To which do you refer to? Spock Prime obtaining the transwarp formula from Scotty at some point in the 24th century is heavily implied in Trek XI itself. The dialogue exchange is something I made up.Was that from a licensed work????
What post-Nemesis Trek SHOULD be like
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
I think "Living Witness" was a bit earlier plus they still had no contact with Earth which I find surprising. One would think that by then we would have established our presence in the entire galaxy and even in the neighboring galaxies.
Where, come to think of it, they probably have embraced all of Trek's tech - we see Daniels die at least twice, but he returns each time. He seems to go anywhere he wants and can beam anyone (and even the entire Enterprise one time) through space and time.
Only took them 700 years to figure it out
Where, come to think of it, they probably have embraced all of Trek's tech - we see Daniels die at least twice, but he returns each time. He seems to go anywhere he wants and can beam anyone (and even the entire Enterprise one time) through space and time.
Only took them 700 years to figure it out
Not to mention that moving through walls device that seems really cool.
Living Witness is in the 31st century, with its final scene a couple hundred years later, IIRC. As for why those forehead aliens of the week hadn't made contact with Earth yet, maybe the Prime Directive was re-written so that the Federation does not make contact with a race until they have learned to embrace the true meaning of mutating into a warp 10 salamander?
Isn't Star Trek: Online supposed to be in the 25th century??
Which is only about 20 years after Nemesis
If they were going to do some kind of a reunion mini-series, I would rather take things a step further and do a big TNG/DS9/Voy crossover, maybe they could even find a way to work in some Ent flashbacks. Maybe some big threat first discovered by Enterprise characters 2163 (real time 11 jump from Demons and Terra Prime) suddenly reappears in 2393 (real time 14 year jump from Nemesis).
All joking aside, I find it strange that the doctor had to go on a trip (apparently with uncertain success) to maybe get to Earth in order to know what happened to Voyager. One would think that Startfleet would have sent many ships to retrace Voyager's route by then. Seven hundred years is a very long time.
They were both 31st century. As for your other point, yeah, that's part of the reason why I consider the episode non-canon.
In that case I prefer Daniels' 31st century. I only wish we could have seen it after Archer went back to his time and things went back to the way they were. As Kor might say: "It would have been glorious!"
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that is what I am referring to, I could look it up, but I'm too lazy.
A lot of your posts make me
Except for Cardassia, the Alpha Quadrant should be long-recovered from the Dominion War by now. So no real need to worry about how things are post-DS9. Time would've moved on even if Star Trek stayed in the 24th Century.
The novels have created quite an extensive Extended Universe. I don't see what good it does to cancel all of that out. The same with Star Trek Online which is set in 2409-ish and the years immediately afterward.
So... 100 years after TNG? Mid-25th Century? No. Starfleet has ships in all four quadrants. According to Q in "Q2", there shouldn't have been any ships in the Delta Quadrant for another 100 years when he was wondering what Voyager was doing there... kind of goes against the spirit of exploration.
The next step to getting back to Star Trek's roots of boldly going where no one has gone before would be Starfleet beginning to explore different galaxies. So an intergalactic instead of just interstellar. A ship on its own, in another galaxy. The 26th Century.
Some super-advanced form of subspace so they can communicate with Starfleet Command even though Starfleet Command wouldn't be able to do anything that far away.
Also 200 years more advanced than TNG/DS9/Voyager can give something truly futuristic-looking. The producers and designers would need to be really imaginative and artistic to pull it off but you could do it if you were serious about it...
... but they've have to be serious about it. Otherwise, they shouldn't.
That's why I'm not bothered by Discovery being set in the 23rd Century. If they don't want to do a series that's truly more futuristic than anything we've seen before, I'd rather they not do it all. I'd rather it be done by a team that really wants to. In the meantime, I like the TOS era and I like getting a chance to see what they couldn't show us in the 1960s.
The novels have created quite an extensive Extended Universe. I don't see what good it does to cancel all of that out. The same with Star Trek Online which is set in 2409-ish and the years immediately afterward.
So... 100 years after TNG? Mid-25th Century? No. Starfleet has ships in all four quadrants. According to Q in "Q2", there shouldn't have been any ships in the Delta Quadrant for another 100 years when he was wondering what Voyager was doing there... kind of goes against the spirit of exploration.
