That would actually be pretty cool. Discovery thinks they're outgunned being so far in the future, but they're actually the baddest ship around.
Yes, but that also means that they won't be able to stay there. They'll have to travel back in time to the event that caused that to happen, IE the dystopian future. They couldn't know about the slingshot around the sun effect otherwise they wouldn't need time crystals to time-travel but maybe they'll learn that in the future... Anything's possible.
As I mentioned before (maybe here or on another thread?), I wonder if they took this jump to create a new timeframe that's all their own in which to set potential subsequent series -- similar to how Berman used the 24th-century setting for three separate TV shows. Granted, they could have done that without having the Discovery jump to the 32nd/33rd century from the 23rd, but doing it by using Discovery is a way to tie this whole new Star Trek setting back to the familiar 23rd-century. That can provide an on-screen connection to the existing Star Trek universe rather than just starting whole new stores in the unknown and unfamiliar 32rd century (which I can only assume would be very different than the 23rd and 24th century) and having the only connection to the Star Trek universe being the producers' claim that it is in fact connected to the existing Star Trek universe.
Maybe Daniels will screw this up by sending Discovery to the 18th century in the middle of the American war of independence where an alien has allied himself with England as he did with Enterprise and the alien Nazis...
Only if in the very next scene starts with his boss appearing out of nowhere, who then admonishes him for his second screw-up in a row and fires him on the spot
That would be his third screw up. Remember when he destroyed his present by taking Archer from his time and bringing him to his own?
I know they want to immitate Game of Thrones, but having Daniels sitting on an actual throne made of starship hulls ruling over the future Earth finally is going a bit far.
For some reason this quote reminds me of Warhammer 40k instead... Blood for the Blood God, Hulls for the Hull Throne! ... to be fair, if Klingons were actually worshipping Khorne, it would really explain a lot.
I don't understand why they feel the urge to post in threads like this... Well, to each their own... I guess.
On the contrary. I think drawing the inference from Patrick Stewart's remarks that Picard will be a very different person it is fair to conclude this depiction will in all likelihood prove to be as divisive as that of Luke Skywalker in The Last Jedi.
And nothing in Luke Skywalker’s portrayal in The Last Jedi was in any way inconsistent with the original trilogy. Unless you’re more familiar with the EU’s absurd parody of Luke. Likewise, I’m sure Picard would be a very different person years down the track from having commanded a starship, but that won’t necessarily be inconsistent with TNG. edit: just re-read this, and it makes me sound like an argumentative asshole. Not my intention, sorry if I come across that way.