Drop the S31 show for a Captain Pike show?

[Boris Skrbic]

I mean, think about it: the year is 2399 and everything has been updated in accordance with 2020. The writers now have this wide-open canvas to tell original stories in a framework largely free of DSC-style controversy, so why ignore that and go back to Pike unless they’re not confident they can invent the next Borg? Ok, fine, so let’s see the great Bermanverse actors on PIC while we still can, but there is no need to stick with certain characters and keep recasting them for an eternity. Life goes on and so should Star Trek, just as Roddenberry and his colleagues intended with TNG.

 

[Gonzo]

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.

Yeah and the knock on effect of having the Klingons as allies means you need to find a new villain.

Which creates new problems as some of the new villains that have been introduced were either boring as hell or just copies of the Klingons with different rubber faces.

It doesnt have to be complicated, they set the show in the 23rd century so all they needed to do was decide if we would have the Klingon style from the end of Enterprise (due to virus), the full monty that we saw in DS9 or a midway point between the two showing how the Klingons are slowly restoring their genetic heritage, would have been easier on the actors as well but instead we got a complete mess.

Showing the Klingons so dispersed, isolated and then coming back together was the perfect way to show how they have struggled with the issue over the last century, that was wasted as well.

What a damn shame.

 

[Lord Garth]

I like being at a point where we're arguing about something I feel neutral about.

Even though the 23rd Century is my favorite, I'm okay with the 25th. It doesn't matter to me because from the point of view of Disco Season 3, it's all in the "past" anyway.

 

[Mudd]

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?

I liked these characters on STD.

That's all. I'll watch Anson Mount. Why would I care what era the scripts say the show is set in? It won't make the stories better or worse.

There's nothing daring or imaginative or challenging to the audience in saying 25 or 30 instead of 23. Duh.


Talking about "inventing the next Borg" is itself revealing: "Give me the experience I had then," which is another way of saying "give me what I already know I like."

 

[Boris Skrbic]

I liked these characters on STD.

That's all. I'll watch Anson Mount. Why would I care what era the scripts say the show is set in? It won't make the stories better or worse.

Of course it will. There will be fewer continuity discussions to distract from storytelling and writers will have to create original characters rather than keep inserting ratings boosters.

There's nothing daring or imaginative or challenging to the audience in saying 25 or 30 instead of 23. Duh.

There is, the lack of a proven safety framework to riff on.

Talking about "inventing the next Borg" is itself revealing: "Give me the experience I had then," which is another way of saying "give me what I already know I like."

No, give me the experience of being surprised by an innovation for the franchise, in this case that of a relentless hive-mind. There was a time before the Borg, and then they appeared on ST. Let’s see more creations that either succeed or fail, not just more Klingons. Similarly, there was a time without Picard, and now we have PIC. Who wouldn’t want to see another original and ultimately successful character, not just more Pike and by extension Spock?

 

[Mudd]

Of course it will. There will be fewer continuity discussions to distract from storytelling.

Fifty years of watching this tells me otherwise.

Continuity is disposable. The format itself is repetitive, which is not in itself so problematc; after all, there's nothing so repetitive as the murder mystery formula but the BBC keeps turning those out to enthusiastic reception in the UK and America.

Just tell the damn spaceship stories well, with some energy and a little creativity and it works fine - to the extent that it still works at all.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Fifty years of watching this tells me otherwise.

Continuity is disposable. The format itself is repetitive, which is not in itself so problematc; after all, there's nothing so repetitive as the murder mystery formula but the BBC keeps turning those out to enthusiastic reception in the UK and America.

Just tell the damn spaceship stories well, with some energy and a little creativity and it works fine - to the extent that it still works at all.

Fifty years of watching tells you that the continuity is disposable? My years tell me that at most it can be bent to the breaking point, but not without convolutions and pain.

And if the format were so repetitive then we wouldn’t have DS9. In fact, all the format requires is a “star trek”, however you want to define it. No need to settle for comfortable tropes: that’s what knockoffs like The Orville are for. Star Trek itself must keep going elsewhere.

 

[Tuskin38]

They should have sent them off into the andromeda galaxy or something. Sure it would basically be Voyager again, but then they could have all new species and locations.

 

[fireproof78]

so why ignore that and go back to Pike unless they’re not confident they can invent the next Borg?

They're not that confident. The Borg were created as a bit of an antithesis to Roddenberry's assertion that technology in the 24th century would always be beneficial to those who use it.

 

[Jadeb]

They should have sent them off into the andromeda galaxy or something. Sure it would basically be Voyager again, but then they could have all new species and locations.

They could have had that in the 23rd century. Instead, they went with Klingons, Harry Mudd, the Mirror Universe, the Enterprise, Section 31, Pike, Spock, Sarek, etc. Any or all could have been omitted to make room for the new. That they went mostly with the old and familiar when the conceit of the show is a magical drive that can take the ship anywhere, anytime says less about the franchise's narrative limitations than it does about the people running the show.

 

[fireproof78]

It says more about what the people running the show thinks the audience wants. Which, given, fan films and Kelvin Trek, doesn't surprise me.

 

[Starflight]

I don't think we need to go rocketing off into the distant future or another galaxy to have new adventures - TNG added a new ridiculous alien culture to the alpha quadrant every other week with no effect on existing canon because all the adventures took place on an ambiguously-located, seemingly endless "frontier". Same for TOS really - does anybody know, or care, where the Roman planet is located? Or the Cheronites, or the Vaal and Landru planets, or the two planets in A Taste of Armageddon? Does anybody know where the Gorn's territory is located, or care about the impact they have on Alpha Quadrant politics? The Discovery writers could have added as much as they wanted in the 23rd Century alpha quadrant without problems.

