Drop the S31 show for a Captain Pike show?

[thribs]

If you think too much there’s no point of any of these Star Trek spin offs with that logic.
I think you could have a lot of fun with the 25th century. With slipstream they could finally charter most of the galaxy, setting up the trans slipstream tech to explore the other galaxies in the 26th century Universe Class vessels.

 

[BillJ]

I think you could have a lot of fun with the 25th century. With slipstream they could finally charter most of the galaxy, setting up the trans slipstream tech to explore the other galaxies in the 26th century Universe Class vessels.

I think the question is: what stories can you tell in the 26th century that you can't already tell in the 22nd, 23rd or 24th? There is still a ton of the Milky Way that hasn't been explored.

 

[thribs]

I think the question is: what stories can you tell in the 26th century that you can't already tell in the 22nd, 23rd or 24th? There is still a ton of the Milky Way that hasn't been explored.

But the tech will be better for them to explore the Milky Way better in the 25th.
In the 23rd you’re still under the limitations of what has been in place with technology and continuity.

 

[BillJ]

But the tech will be better for them to explore the Milky Way better in the 25th.

The tech isn't a story, it is just a carryover from what came before. Look at Enterprise, we got all this non-sense about exploration, but the tools (and the stories) ended up being the same with altered names: phase pistols (phasers), hull plating (shields), photonic torpedoes (photon torpedoes). They were playing with the same exact toolbox as all the other shows, because it is "Star Trek".

It would take someone really imaginative and with a lot of freedom to make a 26th century Star Trek feel any different from what came before. At this point, the franchise is stagnant and simply going to bars and replaying their greatest hits for people who remember it.

 

[fireproof78]

But the tech will be better for them to explore the Milky Way better in the 25th.
In the 23rd you’re still under the limitations of what has been in place with technology and continuity.

Like what? What tech can introduced that will alter the setting in a meaningful way?

 

[thribs]

It doesn’t need to be that different. You’ve got to keep the core of what Star Trek is alive.
That’s where the characters become important.

 

[BillJ]

You’ve got to keep the core of what Star Trek is alive.

That is the blessing and curse of working in a franchise like Star Trek.

 

[fireproof78]

It doesn’t need to be that different. You’ve got to keep the core of what Star Trek is alive.
That’s where the characters become important.

Then why move the century?

 

[thribs]

Then why move the century?

As a incentive to watch it. See what happens next in the universe. Also keeps it more mysterious.

Like what? What tech can introduced that will alter the setting in a meaningful way?

Trans slipstream drives, allowing them to leave the galaxy and go to the next, interphase cloaks, transporters that can travel JJVerse levels of distances. There’s also time travel. While already around it could be more stable, getting closer to the temporal accords and proper time travel ships. And then the Tardis-Class ones.
There’s also the sheer size of the ships by that time. Drexler said that the J was so big that it had its own university and government.

 

[BillJ]

Trans slipstream drives, allowing them to leave the galaxy and go to the next, interphase cloaks, transporters that can travel JJVerse levels of distances. There’s also time travel. While already around it could be more stable, getting closer to the temporal accords and proper time travel ships. And then the Tardis-Class ones.
There’s also the sheer size of the ships by that time. Drexler said that the J was so big that it had its own university and government.

None of it changes the basic stories they would be telling. It would be wallpaper, much like families on the NCC-1701-D were for much of TNG.

 

[thribs]

None of it changes the basic stories they would be telling. It would be wallpaper, much like families on the NCC-1701-D were for much of TNG.

That all depends if they cover it or not.

 

[fireproof78]

As a incentive to watch it. See what happens next in the universe. Also keeps it more mysterious.

Trans slipstream drives, allowing them to leave the galaxy and go to the next, interphase cloaks, transporters that can travel JJVerse levels of distances. There’s also time travel. While already around it could be more stable, getting closer to the temporal accords and proper time travel ships. And then the Tardis-Class ones.
There’s also the sheer size of the ships by that time. Drexler said that the J was so big that it had its own university and government.

We've had many of those techs introduced. What meaningful impact does that have on the actual stories? What benefits are there if they are going 5 lightyears or 5,000?

There becomes a point in time where the scale becomes too big to imagine for the audience and loses much its meaning, and so, how it impacts the story.

Are we wanting Doctor Who-esque stories in Star Trek?

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Honestly, Star Trek is not a venue full of "unseen wonders" and hasn't been for decades - and then, only very, very rarely. Believing that a big-budget commercial franchise managed entirely by hired hands as a utility for enhancing the bottom line of the franchise owners is going to produce epiphanies is dreadfully naive and unobservant.

I can see what’s been happening so far same as anyone else, but I won’t accept that and say, “Ok, so it seems you can develop Pike reasonably well, now how about some more of that?” I’d rather see creative issues laid bare in failed spinoffs which cause the franchise to become dormant again than to settle for weaving between the glory days and more-of-the-same petitions. While I don’t believe in fan influence either way, at least I’d be one fan asking for the franchise to take risks, not just follow in the footsteps of late ENT and JJ.

 

[Noname Given]

FYI - today it seems CBS trademarked the name: "Star Trek: Section 31"

Again, doesn't mean the series is going to make it to production; but I think it's clear it's definitely still being developed.

 

[Rainard Fox]

I really enjoy Anson Mount's sense of humor:
https://twitter.com/StarTrek/status/1157390931626082305

I've created my twitter account to follow the captain.
He's really able to speak smart and witty without any scriptwriters! Have read his article, it's great too.

 

[F. King Daniel]

But the tech will be better for them to explore the Milky Way better in the 25th.
In the 23rd you’re still under the limitations of what has been in place with technology and continuity.

The tech will be the same. Really, what's changed from ENT to VOY? Tricorders, scanners, phasers... it's all the same. The only advantage is continuity, and Disco have shows they're more than happy to totally change anything they want to, anyway.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

The tech will be the same. Really, what's changed from ENT to VOY? Tricorders, scanners, phasers... it's all the same. The only advantage is continuity, and Disco have shows they're more than happy to totally change anything they want to, anyway.

But if you think it will be the same, why the 23rd century unless the idea is to give people what they know they want? Let’s not, or there will be fewer and fewer new characters like Picard.

Besides, it doesn’t have to be the 23rd century vs the far, far future. The Bermanverse framework really only required the in-universe timeline to follow the real-world timeline, so the franchise could evolve to match technological/social/fashion developments and actors’ ages. Sure, at some point you leave certain characters behind and develop new fan favorites: it’s not like there can only be one captain- or doctor model to riff on forever, so they should just stop going forward, wedge themselves into a legacy decade and give up trying to be inventive.

 

[F. King Daniel]

But if you think it will be the same, why bother with the 23rd century unless the idea is to give people what they know they want? Let’s not.

Presumably because whatever story they want to tell fits best in that era. For example, having Klingons as villains works best in the 23rd century.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Presumably because whatever story they want to tell fits best in that era. For example, having Klingons as villains works best in the 23rd century.

Not necessarily: the Empire is unstable enough that anything can happen, like it did in 2372. Besides, it turned out DSC only wanted the Klingon name-check with full creative freedom to rethink them, so why not come up with a different adversary at the same time, put one’s own stamp on Star Trek history?

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Presumably because whatever story they want to tell fits best in that era. For example, having Klingons as villains works best in the 23rd century.

There were plenty of Klingon villains in the 24th century. And there's no reason there can't be even more Federation/Klingon conflict in the 25th century than there was in the 23rd.