of such a show ever happening.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Yeah, bu that's what I thought about the possibility of anthology shows, and they've proven they can be adaptive in creating diverse sets and uniforms etc.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: I’m not even sure what you’re talking about now. {...} Please give me some quotes from Beyer’s novels that have made it into the show.
I was providing a hypothetical inverse of your position to demonstrate that it was not valid.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by FawnDoo:
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: He said both.
Did he? Did he really?
Yes. Literally. Are we to pretend otherwise?
quote: As others have pointed out, there's nothing in Discovery or Picard that backs up this point, that Alex Kurtzman is somehow ushering into canon a half century of printed works. Nothing.
I don't know enough about the literature to contest this point, but there are many who disagree. There are references to Section 31's Control AI created by David Mack prior to Discovery, for example, and the general tone and feel of things.
But again, even if they're not extremely successful at active incorporation, that doesn't negate the fact that the non-canon informs their thinking *by design*, or that it is canon to them *by decree*.
As noted previously, if we reverse the situation and have active incorporation without the decree, the canon policy is not changed thereby. Thus, even if the claim of zero incorporation were true, it is not relevant.
quote:And to go back to my broader point - this discussion serves as a perfect example of why it's dangerous to allow reverence for canon to become such a prime motivator that it gets in the way of telling an engaging story.
If a writer views canon as a straitjacket, they're approach is all wrong, prima facie. Decades of mostly-careful world-building ought not be discarded because something seems kewl to some hack.
For example, I care so little about the universe of Lord of the Rings that Borg nanoprobes overlook my concern in passing as your car might overlook a nematode on a blade of grass. My knowledge of the universe is similarly lean. But, hypothetically, let's say that there was a tie-in fiction series that paid well and for which it was thought someone similar might have talent, "similar interests" (as presumed via sci-fi), name recognition, or connections, so they're hired.
There's nothing to stop this person from trying to cram in some research and get just enough to have some "good story" that they try to work in to the universe. For instance, suppose I wanted to adapt First Contact, so I make a story on a sailing ship and have Orcs or something capable of something like assimilation or SG-1-Replicator-esque reproduction (using some magic whatzits long known to Orc-kind), so that within like a day you have a miniature, claustrophobic version of the huge battle from one of the movies.
Wowwee, what a story that could be! . . . except I just invalidated that movie battle by making the army capable of appearing from nowhere like a fleet of sequel-trilogy Star Destroyers, didn't I?
God, canon is such a straitjacket! . . . Or maybe I am a hack who should've spent a lot more time researching the universe, learning its subtleties, imagining what life must be like for the common person, pondering deeply what each fact entails about other facts in the vast connected history, and so on.
Otherwise, I'm just some asshole who decided to make the Federation leadership and citizenry evil instead of enlightened becausee it would be kewl, despite the fact that the place avoided that for hundreds of years of filmed canon. But hey, Articles of the Federation was kewl, amirite? Let's take that the next step further.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000:
I was providing a hypothetical inverse of your position to demonstrate that it was not valid.
Maybe I'm just stupid, but I have no idea what you're talking about.
quote:I don't know enough about the literature to contest this point, but there are many who disagree. There are references to Section 31's Control AI created by David Mack prior to Discovery, for example, and the general tone and feel of things.
So here's where the confusion lies. Earlier you made it sound like Kurtzman had made all the novels canon, when in fact you're only referring to DSC and PIC novels, of which you haven't even read yourself and yet seem to feel you have the authority to argue that they contain things that have been incorporated into the show's canon. See next.
quote:But again, even if they're not extremely successful at active incorporation, that doesn't negate the fact that the non-canon informs their thinking *by design*, or that it is canon to them *by decree*.
As noted previously, if we reverse the situation and have active incorporation without the decree, the canon policy is not changed thereby. Thus, even if the claim of zero incorporation were true, it is not relevant.
I don't think that's how it works. In your example of Control, I'm pretty sure the idea of it came from the scriptwriters, and then the novel authors incorporated it into their books, not vice-versa.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
So despite all the above, we're still where we were when I said "Canon is what has been onscreen, with a few offscreen facts generally accepted as canon until either proved or disproved."
If - IF - the Control concept came from a book, so what? Several established Trek facts originated elsewhere before being canonised later - the only example I can think of right now is Uhura's first name, and no that doesn't not count because it was only in the Abramsverse. Taking one such fact doesn't automatically canonise all equivalent facts. Therefore, nothing cited so far establishes it as fact "that the non-canon informs their thinking *by design*, or that it is canon to them *by decree*."
