Spoilers Has Discovery destroyed the possibility of any positive progression until after the 32nd Century?
- Thread starter Timofnine
- Start date
It would likely just cause a timestream split. One stream's DSC crew would notice (or cease to exist), and the other wouldn't.
Personally, I think it best to leave that whole "Burn" business in the past and move forward with new stories.
Personally, I think it best to leave that whole "Burn" business in the past and move forward with new stories.
You could absolutely set a version of ST in the later 25th or the 26th century, fine.
It would create a split, leading to a new timeline. Just like when we had the Kelvin Films in one timeline and everything else in another.
I haven't watched 99% of the comic book movies that have come out in the past 15 years, but my understanding is that they're big on having multiple timelines going on the same time. So I can see Star Trek eventually coming around to fully embracing this.
There seemed to be some understanding that after the time wars ended, certain provisions and galactic treaties were put into place to keep that from happening again. Discovery got away with their jump because, retro-actively no one knew about the ship or the type of tech it employed. The giant tardigrades may be extinct. It was another reason for the refit-as well, since Starfleet needed to keep a lid on where the Discovery actually game from. Now it's just another old ship repurposed into the fleet. They have a few of those, so it's not suspicious.
This answers your question. There is a lot of stories a lot of lives that can have light shined on them in the 800 year gap.
Empires can rise and fall and rise and fall and rise again in a period of time like that. A wealth of time to tell whatever stories they want to.
and for 700 of those years, they probably went back to wearing monster maroons
The Great Barrier actually sound like something one of the series could tackle, either Disco or Section 31.
Star Trek tries to stay close to reality at least regarding astronomy, so it's pretty obvious that the Great Barrier and the one around the core of the galaxy are (supposed to be) artificial in-universe. It does seem to me like something potentially in Disco's ballpark.
Edit: Oops, just looked it up - the one around the outside of the galaxy is called the Galactic Barrier, while the one around the core is the Great Barrier.
Discovery has handled the galactic barrier. They made it, but barely. One would think the information that Kirk's crew obtained from the Kelvan modifications to pass through the barrier would be known by the 32nd century, but maybe it is still just very difficult.
I know, I watch Disco. And you're right, it was a missed opportunity of them not referencing earlier encounters with the barrier.
But with "tackling" I meant actually investigating what the deal was with the barrier, by whom it was created etc. I've always liked involving 'ancient' civilisations like the Iconians, Tkon, Preservers and such. So associating the barrier(s) with some powerful sunken civilisation, either newly created or the ones mentioned, would sound very interesting to me.
I would really enjoy that. I think a ship exploring along the edges of the barrier and the extra galactic space would be interesting.
I think people (particularly fans) get way too wrapped up in "what time period" a show or movie is set in.
To me, Star Trek is Star Trek. It all has starships, crews, phasers, transporters, starfleet, various enemies, alien planets, poorly-executed but well-intended social commentary, lame uniforms, awesome space battles, etc.
It doesn't matter if it's set in the 32nd century or the 22nd century, because the core elements will always be there, and we have 55 years of proof that that's how it is. ENT, DSC and SNW could have told (for the most part) the exact same stories set in pretty much any timeframe. The timeframe settings for those shows enabled some secondary nuances for those series:
ENT- "The first warp 5 ship" which really had no TRUE impact on the overall show
DSC- "A prequel set 10 years before TOS" which really had no TRUE inpact on the overall show, other than creating relationships with legacy characters
DSC- "A sequel set 900-something-ridiculous years after TOS" which really has no TRUE impact on the overall show, other than ancillary (and unnecessary) technology inventions like programmable matter and whatever those new "my badge does everything" comm badges are supposed to be
SNW- every story we've seen could have been told aboard any generic starship in any generic Star Trek timeframe, just change the names of the characters.
It really doesn't matter. I know everyone was brought up on TNG and conditioned to believe that making any new series "The NEXT Next Generation" is the only way to advance the franchise into fresh territory, but it really isn't (in fact, that's just repetitive and obvious). The setting is just a backdrop, like it is for ANY work of fiction. What really matters are the characters, tone, storytelling approach, etc.
DSC tried to be different in any number of ways that were far more "fresh" than just "it should have been set in the 25th century." PIC did the same thing. Now, you can debate the execution of those concepts all you want, but the changes in premise and approach in both of those series were far more impactful than any "setting / what timeframe are they in" element ever would have been.
