Poll Is this 32nd century a keeper?

[Christopher]

It's not impossible though, is it?

That's a meaningless thing to say. There are always numerous options that are simultaneously possible, so saying "it's possible" serves no purpose. What matters is probability -- weighing the different possibilities against each other to assess which is more likely. If someone says "X is 100 times more likely than Y" and you come back "Well, Y's not impossible, is it?" that's as useless and annoying as if someone says "X is 100 times heavier than Y" and you come back "Well, Y's not weightless, is it?" Of course it isn't, everyone knows it isn't so it doesn't need to be mentioned, and it's entirely beside the point. Whether it has weight, or possibility, is not the question. The question is whether X or Y has more weight, or higher probability. That's what's actually relevant.

 

[somebuddyX]

That's a meaningless thing to say. There are always numerous options that are simultaneously possible, so saying "it's possible" serves no purpose. What matters is probability -- weighing the different possibilities against each other to assess which is more likely. If someone says "X is 100 times more likely than Y" and you come back "Well, Y's not impossible, is it?" that's as useless and annoying as if someone says "X is 100 times heavier than Y" and you come back "Well, Y's not weightless, is it?" Of course it isn't, everyone knows it isn't so it doesn't need to be mentioned, and it's entirely beside the point. Whether it has weight, or possibility, is not the question. The question is whether X or Y has more weight, or higher probability. That's what's actually relevant.

Well I'll take that as a yes then.

 

[Christopher]

Well I'll take that as a yes then.

You should not.

 

[alex08060]

Despite making a huge jump from the 24th century I believe start trek should continue from the 32nd century,

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Despite making a huge jump from the 24th century I believe start trek should continue from the 32nd century,

Nah, too far Ahead IMO. I'd treat the 32nd century as a possible alternate future that could happen, but if certain events change, the future might change.

I would prefer to start with my Head Canon of 2501/01-01, beginning of the 26th Century

The Time Gaps between series is interesting:
~111 years from the end of (2155 “ST: Enterprise”) & the beginnings of (2266 “Star Trek”)
~ 71 years from the end of (2293 “ST: Generations”) & the beginnings of (2364 “ST:TNG”)
~122 years from the end of (2379 “Star Trek Nemesis”) & the start of the 26th Century on Earth.

This way, you get significant tech upgrades without pushing things too far.

And there are plenty of story's to tell in between the 24th century to the 32nd, and I'd like to explore the 26th Century.

 

[Christopher]

Nah, too far Ahead IMO.

I don't understand that concept. If anything, most mass-media American SF has been too reluctant to jump past the 25th century for most of my life. Although there have been more exceptions this century. Andromeda was in the 52nd century. Syfy's Dark Matter never specified its date, but I think it was at least a millennium or two ahead. And Killjoys was so far in the future that their civilization had completely forgotten Earth and migrated to entirely different galaxies.

I really loved the glimpses of far-future tech in this week's episode, the embrace of the idea that technology has advanced massively, not just incrementally like it did between TOS and TNG. The TNG era's futurism was far too cautious.

 

[JoeZhang]

I don't understand that concept. If anything, most mass-media American SF has been too reluctant to jump past the 25th century for most of my life. Although there have been more exceptions this century. Andromeda was in the 52nd century. Syfy's Dark Matter never specified its date, but I think it was at least a millennium or two ahead. And Killjoys was so far in the future that their civilization had completely forgotten Earth and migrated to entirely different galaxies.

I really loved the glimpses of far-future tech in this week's episode, the embrace of the idea that technology has advanced massively, not just incrementally like it did between TOS and TNG. The TNG era's futurism was far too cautious.

Yep - I also like it because you now you could do two things at once - a more trad Federation in shows set 'in the past' and something a bit more wide open 'in the present'- say for example more transhumanist ideas, living ships and other idea that are fairly common elsewhere but for various historical reasons are off the table in Trek.

 

[Christopher]

Yep - I also like it because you now you could do two things at once - a more trad Federation in shows set 'in the past' and something a bit more wide open 'in the present'- say for example more transhumanist ideas, living ships and other idea that are fairly common elsewhere but for various historical reasons are off the table in Trek.

Besides, we've already got Picard for a smaller jump forward, two decades beyond Nemesis. By next season it should be in the 25th century.

 

[Kzinti]

Nah, too far Ahead IMO. I'd treat the 32nd century as a possible alternate future that could happen, but if certain events change, the future might change.

I would prefer to start with my Head Canon of 2501/01-01, beginning of the 26th Century

The Time Gaps between series is interesting:
~111 years from the end of (2155 “ST: Enterprise”) & the beginnings of (2266 “Star Trek”)
~ 71 years from the end of (2293 “ST: Generations”) & the beginnings of (2364 “ST:TNG”)
~122 years from the end of (2379 “Star Trek Nemesis”) & the start of the 26th Century on Earth.

This way, you get significant tech upgrades without pushing things too far.

And there are plenty of story's to tell in between the 24th century to the 32nd, and I'd like to explore the 26th Century.

is this a joke post cause this sound like a joke post?

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

is this a joke post cause this sound like a joke post?

I'm not joking. I just want a slower pace to the future.

There's so many era's to explore, why don't we explore them instead of rushing to the next millenium?
2501 is still really far into the future.