I like the Kelpiens and Bau'auaua'uau'aul in Discovery, they're a fine addition to the setting. I liked the weird data Sphere thing as well, even if it ultimately ended up being used as an awkward plot device later on. The Shroom-verse with May was a cool idea as well. The writers have proven they can come up with cool new concepts, they just generally prefer not to for some reason.

 

[fireproof78]

not to for some reason.

To not scare away the audiences.

 

[Rahul]

Honestly, y'all forgetting the most important thing: Yes, the 23rd and 24th century "play" very similar in regards of technology rules, travel times, gimmicks and such.

But there is one thing a continuation has that the 23rd century doesn't: Possibility space.

The 23rd century is entirely boxed in by stories. There is no possibility to change the status quo. No possibility to tell stories about familiar topics (like holographic rights or Borg revolutions) - everything has to end at the same point where it starts.

Having Romulus blown up, and now a large portion of Romulans living in the French countryside as refugees? Utterly fucking impossible in a prequel storyline.

That's why the DIS jump 1000 years into the future is so dangerous: If the writers aren't VERY careful (and so far they haven't shown to be) - they are severely limiting all possibility space for future Trek stories from the 24th century onwards (if they for example show how the Federation looks like in the 33rd century). To the point that the 33rd century HAS to be the default mode for any new Star Trek show, otherwise the writers would be constrained by "canon" like they never have before been (and god knows, they complained a lot about that in the past already!)

 

[fireproof78]

Having Romulus blown up, and now a large portion of Romulans living in the French countryside as refugees? Utterly fucking impossible in a prequel storyline

And people are already complaining.
Why risk it?

 

[BillJ]

And if the format were so repetitive then we wouldn’t have DS9.

DS9 really wasn't that different from what came before. The show's fine for what it is, but it is time to stop with the non-sense that it was completely different from other versions of Star Trek. Same with Discovery.

 

[Lord Garth]

The reason Disco's first two seasons had TOS characters and the reason Picard will have TNG/DS9/VOY characters is very pragmatic. You could watch TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT for free. You have to subscribe to CBS All Access to watch DSC or PIC. At least if you live in America. Discovery had all the TOS stuff in it that it did because they were trying to get TOS Fans and Kelvin Fans to subscribe to their service. CBSAA wanted to give incentive to people who might not have had any otherwise. The very next series they're coming out with is Picard. Now they're trying to get all the TNG Fans. They probably think -- rightly or wrongly -- that not as many people will go out of their way to subscribe to CBSAA if there's a Star Trek series with absolutely nothing from the other series that will get them interested. That's the plain, boring, pragmatic, bean-counter answer.

Discovery has been around for two seasons now. There are people who aren't just fans of the show but also fans of things specific to the show (whether you like it or not), such as myself, who will still stick around, even if they're dropping all the TOS stuff.

With Picard, they're going to keep all the TNG/DS9/VOY elements -- well, really TNG/VOY it looks like -- and they'll do that to get them started and to get fans of '90s Trek excited. Then they'll gradually wean off those characters, unless the storylines continue on with something specific to Picard. Patrick Stewart didn't want to play Picard again if it was going to be exactly the same. I'm assuming Jeri Ryan also didn't want to play Seven of Nine again if it was going to be exactly the same. These characters seem to be in different places. And though I don't know, I'm pretty sure they'll build up all the characters who are native to Picard so they can pick up the slack. Only because of Patrick Stewart's age, we have to consider the possibility that PIC won't run long. But if it's a success, they'll want to continue what was started by that series, so they'll need build those characters and storylines up so they can sustain themselves without Picard.

 

[BillJ]

The reason Disco's first two seasons had TOS characters and the reason Picard will have TNG/DS9/VOY characters is very pragmatic. You could watch TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT for free. You have to subscribe to CBS All Access to watch DSC or PIC. At least if you live in America. Discovery had all the TOS stuff in it that it did because they trying to get TOS Fans and Kelvin Fans to subscribe to their service. The very next series they're coming out with is Picard. Now they're trying to get all the TNG Fans. They probably think -- rightly or wrongly -- that not as many people will go out of their way to subscribe to CBSAA if there's a Star Trek series absolutely nothing from the other series. That's the plain, boring, pragmatic, bean-counter answer.

It is a solid business decision, at the same time it is making the show's they're producing feel creatively bankrupt and disposable. To this point, the All-Access stuff has had the weight to me of mediocre Pocket novels. Just completely forgettable.

 

[CorporalClegg]

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?

Because any new "villain" race is just going to be derivative of something Trek has done before -- which is in itself a symptom of the core problem with the franchise. But that's a different discussion altogether.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

DS9 really wasn't that different from what came before. The show's fine for what it is, but it is time to stop with the non-sense that it was completely different from other versions of Star Trek. Same with Discovery.

I’m not saying DS9 was “completely different”, just different enough to stretch the Star Trek concept in a couple of new directions, showing that it could easily be stretched further. Even TNG hinted at it with Q’s final remarks in AGT about moving beyond the literal exploration of space.

Because any new "villain" race is just going to be derivative of something Trek has done before -- which is in itself a symptom of the core problem with the franchise. But that's a different discussion altogether.

Why? It seems that is exactly the discussion here: pessimism about the franchise leading fans to settle for “realistic” goals (eg. Pike was fine, so let’s see more of Pike; new alien concepts won’t be inventive, so more Klingons, please).