A mistake to go to the 32nd century

[eschaton]

There are some vague indications of an "evolved sensibility," but in demonstration, these folks, whether it be Scotty, Tom Paris, or Tilly, are just character-types plucked from the time in which the episodes were written. Which is fine. It isn't about what century it's set it. That's just a dramatic convention, a tool, a backdrop upon which the story may reflect our current humanity. It's also about appealing to a broad audience. That's what I've come to expect from Star Trek and I think Discovery delivers that pretty well.

I agree that the main characters need to be relatable, so having them hew to modern social norms makes sense.

However, in the case of Discovery, the main characters were almost all 23rd century, even after going to the 32nd. The future was the "alien setting" for them, much as the Delta Quadrant was for Voyager.

 

[Lord Garth]

This was one of the things I didn't like about the third season. They could've done way, way, wayyyy more with such a different time. And they took care of the Emerald Chain too quickly. It doesn't ruin the season for me, but I can't deny there was a lot of untapped potential.

I don't hold it against the fourth and fifth season though, because what's done is done. And the only reason to move DSC to the 32nd Century was to get it out of being a prequel. It was an odd show to be a prequel to begin with. I like that DSC is far, far away from anything TOS or TNG-related. I don't think DSC should've jumped to the 25th Century, as that would've just made it Picard by another name.

 

[Lord Garth]

I agree that the main characters need to be relatable, so having them hew to modern social norms makes sense.

However, in the case of Discovery, the main characters were almost all 23rd century, even after going to the 32nd. The future was the "alien setting" for them, much as the Delta Quadrant was for Voyager.

I think a compromise would've been to do another one-year time-jump. If they didn't want to go over all that "boring" stuff, they could've had it happen off-screen but still acknowledge that it did happen.

 

[Sci]

But they couldn't even commit to the idea there was technological regression. Tech was alternatively depicted as futuristic (when they wanted to awe the audience with things like "programmable matter" or "detached nacelles," or completely comprehensible to the Discovery crew.

But that makes sense. Things like that don't exist on a linear scale -- when technological infrastructure breaks down, it's not like every piece of advanced technology ceases to exist or function. Realistically, there would be places where advanced technology has become more rare and places where it's still common, simply because some places would be wealthier (and therefore better-able to maintain their infrastructure) than others.

Sometimes they suggested there was a reversion to a more primitive social order, but other times it seemed to suggest that other than warp travel being kind of rare, and a paring back of interstellar relations, there wasn't any loss at all.

I mean, Earth, Ni'Var, and Trill were de facto cut off from the rest of the galaxy for more than a century. That's kind of a big loss. Plenty of worlds on the periphery were cut off and reverted to being warlord territory. Other worlds seem to have maintained interstellar connections, while others were cut off but at least kept their planetbound democracies going. This is all stuff we saw in canon.

Worse still IMHO was how culturally stagnant everything was. Yeah, Vulcans and Romulans joined together, and Andorians became bad guys.

Vulcans and Romulans reunited, and the Romulans have become the biggest pro-Federation faction on Ni'Var. I would not say that the Andorians "became the bad guys" -- the fact that a capitalist dictatorship seems to have seized control of Andor doesn't make the Andorians the bad guys anymore than Pinochet seizing control of Chile made the Chileans "the bad guys." But either way, those are pretty huge deals!

But It would have been nice to see pacifist Klingons,

Yeah, I'm curious about the fate of the 32nd Century Klingons as well.

Communist Ferengi,

I would have loved that. We did see a Ferengi Starfleet officer, though.

Cardassians as fierce defenders of democracy.

We did see that, in the person of Federation President Laira Rilik. We also saw through the fact of her status as a Cardassian/Bajoran hybrid that Cardassia and Bajor seem to have finally reconciled. You can reasonably argue we should have seen more about this, but we did quite literally see a Cardassian as a fierce defender of democracy!

While I think it was an inspired idea to not have Earth part of the Federation (I hate the Earth-centric aspect of Trek's setting - it makes humanity seem "first among equals")

Agreed.

