Flare Sci-fi Forums
Flare Sci-Fi Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Flare Sci-Fi Forums » Star Trek » General Trek » Discovery Alternate Universe Confirmed

   
Author Topic: Discovery Alternate Universe Confirmed
Guardian 2000
Senior Member
Member # 743

 - posted      Profile for Guardian 2000     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In an interview with Digital Spy, Kurtzman, co-creator and showrunner of STD, said:

quote:
"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."


Source: http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/star-trek-discovery/news/a868679/star-trek-boss-impossible-to-fix-canon/

The big takeaway from that is that when Kurtzman says words like "Prime" or "canon", he doesn't mean what you thought he meant.

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. 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 Babylon 5 and declare that Stargate SG-1 is suddenly canon in that universe, I just radically altered Babylon 5 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).

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.

--------------------
G2k's ST v. SW Tech Assessment

Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Krenim
Unholy Triangle Fella
Member # 22

 - posted      Profile for Krenim     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Guardian, I want you to know that what I'm about to say is not directed solely at you. Your post is simply the straw that broke the camel's back.

STOP CALLING IT STD!

I swear to God, it's like the entire online Star Trek community is comprised of Beavis and Butthead. "Huh huh, he said STD."

Or five-year-olds who try to get away with using the term "bitch" by claiming that they're talking about a female dog. "What? That's the show's abbreviation!"

You are not being clever.

You are not being funny.

Anyone who has so much as taken a high school debate class will tell you that you sabotaging your own arguments.

And you are. I have seriously started tuning out people as soon as they call the show that, because I know that anything that comes after comes from open contempt of the show rather than any kind of rational thought.

You are adults.

ACT LIKE IT.

--------------------
"Kirito? I killed a thing and now it says I have XPs! Is that bad? Am I dying?"

-Asuna, Episode 2, Sword Art Online Abridged

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Lee
I'm a spy now. Spies are cool.
Member # 393

 - posted      Profile for Lee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He has a point. We don't talk about STT, or STN, or STG; STV or STE. It's TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, DSC. Will we call the Picard show PIC or STP? I know which my money's on (neither - we don't know what it's going to be called yet).

--------------------
Never mind the Phlox - Here's the Phase Pistols

Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged
Guardian 2000
Senior Member
Member # 743

 - posted      Profile for Guardian 2000     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"STTNG", "STTOS", and similar are fairly common usages. Voyager versus Star Trek V:TFF kinda broke folks of that, in part, but people having a cow if the same is applied to ST:D (better?) is amusing.

STTNG here:
http://flare.solareclipse.net/cgi2/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=001030;p=0

A Google search for STTNG and STTOS from 1996 through 2012 (and thus not including anyone trying to use it just to get away with STD) . . . this is a long list, but would be longer but for my searching them together:

https://www.google.com/search?q="sttos"+"sttng"&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F1996%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F1%2F2013&tbm=

While I appreciate the caveat that I wasn't the target, the simple fact is that tuning out any argument or comment that uses the common enough style of acronym is itself kinda silly, as bad as Trekker versus Trekkie sort of stuff. Don't blame folks for the choices of the producers, who surely couldn't have been *that* oblivious.

--------------------
G2k's ST v. SW Tech Assessment

Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Krenim
Unholy Triangle Fella
Member # 22

 - posted      Profile for Krenim     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Guardian 2000:
While I appreciate the caveat that I wasn't the target, the simple fact is that tuning out any argument or comment that uses the common enough style of acronym is itself kinda silly, as bad as Trekker versus Trekkie sort of stuff. Don't blame folks for the choices of the producers, who surely couldn't have been *that* oblivious.

*Sigh*

Yes, it was a dumb move on the producers to name the show that, considering the abbreviation. Which is sad, because I think in and of itself, "Star Trek: Discovery" is a fine name for a Star Trek show.

But just because it's low-hanging fruit doesn't mean you have to reach for it. In other words, the old adage: "What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right." Just because it's common to refer to the show that way, does not mean it isn't childish.

Now, as for me tuning out folks because they use the abbreviation? Well, inductive reasoning. I've noticed a correlation between calling the show "STD" and, well, not making much sense at all. The two almost invariably go hand-in-hand.

And that brings me to the actual meat-and-potatoes of your original post. Okay, I'll grant you, Kurtzman's not the sharpest knife in the drawer with him thinking that things like novels are considered canon.