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Sulu's first name, too.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Maybe I'm just stupid, but I have no idea what you're talking about.
You said Beyer's novel-version Seven doesn't appear in STP, which supposedly disproves that novels are canon, and that Kurtzman's opinion isn't relevant.
My response was to flip your argument around. If Beyer's novel-version Seven *did* appear but Kurtzman's canon policy was the same as from the Paramount era (e.g. no books), then the novel-version Seven wouldn't be relevant . . . books still wouldn't be canon.
So, again, why would you argue that appearance or non-appearance is relevant to the question of canonicity?
quote: Earlier you made it sound like Kurtzman had made all the novels canon, when in fact you're only referring to DSC and PIC novels
Where did you get that? That's not my argument.
quote: of which you haven't even read yourself and yet seem to feel you have the authority to argue that they contain things that have been incorporated into the show's canon.
LOL. That is almost the exact opposite of what happened here.
quote:I don't think that's how it works.
Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
quote:In your example of Control, I'm pretty sure the idea of it came from the scriptwriters, and then the novel authors incorporated it into their books, not vice-versa.
Can you provide evidence of that claim? Near as I can tell, that just isn't so. Mack went into detail explaining how he created the idea on TrekMovie.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: So despite all the above, we're still where we were when I said "Canon is what has been onscreen, with a few offscreen facts generally accepted as canon until either proved or disproved."
Except that isn't true.
quote:Taking one such fact doesn't automatically canonise all equivalent facts.
Thanks! Been saying that for years. The problem is that I still believe it, but you don't.
If inclusion of a novel detail doesn't confer canonicity, then the absence of such a detail cannot disprove stated canonicity.
By analogy, if having turn signals doesn't make your vehicle a car, then removing the turn signals doesn't make it not-a-car.
Yes, a car requires turn signals in most legal systems, but the car doesn't suddenly become a motorcycle by being in violation.
So, back to the point, even if they're not extremely successful at active incorporation, that doesn't negate the fact that the non-canon informs their thinking *by design*, or that it is canon to them *by decree*.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000:
So, again, why would you argue that appearance or non-appearance is relevant to the question of canonicity?
I'm not sure what you think I said, but let me clarify: Nothing about the 7 of 9 character as shown in PIC is in any way consistent with her portrayal in the novels. Because you stated that all novels are now canon. See next.
quote:Where did you get that? That's not my argument.
Here's what you originally said:
"It's part of the new CBS Canon, along with STD, and that new canon is distinct from the old. The inclusion of all past novels as canon, even if (as Kurtzman admitted) they are unable to maintain continuity with everything that came before, means the very content of the CBS universe during the previously observed Roddenberry-Berman era stories is wildly different than it was during the Roddenberry-Berman era of Trek."
I bolded the part where you said "all past novels."
quote:LOL. That is almost the exact opposite of what happened here.
How is that the exact opposite? Did you read the novels, or didn't you? Did you fact-check this claim, or did you just slavishly agree with whoever came up with this idea because it fits your bias against Kurtzman?
quote:Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
Other people here have already done that.
quote:Can you provide evidence of that claim? Near as I can tell, that just isn't so. Mack went into detail explaining how he created the idea on TrekMovie.
I can't. That's why I said "I'm pretty sure." Because usually the scriptwriters come up with an idea which is then co-opted in a novel. If Mack came up with the idea first, fine. But as others have said, just because something in a novel was used in the show (i.e. "Hikaru") doesn't mean that now everything in that novel where Sulu was given a first name is now canon.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000:
quote:Originally posted by Lee: So despite all the above, we're still where we were when I said "Canon is what has been onscreen, with a few offscreen facts generally accepted as canon until either proved or disproved."
Except that isn't true.
What?
quote:
quote:Taking one such fact doesn't automatically canonise all equivalent facts.
Thanks! Been saying that for years. The problem is that I still believe it, but you don't.
What what?!
quote:
If inclusion of a novel detail doesn't confer canonicity, then the absence of such a detail cannot disprove stated canonicity.
By analogy, if having turn signals doesn't make your vehicle a car, then removing the turn signals doesn't make it not-a-car.
Yes, a car requires turn signals in most legal systems, but the car doesn't suddenly become a motorcycle by being in violation.
So, back to the point, even if they're not extremely successful at active incorporation, that doesn't negate the fact that the non-canon informs their thinking *by design*, or that it is canon to them *by decree*.
Stop doing analogies! They’re making the inside of my skull itch.
