Spoilers Has Discovery destroyed the possibility of any positive progression until after the 32nd Century?

[Agony_Boothb]

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…

I genuinely don't understand this line of thinking. Discovery being in a 32nd century setting is no different to setting TNG 70 years after TOS. Discovery just can't win can it. If you set it during TOS it breaks canon, if you set it far into the future it prevents canon from being created apparently. What puerile way of looking at things.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I genuinely don't understand this line of thinking. Discovery being in a 32nd century setting is no different to setting TNG 70 years after TOS. Discovery just can't win can it. If you set it during TOS it breaks canon, if you set it far into the future it prevents canon from being created apparently. What puerile way of looking at things.

The main difference between TNG and Discovery, is that TNG is set a few decades after an era that was wrapping up, and only had a few movies left in it. Discovery, on the other hand, is set after the majority of Star Trek, so all they have to do is say 'no one's travelled out to other galaxies' and that possibility is cut off for Lower Decks, Prodigy, Strange New Worlds, a hypothetical Titan series and all the other shows that follow. Unless they pull a 'Spore Drive' and have those events classified.

 

[Soong-type Android]

The main difference between TNG and Discovery, is that TNG is set a few decades after an era that was wrapping up, and only had a few movies left in it. Discovery, on the other hand, is set after the majority of Star Trek, so all they have to do is say 'no one's travelled out to other galaxies' and that possibility is cut off for Lower Decks, Prodigy, Strange New Worlds, a hypothetical Titan series and all the other shows that follow. Unless they pull a 'Spore Drive' and have those events classified.

They also can't destroy the Earth if they wanted to or dissolve the Federation or eradicate the Vulcans.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

The main difference between TNG and Discovery, is that TNG is set a few decades after an era that was wrapping up, and only had a few movies left in it. Discovery, on the other hand, is set after the majority of Star Trek, so all they have to do is say 'no one's travelled out to other galaxies' and that possibility is cut off for Lower Decks, Prodigy, Strange New Worlds, a hypothetical Titan series and all the other shows that follow. Unless they pull a 'Spore Drive' and have those events classified.

If the writers want to do something they will just do it regardless of random lines of dialogue or what has been shown on screen previously.

The Federation existing into the 32nd century hasn't prevented Picard Season 3 from featuring a plot to destroy the Federation nor has the mention of warp drive alternatives failing prevented the use of them in Prodigy. Apparently no one had ever heard of the Borg until 2365 but then Voyager decided to retcon that. First contact with the Klingons was apparently disastrous and led to centuries of conflict until Enterprise showed us it didn't really. Earth nearly got wiped out in the late 22nd century by an alien race no one had ever heard of previously but that was never mentioned in TNG, VOY or DS9.

Being set in the 32nd Century has also allowed Discovery to add to canon. Mentions of Iconian survivors and the last contact with mirror universe, makes one think about the crews and the ships that dealt with those situations. 800 years is a long time to fill in and it means the possibilities are still endless.

 

[fireproof78]

They also can't destroy the Earth if they wanted to or dissolve the Federation or eradicate the Vulcans.

Someone show me the script to destroy Earth in a Star Trek show. That's unbelievable on its face.

 

[urbandk]

A bit of a devils advocate on this one...but if the 32nd century Academy series flops...and if SNW S2 does not, what will that say as to what the fanbase and community wants?

If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon

 

[Agony_Boothb]

A bit of a devils advocate on this one...but if the 32nd century Academy series flops...and if SNW S2 does not, what will that say as to what the fanbase and community wants?

Discovery supposedly 'flopped' five years ago and it's led to a reviving of the 24th/25th century trek adventures and also to two direct spin-offs. So you tell me what exactly it is the community wants, because as far as I can tell different segments want different things.

 

[F. King Daniel]

A bit of a devils advocate on this one...but if the 32nd century Academy series flops...and if SNW S2 does not, what will that say as to what the fanbase and community wants?

Why the need for only one type of Star Trek show? You don't have to watch them all. I like Marvel, but you think I'm gonna watch She Hulk?

 

[urbandk]

If anything, Discovery has been really cautious about telling backstory about events in the 32nd century. There was the temporal cold war, Vulcan romulan reunificacion, and the burn. Alternative propulsion options are kinda glossed over. Presumably they still use dilithium. So what? Quantum slipstream could use dilithium.