I think they should have gone the whole nine yards and had Federation HQ almost entirely staffed by non-humans, that races which were formerly "enemies" of the Federation became the strongest defenders of its values, much as northern Europe embraced the legacy of Greece and Rome despite not having a direct connection. At the very least they should have had some plotlines related to culture shock; realizing how much the mores and social norms of the 32nd century clashed with their own.

Those would also have been cool, but I'm honestly not sure how both budget and time constraints imposed by the 10-episode orders would have allowed for that.

Either way, I think DIS gave us more of what you're asking for than you give it credit for giving.

I think a compromise would've been to do another one-year time-jump. If they didn't want to go over all that "boring" stuff, they could've had it happen off-screen but still acknowledge that it did happen.

Didn't we basically have that, though? It seemed like a decent chunk of time had passed between S3 and S4 when "Kobayashi Maru" premiered.

 

[Lord Garth]

^ I would've had a separate gap placed between Episodes 5 and 6 of Season 3.

But the S3-S4 gap works just as well and I don't fault Season 4 for having the crew already used to the 32nd Century. It's good to have an adjustment at first, but -- especially for a TV show -- they would've had to move things along and get past that at a certain point.

 

[FederationHistorian]

@Brainsucker

Your premise is fundamentally flawed. You said that only bridge crew were developed from a certain point onwards, whereas the reality is the likes of Reese, Bryce, Detmer and Owesekun remain as undeveloped as they were in early seasons.

The characters who get a spotlight in Season 4 are Book (not even Starfleet), Zora (another independent entity), Kovich (not bridge crew), Rillak (not bridge crew), Vance (not bridge crew) and Tarka (again, not Starfleet).

Maybe you should remind us all of the episodes where Reese or Detmer (both bridge crew) got a spotlight in Season 4? Or Owosekun/Bryce?

You'll have a job though, because those episodes don't exist.

The only conclusion I can draw is that you didn't actually watch the episodes if that's what you think happened, as evidently it did not.

And with that I'm done. I don't have time for bullshit, bad faith arguments.

The fact you can't remember Bryce being commend by Saru early in S4 for his hobby knowledge being of benefit to the crew, or Reno getting spotlight late in S4 pretty proves Brainsucker’s point. The character that replaced Lorca, Pike, Spock, and Georgiou are weak and forgettable, even if you want to like them.

And you might not think anything of the middle deckers on the bridge getting promoted. But promotions were a stickler for Kim on VOY, and Travis and Hoshi on ENT and still count as development and a sign that the characters matter.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

The fact you can't remember Bryce being commend by Saru early in S4 for his hobby knowledge being of benefit to the crew, or Reno getting spotlight late in S4 pretty proves Brainsucker’s point. The character that replaced Lorca, Pike, Spock, and Georgiou are weak and forgettable, even if you want to like them.

And you might not think anything of the middle deckers on the bridge getting promoted. But promotions were a stickler for Kim on VOY, and Travis and Hoshi on ENT and still count as development and a sign that the characters matter.

I see you’re having a fine night of it. That’s the third post tonight where you’ve tried to start a fight.

So what are you going to say next?

 

[FederationHistorian]

I see you’re having a fine night of it. That’s the third post tonight where you’ve tried to start a fight.

So what are you going to say next?

So, because I decided to respond to a few posts of yours, I’m trying to "start a fight"? Even though I had made several posts that day, not all of them a reply to something you posted. You post so many times per day, every day, that I do not have time to reply to them all. But okay.

Let me get this straight: when you are dismissive towards someone’s post – even when that post is made in good faith - or play spoiler in difference of opinion, its okay. But when someone else has a different opinion from you, or is dismissive of your posts, its starting "a fight”? I’m understanding that correctly, right? And, based from observations from other discussions, its okay for you to join in and gang up on a person who’s opinion or viewpoint you disagree with. But if you are outnumbered and considered to be on the wrong side of the discussion, that’s completely wrong and unacceptable.

