Poll Which era of Star Trek would you rather see continue?

[The Wormhole]

I love the mindset behind ‘Patrick Stewart is bald right? I guess that means he was bald all of his life!’

Fun fact: Patrick Stewart really has been bald since he was 19. There's something genetic in his family that results in all the males of the family going bald at a young age.

His son Daniel likewise was bald at a young age. When he was on The Inner Light, the first scene he was in he was wearing a toupee, but when we see him again near the end of the episode, that was his natural hairline.

I think it's time to stop delving into the past (Pre 24th century) and start moving towards the future.

I mean, Disco moved forward all the way to the 32nd century.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I mean, Disco moved forward all the way to the 32nd century.

That's too far in one go IMO, ~100 years gap is what I consider a good length of time in between world settings.

There's a reason why I picked 2501/01-01 as the start date for my 26th Century Head Canon
<NOTE: ~111 years from the end of (2155 “ST: Enterprise”) & the beginnings of (2266 “Star Trek”)>
<NOTE: ~ 71 years from the end of (2293 “ST: Generations”) & the beginnings of (2364 “ST:TNG”)>
<NOTE: ~122 years from the end of (2379 “Star Trek Nemesis”) & the start of the current Story Universe>

 

[fireproof78]

That's too far in one go IMO, ~100 years gap is what I consider a good length of time in between world settings.

There's a reason why I picked 2501/01-01 as the start date for my 26th Century Head Canon
<NOTE: ~111 years from the end of (2155 “ST: Enterprise”) & the beginnings of (2266 “Star Trek”)>
<NOTE: ~ 71 years from the end of (2293 “ST: Generations”) & the beginnings of (2364 “ST:TNG”)>
<NOTE: ~122 years from the end of (2379 “Star Trek Nemesis”) & the start of the current Story Universe>

I agree. 32nd century is way too far. I felt similarly with Doctor Who when they traveled to "the end of the universe" or whatever. It just doesn't work as well, and feels incredibly inaccessible.

 

[The Wormhole]

That's too far in one go IMO, ~100 years gap is what I consider a good length of time in between world settings.

'Kay. The point is it's still moving forward as opposed to "delving into the past" like you said "it's time to stop."

So, you want the franchise to move forward, but when it does, you'll complain it's too far and not what you would have done? 'Kay.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I don't really care much for the era so long as the stories are good.

 

[fireproof78]

'Kay. The point is it's still moving forward as opposed to "delving into the past" like you said "it's time to stop."

So, you want the franchise to move forward, but when it does, you'll complain it's too far and not what you would have done? 'Kay.

Well, the writers are doing it all wrong!!!

 

[Tim Thomason]

We have five shows in production right now. One is "too far forward" (Discovery), one is in the past (SNW), and three, yes, THREE are moving forward from the Berman era: LD (2381), Prodigy (2383), and Picard (2400).

For years, people were saying enough with the prequels, just go forward past Voyager. Now we have 60% of our upcoming programming going immediately post-Voyager, and that's still not good enough.

 

[fireproof78]

and that's still not good enough.

I've said this before but I feel it always bears repeating: the writers are in an untenable position. It can't just move the franchise forward but be just as dynamic as past Treks, be inspiring to the next generation of fans, while also ensuring not to change too much so not to push away old fans.

 

[ThreeEdgedSword]

We have five shows in production right now. One is "too far forward" (Discovery), one is in the past (SNW), and three, yes, THREE are moving forward from the Berman era: LD (2381), Prodigy (2383), and Picard (2400).

For years, people were saying enough with the prequels, just go forward past Voyager. Now we have 60% of our upcoming programming going immediately post-Voyager, and that's still not good enough.

Technically, 4 of these shows are prequels to DSC now!

Not sure how much

Spoiler: Picard spoilers

of the 2400s we'll see in PIC, though I'd love to see more. What with them traipsing around in the past and different TLs.

 

[Laughing Dragon]

Star Trek 1966 to 2005

Definitely, Abrams films were quite frankly just a retread of what was old. Put in new packaging. It wasn't even that good imo. I would have preferred if Trek picked up after Nemesis and actually went on to the next generation.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Why is 1966 to 2005 seen as one era? Because Gene Roddenberry and enough of his original team started the Berman era? Because he and only a few people from his original team helped start the film era, which he lost control over after TMP?

It doesn’t make much sense to combine the latest Bad Robot and Secret Hideout efforts either. Some of the same people have worked on both, but that’s about it.

I’d go with 1966 to 1973 (the original series era, including TAS in spirit), 1979 to 1991 (the original film era), 1987 to 2005 (the Berman era, technically including all of GEN), 2009 to 2016 (the Abrams era) and 2017+ (the Kurtzman era).

 

[oldtrekkie]

Why is 1966 to 2005 seen as one era? Because Gene Roddenberry and enough of his original team started the Berman era? Because he and only a few people from his original team helped start the film era, which he lost control over after TMP?

It doesn’t make much sense to combine the latest Bad Robot and Secret Hideout efforts either. Some of the same people have worked on both, but that’s about it.

I’d go with 1966 to 1973 (the original series era, including TAS in spirit), 1979 to 1991 (the original film era), 1987 to 2005 (the Berman era, technically including all of GEN), 2009 to 2016 (the Abrams era) and 2017+ (the Kurtzman era).

