The language (and other factors) suggest a soft reboot is coming.
I'm not happy about it.
I'm not happy about it.
How will season 2 end?
- Thread starter Visitor1982
- Start date
What I’m interested in is what other abilities, besides time travel, does the angel suit possess? It had the ability to move a whole church full of people to another planet and stop the genocide on Kaminar, neither of which required time travel or intervention by Discovery.
The more interviews with producers I see the more it seems that some kind of reset, unfortunately, happens.
The latest is the following trekmovie interview. The first question is if Picard goes to his computer to look up history will he see all the events shown on Discovery and Kurtzman refuses to answer until the season is over.
The latest is the following trekmovie interview. The first question is if Picard goes to his computer to look up history will he see all the events shown on Discovery and Kurtzman refuses to answer until the season is over.
Last edited:
That is a pretty stupid question to ask, IMHO.
I agree. I wish we could drop this pretense of canonicity and just enjoy Discovery on its own merits. This way we can also look forward to a future where pike isn't confined to a chair.
The show can also stop bending over backwards trying to fit itself into canon. Is it me, or did that line about the Klingons regrowing their hair seemed kinda forced? Same with the reveal of the D7... it felt like it was there merely to reconcile discovery with "canon".
I'd be disappointed if season 2 ended with some kind of canon reset. While I'd love to see a return to TOS look/feel aesthetic, I'm also coming to like Discovery standing on its own, and I'd miss that individuality being erased.
Because some of us like continuity and consistency!
What's the point in either a series or franchise without it?
Nothing wrong with Canon.
You can have interesting story's and Canon. Only lazy hack writer's can't do both.
It should, and there's no need for any convoluted explanation about it. Same as Jonathan Archer could be brought up on a computer in Discovery, when he was never mentioned in any series other than Enterprise.
No need for dramatic twists or convoluted storylines. It's simply that Archer is now a part of established canon, and thus can be referred to. Discovery should be treated in the same way.
Canon's fine, but being a slave to it, and having to come up with convoluted explanations for perceived diversions from it, is not.
If diverging from canon is a sign of "lazy hack writers", then put Brannon Braga and Ron Moore at the top of that list, since the retcon of the Borg Queen into Best of Both Worlds is one of the most egregious examples.
Add in the DS9 producers, who changed names and appearances simply because they sounded/looked better.
No explanations for any of those examples - they just thought they could improve on things, and made changes accordingly.
Canon and the fanatical adherence to it, is probably what i hate most about Star Trek
More like a love heart shaped box full of turds
Well that scares the shit out of me.
Maybe it will be a massive troll and Discovery resolves itself into Canon by doing something that erases the 'Prime' timeline and becomes the new Prime timeline.
I don't even get what being a slave to Canon even is?
It's easy, especially with modern computer search devices to come up with ideas that don't contradict each other.
Yes, Discovery not being mentioned in other series, or Spock not mentioning his sister are not questions that need to be answered. And the people asking these stupid questions are not fans of Discovery anyway and don't need to be appeased.
Fire the cannons on canon!
Bad puns aside, I think it's normal to care about a certain continuity (I do, and when stuff really doesn't align, I just pretend it's a different reality), but strict adherence to the tiniest detail will make your head explode, as Trek is filled with contradictions. If the writers try to accommodate the nitpickers, it'll only end in ludicrous heaps of fanwank. A fair amount is fine, but they shouldn't bend over backwards to make every little thing fit. It won't work and it'll be to the detriment of storytelling.
Bad puns aside, I think it's normal to care about a certain continuity (I do, and when stuff really doesn't align, I just pretend it's a different reality), but strict adherence to the tiniest detail will make your head explode, as Trek is filled with contradictions. If the writers try to accommodate the nitpickers, it'll only end in ludicrous heaps of fanwank. A fair amount is fine, but they shouldn't bend over backwards to make every little thing fit. It won't work and it'll be to the detriment of storytelling.
Resets are fine for wanky fanfiction, but I don't really want anything like that happening on the actual show.
I'd hate them going to the Kelvinverse. I'm not particularly fond of it. I watched the movies with mixed feelings. There were parts that i liked but the worldbuilding was not among them.
Here's another thought: What if parts of the Discovery crew end up on the Enterprise after evacuating the ship. And that's how this season ends and season 3 begins.
It's a realistic possibility, if one considers the work they apparently put in recreating the bridge of the Enterprise
Edit: Seems i've been ninja'd.
This. I'd rather they blaze their own trail versus tepidly tiptoeing through what has come before.
As we've seen with the first Discovery novel, they are going to ignore the novels when it conflicts with what they want to do.
Similar threads