But, I'll be honest with you, I am not seeing how you are making the leap from that to confirmation of Discovery being in its own universe. I'm really not. Like, at all. You could have said "Kurtzman thinks novels are canon! Half-Life 3 confirmed!" and it would make as much sense to me.

--------------------
"Kirito? I killed a thing and now it says I have XPs! Is that bad? Am I dying?"

-Asuna, Episode 2, Sword Art Online Abridged

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Guardian 2000
Senior Member
Member # 743

 - posted      Profile for Guardian 2000     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Uhhhh . . . okaaaay.

How about math?

If each series is 1, then the total before Disco is 5. So, Disco is supposed to be 5+1, yes?

Well, Disco is actually 24, because they're not adding 1 to the existing 5, but instead adding one to the five plus another 18 they are counting.

Does that help?

--------------------
G2k's ST v. SW Tech Assessment

Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Krenim
Unholy Triangle Fella
Member # 22

 - posted      Profile for Krenim     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll get to your math analogy in a moment.

I guess where I'm coming from is this:

During the Berman era, the policy was "The live-action shows and movies are canon. Nothing else counts."

Now, Kurtzman's policy (assuming he didn't misspeak) is "Everything is canon, but since I can't reconcile stuff like the novels with the TV show, we're not going to try."

It seems like even though they took different roads, Berman and Kurtzman still wound up in the same place: They aren't using the novels as reference for the TV shows.

As for the math, lemme throw the same math back at you.

TOS = 1.
TNG = 2.
DS9 = 4.

Why does DS9 equal four? Because DS9 made overt references to TAS, which was non-canon at the time (And maybe still is? I'm unclear as to TAS's canon status these days). Does DS9 exist in its own universe because it contained material from a non-canon source?

--------------------
"Kirito? I killed a thing and now it says I have XPs! Is that bad? Am I dying?"

-Asuna, Episode 2, Sword Art Online Abridged

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Guardian 2000
Senior Member
Member # 743

 - posted      Profile for Guardian 2000     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Reference/homage/theft/borrowing doesn't equal canonicity of the source, which is a point I had to argue to Star Wars folks fifteen years ago.

Lucas adopted Coruscant as the Imperial capital planet's name and borrowed the hot green Jedi Aayla for the films. In neither case was there any reference to the rest of the works from which he borrowed, and it is wrong to assume canonicity for those works or a whole class of works therefrom, as EU-philes found out with TCW and later statements from the same previously-cagey folks acknowledging the validity of my points.

A better example for you would've been to try to argue that the gentlemen's agreement not to use characters in use with the Calhoun books (i.e. Shelby) constituted something, but of course it didn't.

That brings us to your argument that Berman and Kurtzman are saying the same thing. That is explicitly not the case. We already knew tbey were referencing John Ford for Klingon info, and Kurtzman literally states the reverse of the Berman era policy by counting the books as part of the continuity.

Quod erat blah-blah-blah.

--------------------
G2k's ST v. SW Tech Assessment

Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
TSN
I'm... from Earth.
Member # 31

 - posted      Profile for TSN     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Our goal is always to try, always, always to try and never to negate what has existed in the novels and graphic novels..."

Your goal is bad, and you should feel bad.

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Guardian 2000
Senior Member
Member # 743

 - posted      Profile for Guardian 2000     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My reading of the quote wherein Kurtzman treats the books and comics as canon is verified by the fact he held the same view in 2008.

quote:

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/

Thus, to me (and maybe this'll help you see where I am coming from, Krenim), what we have here is Tuvix.

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.

However, 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.

--------------------
G2k's ST v. SW Tech Assessment

Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Krenim
Unholy Triangle Fella
Member # 22

 - posted      Profile for Krenim     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, much better analogy, thank you.

--------------------
"Kirito? I killed a thing and now it says I have XPs! Is that bad? Am I dying?"

-Asuna, Episode 2, Sword Art Online Abridged

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Omega
Some other beginning's end
Member # 91

 - posted      Profile for Omega     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Does this account still work?]

Every work is it's own fictional universe. Comportment between any two works is a conscious decision on the part of the creator of the later work. Canon is really just a body of existing works that the writer of a new work has attempted to not contradict. So what you're really saying is that the writers of a later work had a more expansive list than the writers of an earlier work chose to have. From a viewer's perspective, none of this tells any of us anything, except what we might expect from future works by a particular set of creators.

How we choose to interpret that from a Watsonian perspective is entirely a matter of taste, I suppose.

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


© 1999-2008 Solareclipse Network.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3