Spoilers Season 3 Comic-Con reveals

[Amasov]

I for one still don't understand how a story about rebuilding utopia cannot be optimistic and idealistic, especially if we get to see Discovery and its crew serving as the spark to relight the flame of the Federation from its embers. I've long believed that this kind of message is actually what today's audiences would need and appreciate; if I think back of how I thought about TNG over the years, its utopian message of how humanity collectively solved all its problems and conflicts in the backstory and now Earth was a joyful, Kumbaya-singing paradise gradually changed from a positive 'we can do better, there's hope for a better future' to a downright unrealistic escapism. Right now, I would think, it's about time we are given something that actually tells us that no matter how bleak things seem around us, even if we think all efforts to make the world a better place have already failed, there's still hope and don't you dare believe you're not enough to contribute to it, because small individual efforts add up to become collective tidal waves of change.

From what I'm seeing in the trailer and based on what Kurtzman said at the panel, I'm looking at it like this:

Perhaps in this future, the Federation and Starfleet have sort of lost their way. It's not the Federation that we, as the audience, or the crew aboard Discovery remember. Discovery, being that beacon of hope, serves as a spark for the Federation of this era to remember who they once were and how they can be better. We already saw that in the first two seasons where Michael and the Discovery crew constantly remind each other, or Starfleet, what Starfleet and the Federation are.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Krog]

To see the Star Trek universe, 1000 years later, not having moved an inch forward - in fact, backwards, is extremely disappointing.

There would have been thousands of story opportunities for a universe that has moved past the Federation. Like, how can you integrate the Federation into a Galactic organisation, without losing what made the Federation so special in the first place?

Instead, they opted for the exact same boring dystopia every other SF franchise ever predicts the future as, and which Star Trek was specifically originally designed in the first place to avoid...

sad.

I agree with your points. Writers seem to think that the future always needs to be bleaker than the past. However, isn’t it what happens in real life? Look at our history - today we are much better than 1000 years ago but things have not gone in a straight line have they? Also, we’ll need to understand what brought us to this place. Perhaps a galactic virus or the Borg breaking havoc like in the novels... many thesis could explain what has become of the World by then. I’ll give the writers the benefit of doubt until we know more!

 

[DaveyNY]

To see the Star Trek universe, 1000 years later, not having moved an inch forward - in fact, backwards, is extremely disappointing.

There would have been thousands of story opportunities for a universe that has moved past the Federation. Like, how can you integrate the Federation into a Galactic organisation, without losing what made the Federation so special in the first place?

Instead, they opted for the exact same boring dystopia every other SF franchise ever predicts the future as, and which Star Trek was specifically originally designed in the first place to avoid...

sad.

It seems to me from parts of the newest trailer that They went in that direction because of Burnhams time jump.
Something happened to turn things in the Federation toward a downward spiral and apparently it has something to do with Discovery & Burnham jumping forward in time.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Seeing as how both the first two seasons' plots focused on corruption within the marbled halls of Starfleet, I don't think there's really any question what he 'inciting incident' is going to be.

 

[Rahul]

It seems to me from parts of the newest trailer that They went in that direction because of Burnhams time jump.
Something happened to turn things in the Federation toward a downward spiral and apparently it has something to do with Discovery & Burnham jumping forward in time.

That would actually be my biggest, last hope: That, what DIS jumped to, is just one of multiple possible alternate futures, like the ones from "All good things" and "Endgame", and that the -real- future won't be known until it happens.

But then again - this is a really frustrating way to watch a show. Hoping something won't happen. The same way I watched the last few episodes of season 2, hoping control won't turn out to be the Borg.

That's really the most frustrating part about watching DIS. It's not a bad show. But they really haven't figured out how to handle the Trek universe three seasons in. I'm still waiting for the very first NEW Discovery in space!

 

[Charles Phipps]

People sitting in a circle singing Kumbaya isn't a recipe for good drama.

Basically the writers on TNG basically had to constantly introduce new alien races because of Roddenberry's "No conflict" rule.

They had a minor revolt when Roddenberry said they didn't mourn the dead in the future, which sounds like Gene trolling to be frank.

Seeing as how both the first two seasons' plots focused on corruption within the marbled halls of Starfleet, I don't think there's really any question what he 'inciting incident' is going to be.

I dunno, tossing a ball that lands 1000 years later is pretty far even for Trek.

I agree with your points. Writers seem to think that the future always needs to be bleaker than the past. However, isn’t it what happens in real life? Look at our history - today we are much better than 1000 years ago but things have not gone in a straight line have they? Also, we’ll need to understand what brought us to this place. Perhaps a galactic virus or the Borg breaking havoc like in the novels... many thesis could explain what has become of the World by then. I’ll give the writers the benefit of doubt until we know more!

If it is Gene's Andromeda, it was those damned Klingon's revolting.

 

[RedAlert]

well... I just miss those years on that science ficcion was more about ideas and exploration instead of explotions, shootings and fighting

 

[Jayson1]

Very respectfully, I think that's not the case. If the Federation doesn't exist anymore or has fallen off a cliff, I think someone would want to restore something that stood for the unity of worlds.

For the record, I've voted Democrat in every Presidential election since I've been old enough to vote. So don't even try to paint me into a particular corner. Just look at my signature. I'll cut-and-paste it for you...

"If you choose to fail us, we will never forgive you." -- Greta Thunberg

And try telling the people who complain non-stop about "SJWs" and the "lack of white male representation" that DSC is Pro-Trump.



Once again, Trump doesn't have anything to do with this. BSG, which was pretty dark and cynical, came out over a decade before Trump was inaugurated.

.
.
.

You guys are just trying to stir the pot. On purpose, I might add. Knowing today's climate, linking anything to Trump is by definition trying to piss people off intentionally. Don't pretend you don't know it.