Your premise remains nonsensical. Your initial claim as quoted by Dukhat is still unproven. You haven’t demonstrated any wholesale adoption of novel material or how it is undermining canon, nor how it is evidencing DSC/PIC being in another timeline. Seeking inspiration from book content is fine, we’ve already shown it can be done without polluting canon. And by counterpoint, if book facts were being cleaved to dogmatically, then the former Stargazer doctor played by David Paymer would have been written as one of the characters from TNG novel “Reunion.” But they didn’t.
If you don’t like DSC or PIC, then fine. You’re not alone in doing so. I don’t see why headcanoning it that it’s an alternate timeline is meant to help. And what happens when they DO make some Trek you like (and which you don’t feel you have to headcanon as being alternate) and then it references events of either of these two shows? You’re just going to go even further down the rabbit hole.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Because you stated that all novels are now canon. See next.
Correct. That's Kurtzman's position as elucidated in multiple interviews. I've never suggested that only the CBS-era novels are canon, as you claim.
quote:How is that the exact opposite?
In response to "I don't know enough about the literature to contest this point, but there are many who disagree" your retort was to claim I "seem to feel you have the authority to argue that they contain things that have been incorporated into the show's canon."
In effect, when y'all tried to use the claimed lack of Trek novel continuity as an argument against Kurtzman's stated canon policy (just as others have previously tried to use inclusions from explicitly non-canon works to invalidate clear statements of non-canonicity), the fact that I dared dip a toe in in response with my relatively timid "I dunno, but here's what others say" and that this was portrayed as me feeling I had the authority to argue my own claims of fact made me laugh.
Sorry if that bothers you. It's not my intent to offend. Just struck me funny, is all.
quote:Other people here have already done that.
No, no one has demonstrated that stated canon policies are invalidated by non-canon details getting graduating to canon via inclusion. Lee literally just argued the opposite . . . and, indeed, so do you:
quote: But as others have said, just because something in a novel was used in the show (i.e. "Hikaru") doesn't mean that now everything in that novel where Sulu was given a first name is now canon.
Again, flip it. If Hikaru doesn't canonize whichever novel that came from (at least it wasn't Walter that got picked), that's cool. But if something's explicitly canon and gets -- not contradicted, but merely *unused* -- it doesn't become non-canon because of that, does it? Hell, even if something *is* contradicted, how many posts on Flare are dedicated to pondering ways to rationalize apparent contradictions? Did anyone ever say "gee, let's just ditch that whole episode"? No? Why not? It's what you're doing now.
Basically, it seems to me that this claim of discontinuity overriding canon policy is just knee-jerk rejectionism, because the fundamental argument behind it makes no sense and is contrary to the way it's always been done.
But, to each their own. If you can rationalize the CBS Trek Universe with the Star Trek Original Universe . . . well, you'd be the first. Godspeed.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Your premise remains nonsensical.
How is it nonsensical to listen to the head honcho of the franchise when he keeps telling us over and over that the novels are canon to him, over the course of ten years of different statements? C'mon, now.
quote:Your initial claim as quoted by Dukhat is still unproven.
What, this?
"It's part of the new CBS Canon, along with STD, and that new canon is distinct from the old. The inclusion of all past novels as canon, even if (as Kurtzman admitted) they are unable to maintain continuity with everything that came before, means the very content of the CBS universe during the previously observed Roddenberry-Berman era stories is wildly different than it was during the Roddenberry-Berman era of Trek."
That's nicely proven, thanks.
1. In-universe, STP shares its universe with STD, as various little bits of world-building inclusions have made (and will continue to make) evident, from Xaheans to Kasseelian opera to vehicle designs and a bunch of other little things.
2. Out of universe, the writers and producers say as much.
3. Finally, they are concurrent CBS productions by the same folks, so it doesn't make sense to assume they're in different universes from each other.
quote:You haven’t demonstrated any wholesale adoption of novel material or how it is undermining canon
Why would I need to? You yourself have argued that inclusion of novel details doesn't confer canonicity. Why the flip-flop?
quote:And by counterpoint, if book facts were being cleaved to dogmatically, then the former Stargazer doctor played by David Paymer would have been written as one of the characters from TNG novel “Reunion.” But they didn’t.
For one thing, why pick the murdery guy as opposed to the Ailat lady . . . an Edosian like Arex from TAS (unless he's Triexian as per the newer novels) . . . from the Picard "Autobiography"? In other words, the STP folks had multiple choices. The one you're talking about is, notably, the only version who was his CMO for 22 years straight. Ailat's tenure isn't given, meaning multiple CMOs could've held the post, including Paymer's character (if he was even CMO as opposed to just a doc aboard ... Paymer is 15 years younger than Stewart, so even Trek-Hollywood aging would make Benayoun unlikely to have been around when Picard took over initially).