It's more like two timelines than two eras. But at the same time it's a different kind of StarTrek (regardless of the fact that they linked them by making Nimoy's Spock move from one to the other). It's still very different (there are almost no Vulcans left. The Klingons, the Romulans, the Orions, definitely look different.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Still, there’s been no effort to maintain a degree of consistency, let alone asset reuse between the Bad Robot and Secret Hideout productions that would justify them being put together into the same era.

 

[Lord Garth]

It's more like two timelines than two eras. But at the same time it's a different kind of StarTrek (regardless of the fact that they linked them by making Nimoy's Spock move from one to the other). It's still very different (there are almost no Vulcans left. The Klingons, the Romulans, the Orions, definitely look different.

Three timelines actually, if you're looking at it like that. The Kelvin Films are incompatible with Early-Disco & SNW.

• Vulcan is never destroyed in DSC. In fact, just the opposite. It's still around in the 32nd Century (after DSC does its time-jump), and Romulus is what was destroyed.
  
  
• Pike was, is, and will be in command of the Enterprise for a quite a while in DSC/SNW. In the Kelvin Films, he was only in command for a hot minute.
  
  
• The Enterprises couldn't more different. Plus we see the USS Enterprise, NCC-1701, under construction in 2255 in the 2009 Film and it looks like the ship we see in the rest of the film (most of which takes place in 2258). The construction doesn't look anything like what we see in DSC S2, set in 2257. And it's not because it was a different Enterprise, because the DSC/SNW version of the ship also has an NCC-1701 registry.
  
  
• A war with the Klingons hasn't happened yet in Into Darkness (set in 2259), while in DSC, there was a war with the Klingons from 2256-2257. If they just had a war with the Klingons a few years earlier, Admiral Marcus wouldn't need Cumberbatch-Khan to figure out how fight Klingons in a hypothetical war, he'd have the experiences from a real war with them to draw from.

So it just doesn't match.

I subscribe to the Three Timeline Theory myself, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[Vger23]

I don't really care much for the era so long as the stories are good.

 

[Lord Garth]

Nemesis Picard is 100% Picard. Facing his mortality, his relationship with Data, dealing with his crew moving on. I mean, sure, there's the Argo stuff at the beginning, but that's not even a tenth of the film.

Interesting. If true, then it proves people exaggerate stuff in things they don't like. I also misremembered Spock screaming "KHAAANNNN!!!!!" in Into Darkness as being half-way through the film, when -- upon my first re-watch eight years later -- I realized it was really more like three-quarters of the way through.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

We have five shows in production right now. One is "too far forward" (Discovery), one is in the past (SNW), and three, yes, THREE are moving forward from the Berman era: LD (2381), Prodigy (2383), and Picard (2400).

For years, people were saying enough with the prequels, just go forward past Voyager. Now we have 60% of our upcoming programming going immediately post-Voyager, and that's still not good enough.

80% strictly speaking. S3 of DSC even features a jazzed up futuristic version of Voyager. ;-)

 

[Push The Button]

'Kay. The point is it's still moving forward as opposed to "delving into the past" like you said "it's time to stop."

So, you want the franchise to move forward, but when it does, you'll complain it's too far and not what you would have done? 'Kay.

Welcome to the internet, where your opinion matters as long as I agree with it.

 

[Tim Thomason]

I still don't get why people don't just stop watching the shows they're not satisfied with. Lower Decks is the third Star Trek show I've dropped, after Voyager and Enterprise. As someone who's done it three times now, I can tell you all, "It's not that hard!"

Back in 2016, I was thinking about dropping the Kelvin Films too if I didn't like Beyond. I liked the 2009 film, but didn't like Into Darkness, so it was a 50/50 split and Beyond would've tipped the scales one way or another, but then I liked Beyond and they stopped making those films after that (until 2023?)... so then it became a non-issue.

To address an earlier point brought up: As much as I like DSC, I'm fully prepared for them to eventually write off the third season and beyond as a Possible Future, if they don't have any more series set in that time-frame. And the first two seasons have already been "classified", so we'll see. I like the show for the show, regardless of how it might (or might not) end up being treated by others.

I've been thinking about this post for a couple weeks now. It's an odd sentiment, coming from you specifically, because you have rewatched all of Voyager and Enterprise. Dropping LD just means you'll probably watch it all (for the first time) several years down the line.

Why not watch it now? It's a half hour show, you could have it playing over breakfast. I don't get why some uberFans wouldn't watch a show they aren't satisfied with, first run, just in case the writing takes a turn (as it is soon purported to) or some gems pop out.

No one is a slave. No one has to watch any of this. But what's the harm? 30 minutes out of one's week isn't too bad of a cost for potential greatness.

I stopped watching Enterprise in Season 3. That was the biggest mistake in my life (in relation to Star Trek viewing habits). What happens if I get annoyed by Picard's time travel antics or a gross-out episode of LD? What if Prodigy is too outside-of-my-comfort-zone? I turn away, my criticisms are unknowingly answered, and I have to watch them all at some later time? The horror!

 

[fireproof78]

But what's the harm? 30 minutes out of one's week isn't too bad of a cost for potential greatness.

Speaking of attitudes, why not let people watch what they want? 30 minutes doesn't seem like a lot to you, but for others (such as myself) that's time taken away from multiple other things. If I'm not engaged no amount of "greatness" will draw me back.