When I used Trump it's not about the show's politics. All Trek shows tend to be liberal which works for me. Trumpism to me though has become a metaphor to how society in general has declined. We have become a dumb,angry,cynical society with no vision of a better world and even worst ideas on how to make things better. The show sort of speaks to people on that level. On the surface the show is very progressive but underneath that I have no idea what the show is about other than a general feeling that liberals are good but isn't deep or insightful because most shows have that view. Jason

 

[Rahul]

I think it's the lack of an optimistic outlook to the future that I find most disappointing.

Though that's not limited to Star Trek - even the new Lost in Space has dystopian plot points. It just seems every SF property right now is depressed about the future.

But then again - this was exactly the same case in the 60s. And a large part of the original Star Trek's success was pretty much exactly that it was the only absolutely unashamed positive and optimistic future in a bleak present.

 

[Tuskin38]

I imagine the crew of the Discovery, maybe not Georgiou, will have a positive outlook in that grim future. They'll want to fix the federation.

You can have a dystopian setting and still be optimistic.

I hate to bring up the Andromeda comparison again, but that show I think did it well.

 

[Nerys Myk]

well... I just miss those years on that science ficcion was more about ideas and exploration instead of explotions, shootings and fighting

On TV? When exactly was that? There has always been a large amount of fisticuffs and explosions in TV science fiction and especially on Star Trek.

 

[matthunter]

"We have wobbles, but usually society improves" is a pretty damn optimistic viewpoint to me.

 

[Jayson1]

I think it's the lack of an optimistic outlook to the future that I find most disappointing.

Though that's not limited to Star Trek - even the new Lost in Space has dystopian plot points. It just seems every SF property right now is depressed about the future.

But then again - this was exactly the same case in the 60s. And a large part of the original Star Trek's success was pretty much exactly that it was the only absolutely unashamed positive and optimistic future in a bleak present.

To me Trek doesn't have to be happy and positive but it needs to at least have to be about something a little deeper that you won't get on Twitter. The Tarantino movie is most likely going to have darkness but it also likely offer some observations on Trek we have not seen before while also being funny. Jason

 

[Rahul]

Traditionally Star Wars had very hopeful stories in a hopeless world, and Star Trek often sad stories in a hopeful world.

I liked the Star Trek approach, because it fits with reality and history - where through centuries life, technology, society and everything improves. And yet there are tragedies throughout all of time as well.

A stale (or cyclical) universe is really not a realistic worldviews anymore outside of fairytales (which is why Star Wars kinda gets away with it).

 

[fireproof78]

But everything doesn't improve in a straight line, nor do things last forever. I always appreciate Star Trek's optimistic outlook, but expecting the Federation to last forever is, well, unrealistic.

 

[Tuskin38]

No civilization lasts forever.

 

[Timo]

Having something fall in a thousand years is pretty optimistic, in comparison with ST:INS where the bad guy thinks the Federation is "old" for having been around for 200 years. It's still pessimistic in comparison with the Trek norm where some civilizations last for millions of years...

What is the craft Burnham is spending that time-lapse year of hers in? Did they redress one of their shuttle props, and then hopefully de-redress it?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Vger23]

To see the Star Trek universe, 1000 years later, not having moved an inch forward - in fact, backwards, is extremely disappointing.

There would have been thousands of story opportunities for a universe that has moved past the Federation. Like, how can you integrate the Federation into a Galactic organisation, without losing what made the Federation so special in the first place?

Instead, they opted for the exact same boring dystopia every other SF franchise ever predicts the future as, and which Star Trek was specifically designed to avoid originally in the first place...

sad.

I don't see where you're getting any of this, quite frankly. I'm also not sure why it matters. I still been said a million time, and I'll pile on because I believe it: Creating dramatic stories in a utopia isn't interesting. It just isn't.

And Star Trek doesn't have some bizarre obligation to show a perfect future. The future they depict is already better because we haven't destroyed ourselves or our environment out of hatred or stupidity.

I'd recommend being a little more even-keeled and seeing what happens before we dismiss anything.

 

[Jadeb]

I’m as fierce a critic as any of the ugliness Discovery has injected into the franchise, but nothing in the trailer really bothered me. I don’t think Starfleet or the Federation are necessary to a more optimistic view of humanity’s future, and, realistically, I wouldn’t expect either institution to last forever. The Federation could have collapsed because other members came into conflict, because of a new power player or because of any number of other reasons. The important thing, to me, is that our proxy characters still try to do right and do better. Despite what TNG Roddenberry seemed to think, that doesn’t mean we never disagree — just that we do so in a respectful, compassionate and thoughtful way.

Anyway, this looked OK. The distant future didn’t look as cool as I hoped, but it also wasn’t as bleak as I feared. Hopefully they’re saving the awesome stuff for the show itself.

 

[Rahul]

I don't see where you're getting any of this, quite frankly. I'm also not sure why it matters. I still been said a million time, and I'll pile on because I believe it: Creating dramatic stories in a utopia isn't interesting. It just isn't.

And Star Trek doesn't have some bizarre obligation to show a perfect future. The future they depict is already better because we haven't destroyed ourselves or our environment out of hatred or stupidity.

I'd recommend being a little more even-keeled and seeing what happens before we dismiss anything.

Star Trek didn't have an obligation to portray a positive future. And the writers of Superman don't have an obligation to make him a paragon of virtue and morality. And the writers of Sherlock Holmes have no obligation to make him smart, or even an detective at all. And yet... not doing each would be extremely weird.

As far as potential for interesting stories goes - seeing no possibility to tell dramatic stories in an utopian future really says more about the lack of skill of the writer, than anything about the fictional setting itself.