The next step to getting back to Star Trek's roots of boldly going where no one has gone before would be Starfleet beginning to explore different galaxies. So an intergalactic instead of just interstellar. A ship on its own, in another galaxy. The 26th Century.
Some super-advanced form of subspace so they can communicate with Starfleet Command even though Starfleet Command wouldn't be able to do anything that far away.
Also 200 years more advanced than TNG/DS9/Voyager can give something truly futuristic-looking. The producers and designers would need to be really imaginative and artistic to pull it off but you could do it if you were serious about it...
... but they've have to be serious about it. Otherwise, they shouldn't.
That's why I'm not bothered by Discovery being set in the 23rd Century. If they don't want to do a series that's truly more futuristic than anything we've seen before, I'd rather they not do it all. I'd rather it be done by a team that really wants to. In the meantime, I like the TOS era and I like getting a chance to see what they couldn't show us in the 1960s.
Last edited:
The problem is--no one wants to see a truly post- Nemesis Federation and Starfleet. Or at least very few wish to see it. I note that in every single Star Trek so far, the technology remains essentially the same in terms of actual usage. In theory the ships are faster, the transporters have greater range, the phasers are more powerful etc. But when it comes to practice, what does any of this mean? Well, seems to me characters simply recite different numbers. Instead of taking out a communicator, people touch their badge. Recreation allows amazing simulations that can actually kill you if you're stupid enough to remove the safety protocols (which btw seems mind-bogglingly easy to do). New weapons and tactics? Not really. Androids might have made a huge difference, but those discovered were resolutely ignored then we were given a roadblock that only one man can ever successfully built a creature like Data. And so on.
Is there anything as ground-shaking as railroads became between 1810 and 1860? Or radio between 1900 and 1950? What about airflight between 1910 and 1960? Computers between 1970 and 2016? How about the steam engine? Atomic power?
Because Star Trek is not about logically extrapolating the future at all. It is a metaphor for what might be possible for us, folks living now. It attempts to address our issues, our lives.
Is there anything as ground-shaking as railroads became between 1810 and 1860? Or radio between 1900 and 1950? What about airflight between 1910 and 1960? Computers between 1970 and 2016? How about the steam engine? Atomic power?
Because Star Trek is not about logically extrapolating the future at all. It is a metaphor for what might be possible for us, folks living now. It attempts to address our issues, our lives.
The advancement has to plateau in order for Star Trek to work. Otherwise, let's be honest, Earth is a Johnny-Come-Lately. Yet, within 100 years, it's at the top of The United Federation of Planets, and the UFP has technology similar or equivalent enough to keep any neighboring powers at bay.
The Dominion was 2,000 years old versus the Federation's 200 in DS9. Even without the wormhole or reinforcements, Starfleet shouldn't have been a match for the Dominion. At all.
So, clearly, all the other alien races have reached a certain level of technology, anyone in the interstellar community is on the same page because they've seen and are aware of what's out there, and anyone who isn't is either way above and ignoring everyone underneath or they're not a major player in the interstellar community and have second-fiddle technology.
This isn't even remotely realistic but, within the parameters set up in Star Trek, it doesn't look out of place for the technology to become that difference because it seems like innovation is either dead or becomes forgotten very quickly.
The rest of the galaxy is made to look bad to make Earth look good.
The Dominion was 2,000 years old versus the Federation's 200 in DS9. Even without the wormhole or reinforcements, Starfleet shouldn't have been a match for the Dominion. At all.
So, clearly, all the other alien races have reached a certain level of technology, anyone in the interstellar community is on the same page because they've seen and are aware of what's out there, and anyone who isn't is either way above and ignoring everyone underneath or they're not a major player in the interstellar community and have second-fiddle technology.
This isn't even remotely realistic but, within the parameters set up in Star Trek, it doesn't look out of place for the technology to become that difference because it seems like innovation is either dead or becomes forgotten very quickly.
The rest of the galaxy is made to look bad to make Earth look good.
Or humans really are the prodigies of the Galaxy. Nog on DS9 even says so himself when he is marveling at how fast human economy has evolved from a bartering system to where it is and yet he is a ferengi.