To me, Star Trek is Star Trek. It all has starships, crews, phasers, transporters, starfleet, various enemies, alien planets, poorly-executed but well-intended social commentary, lame uniforms, awesome space battles, etc.
It doesn't matter if it's set in the 32nd century or the 22nd century, because the core elements will always be there, and we have 55 years of proof that that's how it is. ENT, DSC and SNW could have told (for the most part) the exact same stories set in pretty much any timeframe. The timeframe settings for those shows enabled some secondary nuances for those series:
ENT- "The first warp 5 ship" which really had no TRUE impact on the overall show
DSC- "A prequel set 10 years before TOS" which really had no TRUE inpact on the overall show, other than creating relationships with legacy characters
DSC- "A sequel set 900-something-ridiculous years after TOS" which really has no TRUE impact on the overall show, other than ancillary (and unnecessary) technology inventions like programmable matter and whatever those new "my badge does everything" comm badges are supposed to be
SNW- every story we've seen could have been told aboard any generic starship in any generic Star Trek timeframe, just change the names of the characters.
It really doesn't matter. I know everyone was brought up on TNG and conditioned to believe that making any new series "The NEXT Next Generation" is the only way to advance the franchise into fresh territory, but it really isn't (in fact, that's just repetitive and obvious). The setting is just a backdrop, like it is for ANY work of fiction. What really matters are the characters, tone, storytelling approach, etc.
DSC tried to be different in any number of ways that were far more "fresh" than just "it should have been set in the 25th century." PIC did the same thing. Now, you can debate the execution of those concepts all you want, but the changes in premise and approach in both of those series were far more impactful than any "setting / what timeframe are they in" element ever would have been.
The only limit I see is Starfleet never regularly exploring outside the galactic barrier until the 32nd Century. I'll admit that statement annoyed me.
Otherwise, there's plenty to explore. Vulcans and Romuluns rejoining; Federation timeships, and their limits on future-traveling; exploring more of the Gamma and Delta Quadrants, just to name a few things.
Otherwise, there's plenty to explore. Vulcans and Romuluns rejoining; Federation timeships, and their limits on future-traveling; exploring more of the Gamma and Delta Quadrants, just to name a few things.
Agreed. Star Trek honestly could be restricted to a 100 year time frame and the stories would be the same style. Which is why DSC appeals more than most legacy pieces out there (aside from Pike, which is my Trek guilty pleasure). I would love to see more "out there" stuff than legacy stuff.
Seconded.
The Universe-class was intended to be an intergalactic explorer.
Besides, PIC already overrode that by establishing the USS Leondegrance going extragalactic in the 24th century.
Non-canon background info from Doug Drexler and a never-seen-on-screen plaque by Geoffrey Mandel. Neither are in any way binding.
Thanks for clarifying. I double-checked on Memory Alpha: https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/USS_Leondegrance
Mandel’s plaque appears on screen.
Enterprise-J also was only seen in an alternate timeline so you could just say it didn't exist in the regular timeline. I thought it's tech about exploring galaxies in the 26th century was too much at first but I warmed up to it. I did find it weird, according to Memory Alpha, the Federation was only 350 planets at it's peak, whether that's just before the Burn or way before, I'm not sure. It was 150 around First Contact so I figured by the next millennium it would be over a thousand, if not more.
Star Trek Discovery season 4 takes place in the 32nd century and establishes that many major incidents have occurred which have shaped the galaxy in major ways, nearly all in negative and almost post apocalyptical ways. The biggest events of which are the collapse of the Federation, it’s reformation and also the burn.
It’s almost like all progression in the Star Trek universe has been lost, and no matter what happens in any possible future Star Trek series set in the 800 hundred years between the 24th and 32nd century it would all pretty much be for nothing. It’s almost as if the writers have boxed off hundreds of years worth of Star Trek history from any meaningful progression of the timeline which is true to the series original vision.
The burn prevented the use of warp drives for example… does this mean that in the preceding 800 years the Federation never developed transwarp or slipstream drives? Was an alliance never formed with the Borg co-operative which led to peace throughout the quadrants? We don’t hear from the Klingon’s any more either as far as I know…
Unless there is a big reset at the end of Discovery, any Star Trek series created in the era of 24th-32nd century would essentially be a prequel and severely limited in scope and doomed to an apocalyptic reset.
A franchise continuation post 32nd century could work…
An Optimistic future should not be a perfect one. Optimistic future doesn't mean there should be no adversity to overcome.
Similar threads