Just look at IRL, imagine how people from 100 years ago would look at us now and be amazed.

Now go back 200 years more and imagine if they can see us now.

100 years has allowed ALOT of things to change drastically IRL.

Just imagine how things will be like in 2501.

 

[CorporalClegg]

"The future" is arbitrary.

 

[ITDUDE]

I think a lot of fans have to get their head around the fact that now it's the permeant setting for these characters, it's not the future, it's the present.

Lower Decks and Picard say hello. We have 3 concurrent Trek shows taking place in 3 different timelines. This is unprecedented for Trek. Personally I treat Picard as present, Lower Decks as definitely in the past and Discovery in the future. I don’t think there is right or wrong answer here.

 

[Christopher]

I'm not joking. I just want a slower pace to the future.

Like CorporalClegg said, the pace is arbitrary. The limited progress we saw in eight or nine decades from the TOS movies to TNG could easily have been claimed to be a mere 20-25 years' worth of progress, given how incremental it was -- ships were bigger, equipment was smaller, transporter range was longer, but there were only a few real innovations, such as holodecks, biofilters, and replicators, while AI seemed to have gone backward somehow. The dates are irrelevant. Storytellers can set the pace of progress to be as fast or slow as they want.

There's so many era's to explore, why don't we explore them instead of rushing to the next millenium?
2501 is still really far into the future.

Strange New Worlds will be the late 2250s, Lower Decks is 2380, Picard is about 2400, we don't yet know when Prodigy is set, and there are still more shows in development. We are exploring them, but it's not "instead of," it's alongside.

Personally I treat Picard as present, Lower Decks as definitely in the past and Discovery in the future. I don’t think there is right or wrong answer here.

They're all the present. Time is relative.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm not joking. I just want a slower pace to the future.

There's so many era's to explore, why don't we explore them instead of rushing to the next millenium?
2501 is still really far into the future.

Just look at IRL, imagine how people from 100 years ago would look at us now and be amazed.

Now go back 200 years more and imagine if they can see us now.

100 years has allowed ALOT of things to change drastically IRL.

Just imagine how things will be like in 2501.

It ain't worth the constant bitching.

 

[Tim Thomason]

I know it's 99.9% positive that Discovery will stay in the 32nd century, at least for awhile, but I think it's kind of a shame. They really belong in the 23rd century, and I was liking their take on it. I mean, I guess SNW will feature the era, but it will be almost certainly in a Neo-TOS style and not exactly as Discovery played it. I was holding out hope for Section 31, but that's looking more and more likely to be 32nd century as well, along with Academy and possibly Prodigy.

The fans seemed to have chased them out of the time period to which they belong.

 

[fireproof78]

The fans seemed to have chased them out of the time period to which they belong.

Yup. Fans have treated Trek very poorly for not fitting in to preconceived notions and now it will result in a big jump that will be less satisfying.

Welcome to new Trek.

 

[ITDUDE]

I know it's 99.9% positive that Discovery will stay in the 32nd century, at least for awhile, but I think it's kind of a shame. They really belong in the 23rd century, and I was liking their take on it. I mean, I guess SNW will feature the era, but it will be almost certainly in a Neo-TOS style and not exactly as Discovery played it. I was holding out hope for Section 31, but that's looking more and more likely to be 32nd century as well, along with Academy and possibly Prodigy.

The fans seemed to have chased them out of the time period to which they belong.

Once a time ship, always a time ship. In 2 seasons they time travelled twice. Maybe this future won’t be reset, but nothing to say they can’t time travel again, this time say to period of Vulcan/Romulan split. I’d really like to explore that era anyway.

 

[Tim Thomason]

Once a time ship, always a time ship. In 2 seasons they time travelled twice. Maybe this future won’t be reset, but nothing to say they can’t time travel again, this time say to period of Vulcan/Romulan split. I’d really like to explore that era anyway.

When I wrote my fan fiction summary of Season 3, I ended it on a cliffhanger the Discovery traveling to the Big Bang to save the Universe itself. If I had gone on to a Season 4, it would've involved the ship becoming an independent timeship from there, working in tandem with Gabrielle and probably a crew including time travelers from across the timeline (future, past, present), but I hadn't thought further than that, and I assume a Season 5 or 6 would've returned them to the 23rd century, but probably in hiding.

 

[Lord Garth]

The fans seemed to have chased them out of the time period to which they belong.

I knew they'd make the switch eventually, or the Spore Drive would have to be a Complete Failure, but the writers planning as early as the second season to get Discovery out of the 23rd Century and having Discovery and the Spore Drive classified so thoroughly definitely had to do with making Gatekeepers happy. There's other stuff that they threw a huge fit about during the first two seasons, too... So, yeah.

I'm pretty much done with them. Let them talk about how great the Glory Days were until they're blue in the face. Meanwhile, I'm going to enjoy the 32nd Century. My attitude is, "I know where DSC isn't wanted. And I, as a fan of it, am not wanted."

I mean, I guess SNW will feature the era, but it will be almost certainly in a Neo-TOS style and not exactly as Discovery played it.

Yup. That's exactly what it's going to be.

 

[fireproof78]

"I know where DSC isn't wanted. And I, as a fan of it, am not wanted."

Sad but true.