• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

News Discovery and Trek Continuity

Status
Not open for further replies.

DSG2k

Captain
Captain
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."
Source: http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/star-t...68679/star-trek-boss-impossible-to-fix-canon/

Bolding mine.

The big takeaway from that is that when Kurtzman says words like "Prime" or "canon", he doesn't mean what you thought he meant. His idea of Trek continuity includes the books and comics.

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. 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. 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 different.
 
He said "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". That does not remotely imply what you have then concluded. He hasn't said that the novels etc are canon at all, only that their continuity is impossible for the showrunners to keep to, but they try not to directly contradict then when they can.
 
Yeah, he's just saying they try and respect things that are established in the novels and comics as a matter of courtesy, but due to the sheer volume of such materials that is an impossibility. He isn't declaring the novels and comics canon or saying they are under any formal directive to remain consistent with them.
 
It looks to me like he's saying, in a roundabout manner, that The Picard Show is going to negate the entire Trek novelverse.
Which makes complete sense.

If the Novelverse perhaps had a following the way the LOTR books did then maybe i'd understand them keeping it in the show. But really, no.
 
Yeah, the new Picard show is probably going to do to the novel-verse what Disney did to the Star Wars extended universe...

(Although - who knows? Isn't one of the main writers from the Picard show coming from the novels?)
I guess he just wants to prepare us for this - even though I think Trekkies really aren't that adamant about it: "Our" canon is much more robust. With every comic and book being possibly true - until the point where it isn't anymore, because something that was produced later directly contradicts it. So nobody who ever read the novels was actually expecting them to stay true.
 
I've always treated each of the books/comics as their own little universe, pretty much separate from the TV/Movies.
At times they flowed together and groups of them could take place in the same universe.
(perhaps even in the same as the shows/movies)
And sometimes individual ones appeared to fit nicely into the TV/Movie canon, but mostly they are very malleable as to where they fit in my head-canon.
:cool:
 
If the stories in s2 of dsc are engaging and well written I wouldn’t care if it negated every Trek book or comic ever written if I’m honest. I don’t think I’d care that much if it directly contradicted earlier Trek series. Like the whole situation with the nebula/excelsior class uss Melbourne debate.

Dropping the references to other Trek shows altogether might be a good idea for dsc. Gonna be hard in s2 given Spock et al. But overall not a bad idea I think...
 
Wooooow you took this completely out of left field the rest out of a black hole somewhere.

You're shaping his words to fit your narrative. That entire answer was about the novels and comics, nothing else, nothing more.
 
It looks to me like he's saying, in a roundabout manner, that The Picard Show is going to negate the entire Trek novelverse.
It's not saying that either, but as others have said, if they did, so what? The tie-in writers understand that they're playing in the movie/film sandbox rather than the other way around and that it's not under any obligation to follow the novels/comics course of events or character developments unless they choose to do so.
 
I never thought of books and comics as Canon. I really don't care if they're ignored. Not taking anything away from them but it's not like there are many people who will have read every single Star Trek book and comic and I'd be surprised if even those people expect the TV shows to acknowledge their existence as Canon.
 
It’s kind of like how the Marvel TV shows are ultimately ignored by the the film division. Agent Coulson as far as the films are concerned is still very dead, in spite of his TV show.
 
As far as I've seen, they've made absolutely no effort to maintain continuity with the other series, but we're expected to believe they want to maintain continuity with the tie ins?

If Kurtzman's telling the truth, his priorities are bass-ackwards. Maintain continuity with the shows and movies first. Then, maybe, spare a thought or two for the tie ins.

*edited for clarity.
 
Last edited:
Agent Coulson as far as the films are concerned is still very dead, in spite of his TV show.
The Avengers movie strongly suggested that Nick Fury lied about Coulson's death in order to motivate the Avengers. The following scene where one of Fury's people pointed out that the bloody cards weren't in Coulson's pocket, but in his locker.
 
The Avengers movie strongly suggested that Nick Fury lied about Coulson's death in order to motivate the Avengers. The following scene where one of Fury's people pointed out that the bloody cards weren't in Coulson's pocket, but in his locker.

Except Coulson actually did die. Fury wasn’t lying about his death, it was about the cards being found with his body. The show explained that Coulson did in fact die, but his body was revived much later via alien tech and the show really delves into how that messed up his head.

The films will likely never bring that up because they’ve generally ignored the shows altogether, while the shows go out of their way to tie in with the films as much as possible to hype how connected they are. This is because there’s this production division between the films and shows. When Whedon went to work and develop the AGENTS OF SHIELD show he got a lot of flack from the people in film division over it. It’s a lot like how WB’s film division dismisses the television division, as if they’re below them. Hollywood politics is just bizarre.
 
Except Coulson actually did die. Fury wasn’t lying about his death, it was about the cards being found with his body. The show explained that Coulson did in fact die, but his body was revived much later via alien tech and the show really delves into how that messed up his head.

The films will likely never bring that up because they’ve generally ignored the shows altogether, while the shows go out of their way to tie in with the films as much as possible to hype how connected they are. This is because there’s this production division between the films and shows. When Whedon went to work and develop the AGENTS OF SHIELD show he got a lot of flack from the people in film division over it. It’s a lot like how WB’s film division dismisses the television division, as if they’re below them. Hollywood politics is just bizarre.
It makes sense. It is highly likely that the people who are watching the TV show have seen the films, while the reverse is way less likely to be true. Thus it makes sense to reference the films in the TV show but not reference the TV show in the films, as that would just confuse the viewers ("I thought that guy died in the last film?")
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top