I tend to agree with most of what Rahul has said on this thread. The uncomfortable truth is that all sci-fi storytelling has its limits by the very nature of the genre. If you make predictions about the future, they will rapidly turn out to be false. If you try to revisit an in-world time period several decades later in the real world you'll have to choose between contradicting canon or making everything look ridiculous and indulging in overwrought explanations of things like forehead ridges on Klingons. And so on.
The bottom line is, it's all about what theatrical types call "willing suspension of disbelief". It's subjective of course, but personally I can suspend my disbelief about the use of record tapes in computers and short skirts on female crewmembers in TOS better than I can suspend it over Enterprise looking more modern than TOS or everything in the JJ-verse films.
There are going to be conceptual limitations to any new version of Star Trek set anywhere or anywhen, and we'll all have our own personal preferences which will inform what kind of new TV show or film we would accept as authentic Trek and willingly suspend our disbelief for. But for me, personally, the hundred-year jump into the future is the best option. It's enough of a blank canvas without divorcing the franchise from its pre-existing canon. That's why it worked for TNG. For me, re-boots and prequels made 40/50 years after the original might as well be completely different sci-fi franchises altogether. They may be good in their own right, but they just don't "boldly go" enough to feel like genuine Star Trek.
Ultimately, I suspect Trek will eventually reach the natural end of its life. Too much of the real-world future will have become apparent, making established canon seem less relevant, and there won't be anywhere left for Trek to go without ceasing to be Trek. But we're not there yet, and when we are the answer is not to re-boot (ie- create a poor pastiche of the original), the answer is just to let a new sci-fi franchise come along.
The bottom line is, it's all about what theatrical types call "willing suspension of disbelief". It's subjective of course, but personally I can suspend my disbelief about the use of record tapes in computers and short skirts on female crewmembers in TOS better than I can suspend it over Enterprise looking more modern than TOS or everything in the JJ-verse films.
There are going to be conceptual limitations to any new version of Star Trek set anywhere or anywhen, and we'll all have our own personal preferences which will inform what kind of new TV show or film we would accept as authentic Trek and willingly suspend our disbelief for. But for me, personally, the hundred-year jump into the future is the best option. It's enough of a blank canvas without divorcing the franchise from its pre-existing canon. That's why it worked for TNG. For me, re-boots and prequels made 40/50 years after the original might as well be completely different sci-fi franchises altogether. They may be good in their own right, but they just don't "boldly go" enough to feel like genuine Star Trek.
Ultimately, I suspect Trek will eventually reach the natural end of its life. Too much of the real-world future will have become apparent, making established canon seem less relevant, and there won't be anywhere left for Trek to go without ceasing to be Trek. But we're not there yet, and when we are the answer is not to re-boot (ie- create a poor pastiche of the original), the answer is just to let a new sci-fi franchise come along.
There aren't many ideas circulating in Hollywood or the backwoods of writers through with Gene's vision of scale-sci fi now is all dystopia and basically doom and gloom untalented female leads and dictatorship and tyranny and durr durr evil. By the time Trek reaches the natural end of its life-sci fi will be dead as a genre.
For the shear fun of it?
While I wouldn't want to see the Federation collapse and ST become some complete dystopia, there's no reason why the Federation could not fall on really hard times for a certain period. Maybe due to a war, possibly a civil war with outside elements intervening, large portions of the Federation become devastated, with core worlds like Earth and Vulcan still in contact but much territory becoming uninhabited or splitting off. Large civilian transports, some of them guarded by combat starships, as well as lone starships by themselves or in small groups, flee deep into space. Some go to the Delta Quadrant, some go elsewhere. The core of Federation territory holds on and, at least in theory, maintains the old ideals, but as time goes on, they have to compromise little by little just to survive. The fleeing remnants, however, set up their own Federation statelets all across the galaxy and maybe beyond, and many of them struggle and succeed to set bastions of Federation values and civilization in areas where the Federation has not touched before. Of course, some remnants could become bad, either enslaved by alien races or just degenerating in piracy and warlordism. Little by little, the good remnants expand their power, though maybe one or two are destroyed trying to hold on to their values, but the rest gradually get back in contact with each other. This story could take place over many decades, with the final mission being the liberation of the old Federation and reigniting among the core worlds the values that made the Federation great in the first place.
Similar threads