Second, just from a writing perspective, after the "Reunion" Stargazer CMO Greyhorse tried killing everyone from the Stargazer on the E-D one by one, then the whole remaining lot while Picard watched, I doubt Picard would've picked him as his personal doctor and had him over for tea and a warm conversation.
In other words, your argument is nullified by novel-verse self-contradiction (which, I'd note, will be a much more frequent point than even for Star Wars EU, which is really frickin' saying something) and character logic.
quote:I don’t see why headcanoning it that it’s an alternate timeline is meant to help.
Listening to what Kurtzman says isn't "headcanoning", and my position is "meant to help" me stay closer to the facts, whatever they may be.
I mean, if you want to complain about the ever-so-tiny bit of logical math involved in recognizing that 1 + 1 /= 1, then aim for that conversation. It would certainly come across less knee-jerky.
quote:And what happens when they DO make some Trek you like (and which you don’t feel you have to headcanon as being alternate) and then it references events of either of these two shows? You’re just going to go even further down the rabbit hole.
It isn't about "like". It's about what is and what is not. There's lots of Trek I liked even after recognizing it as non-canon, and there's Trek I don't care for that is nevertheless elevated by someone's fiat.
My Star Wars lists in that regard are worse. There's stuff I liked and even stuff I very much wanted to use that I had to set aside because it just wasn't canon.
So, please don't try to take the easy path of assuming bias and intellectual dishonesty, and instead focus on a good reason to dispute what I am saying, if you have one . . . or agree to disagree, if you like. As I told Dukhat, if STP and STD work as STOU in your head, more power to you. I'd be exhausted trying to reconcile it all.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Well, I don’t know about Lee, but I’m done with this head-slamming-against-wall conversation.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"And what happens when they DO make some Trek you like (and which you don’t feel you have to headcanon as being alternate) and then it references events of either of these two shows? You’re just going to go even further down the rabbit hole."
Honestly, at this point, I don't foresee the people currently running Trek making any that I like. They're already 0 for 2. But the good thing about alternate timelines is that they usually share a lot of the same events, just with different details. So, if there ever is a new Trek show that feels like it's capable of inhabiting the same universe as the old ones, but it makes a reference to DIS or PIC, it's easy to say "Oh, I guess something like that happened in the prime universe, too, just less sucky."
That's not support for G2k's arguments, though. I haven't been able to follow half of what's going on in this thread the past few days.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Well, I don’t know about Lee, but I’m done with this head-slamming-against-wall conversation.
Likewise.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Is it just me, or do STO ships always have suspiciously round number registries? Anyway, they’re claiming the USS Inquiry is NCC-88500.
Finally some good pics of ships from PIC.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
I dig the BoP . . . it's kinda like a TMP-ized TOS BoP. It's certainly better than the one from ENT, though of course I'm still partial to the Encyclopedia's Romulan school bus design.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
A good look at the evacuation tugs.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Thought y'all might like this shot of the two Excelsior kids side by side. One is from one of the animated shows and the other from STP:
Edit: stupid imgur . . . will fix ASAP
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
Well technically the ship on the left is an Obena and the one on the right is an excelsior deux.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Wow. Just read through the last couple pages...Jesus, guys. Take it easy. The real world is hard enough without having actual feelings about other people's fantasies. Just watch the show, or don't.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler: Wow. Just read through the last couple pages...Jesus, guys. Take it easy. The real world is hard enough without having actual feelings about other people's fantasies. Just watch the show, or don't.
1. Intense discussion about fantasies created by others is what Flare is all about, historically.
2. Canon policies are fundamental to any discussion of the fantasies created by others. It creates an objective, third-party standard.
If a fan rolls up and declares "well in my Trek fanfic I established that such-and-such ship is actually NCC-8008135," what will you do without one? Handling everything case-by-case is just a mess.
3. Canon policy discussion has nothing to do, prima facie, with watching, reading, or enjoying. One of my favorite Star Trek ship designs comes from Discovery, for example.
Also, I've enjoyed TAS and various Trek novels and tech manuals. None of that is Original Universe canon. I didn't toss them in the trash or demand no one else enjoy them. Similarly, neither am I going to be told I must accept them as factual to the fiction or else I am a bad fan, as is so often done these days on Twitter.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