In fact I heard some podcaster complain that Discovery never took enough ownership of the Trek universe, as a dig on Discovery. Another no win scenario for Discovery. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Look what's already happening with multiple shows in the late 24th century. We've got nearly a rehash of the prodigy finale in the offing for Picard. We've got all the lunacy of LDS happening in the background. Maybe the Face is a pakled. I mean, come on.

Thank god Discovery (and now the Academy show) are far enough out not to care about all the storylines and drama of the post TNG era.

 

[Tarek71]

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…

No, I would completely ignore Disco. In the same way that the TNG "All Good Things..." future is not the one portrayed in Picard. I would relegate Disco to it's own timeline. But even if they keep it nominally within the basic "Prime Universe" setting they can just say that it portrayed one possible future. I would take the early 25th Centure of Picard as the main setting for further Trek stories in the Prime timeline and have an open ended future.

 

[Tarek71]

Showing Interstellar beaming, Time traveling Red Angel suits, and instantaneous point to point Warp Jumping that is faster even than Borg transwarp never really fit with the 23rd Century, but in the Kelvin and Discoverse they decided on introducing very advanced tech even while setting the stories 100years before TNG.

I wished they had just embraced that the Borg in 2063 and the 2150s in Enterprise had left 24th century tech to be recovered by Section 31 and Starfleet and that is what leads to interstellar beaming, timesuits and radical advances in propulsion and in so doing creates a new timeline that is not Prime OR Kelvin. The Discovery as a ship class built to test the advances being made by decades of exploiting and reverse engineering the Borg tech would have been a better route.

 

[eschaton]

I don't understand the point of the OP. It's like arguing there's no reason to watch historical fiction which takes place during the Roman era, because we all know the Roman Empire is going to eventually fall right?

The ultimate "end point" outside of a narrative doesn't matter - the story is about the journey of the characters within the narrative as presented. Sometimes additional emotional poignancy can be given in fact with the foreknowledge that the characters will not survive past the end of the narrative; that this is their last ride.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't understand the point of the OP. It's like arguing there's no reason to watch historical fiction which takes place during the Roman era, because we all know the Roman Empire is going to eventually fall right?

That's my biggest question. I recall when Titanic first came out and a classmate saw it 8 times in the theaters. It certainly wasn't because she didn't know the ending.

 

[CrockAlley]

This conceit implies that there are no stories to tell, no characters to investigate in that large time gap. Why not take it back a step and say that none of the past stories matter, because the Federation eventually fell to the Burn? That's silly. Don't think of Discovery as an all-encompassing shadow that walls off possibilities. Discovery, like any Trek, is merely a series of events and characters that exist for a brief time, leaving much fertile ground for storytelling both before and after.

 

[F. King Daniel]

If any future Trek wants to ignore something from Discovery, they will. Just like Discovery ignored smooth-headed Klingons.

 

[Omegaphallic]

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.

The might only include homeworlds, not colonies. So Earth, Vulcan, Betazed, Delta, etc..., not random colony of 100 or even 10 million people.

 

[Omegaphallic]

A bit of a devils advocate on this one...but if the 32nd century Academy series flops...and if SNW S2 does not, what will that say as to what the fanbase and community wants?

It depends on why SFA flops.

 

[El Maestro]

It depends on why SFA flops.

Also, the way the fanbase defines "flop" and the way Paramount would are different, I suspect. It almost kind of seems like some fans are trying to manifest SFA flopping because they have already decided it sucks.

 

[fireproof78]

Also, the way the fanbase defines "flop" and the way Paramount would are different, I suspect. It almost kind of seems like some fans are trying to manifest SFA flopping because they have already decided it sucks.

They are.

 

[Yistaan]

It just occurred to me that, no, the 32nd century seen in Discovery might not be definitive. How come?

Take the 2009 Kelvin movies. If Captain Jonathan Archer time traveled into the late 23rd century then there's an equal chance that he would end up in either the Kelvin timeline or the Prime timeline. From his perspective, either of these are perfectly legitimate futures for him to be in. Him time traveling forward to the Kelvin timeline does not negate the existence of the Prime Timeline.

Using this precedent, we have no reason to believe that Discovery's 32nd century future is the one the Trek tv timeline as we know it has to go into, especially considering there's a full fledged time war in between Picard and Trek that warped the timeline over a gazillion times more than Nero ever could.