You are permanently blocked. I don’t normally block anyone, but I’ll make an exception for you. I’m done talking to you and trying to have conversations with you. It’s a pattern I see with you. You have opinions that are different and then someone decide to respond to it. And you either run away from it, or you dismiss someone, or don’t want that persona to reply to you again, or be unpleasant and claim they aren’t wanted on the board, or accuse someone of wanting to start a fight. And no one can do the same thing to you. Even though in every situation, there are still people on the other end. You are a troll. Even though everyone continues to try and engage you in good faith, like they try to engage in good faith with everyone else, its clear what you are. I even tried to make peace with you and support some of your post after my blow up at you on the ENT board last year. And said nothing about you returning to that discussion, despite you originally claiming that you wouldn’t be coming back to it. It’s clear that its not possible anymore. Since you’d rather have an attitude because you were talked to.

I’m done with your double standard bullshit and am moving on. Bye.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

So, because I decided to respond to a few posts of yours, I’m trying to "start a fight"? Even though I had made several posts that day, not all of them a reply to something you posted. You post so many times per day, every day, that I do not have time to reply to them all. But okay.

Let me get this straight: when you are dismissive towards someone’s post – even when that post is made in good faith - or play spoiler in difference of opinion, its okay. But when someone else has a different opinion from you, or is dismissive of your posts, its starting "a fight”? I’m understanding that correctly, right? And, based from observations from other discussions, its okay for you to join in and gang up on a person who’s opinion or viewpoint you disagree with. But if you are outnumbered and considered to be on the wrong side of the discussion, that’s completely wrong and unacceptable.

You are permanently blocked. I don’t normally block anyone, but I’ll make an exception for you. I’m done talking to you and trying to have conversations with you. It’s a pattern I see with you. You have opinions that are different and then someone decide to respond to it. And you either run away from it, or you dismiss someone, or don’t want that persona to reply to you again, or be unpleasant and claim they aren’t wanted on the board, or accuse someone of wanting to start a fight. And no one can do the same thing to you. Even though in every situation, there are still people on the other end. You are a troll. Even though everyone continues to try and engage you in good faith, like they try to engage in good faith with everyone else, its clear what you are. I even tried to make peace with you and support some of your post after my blow up at you on the ENT board last year. And said nothing about you returning to that discussion, despite you originally claiming that you wouldn’t be coming back to it. It’s clear that its not possible anymore. Since you’d rather have an attitude because you were talked to.

I’m done with your double standard bullshit and am moving on. Bye.

Wow. Well, that's something.

Have you finished saying everything you want to say now or is there some more?

 

[cooleddie74]

And the only reason to move DSC to the 32nd Century was to get it out of being a prequel. It was an odd show to be a prequel to begin with. I like that DSC is far, far away for anything TOS or TNG-related. I don't think DSC should've jumped to the 25th Century, as that would've just made it Picard by another name.

Agreed on every point here even if my feelings for Season 3 as a whole might be more positive than yours since the move from the 23rd to the 32nd century was I felt a needed change of venue for a series that just didn't feel right slotted into a time period just ten years before TOS. The fact that DSC is now happening in the 3190s means it can now do its own thing unfettered by 99.99% of established in-universe visual continuity as well as storytelling and make its own mark as the Trek that started out as a prequel but ended up as the latest sequel of them all.

I do believe the Emerald Chain was defeated far too easily and the overall threat from the Chain never seemed as real as those of 22nd, 23rd and 24th century enemies we'd seen threaten Earth and then the Federation in earlier series in the franchise. The Chain was interesting but never as interesting as Book or even the Discovery crew adjusting to their new timeframe.

 

[Lord Garth]

Agreed on every point here even if my feelings for Season 3 as a whole might be more positive than yours

I don't think I'd argue with that. "Calypso" set my expectations too high, and I don't think the third season benefitted from wrapping everything up at the very end. We won't even get into First Officer Tilly or the Su'Kal Scream ("But it's like TOS!" Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, but that doesn't mean I was thrilled with it).

But still, I like DSC Season 3 better than PIC Season 2. Which probably sounds back-handed, even though it's not meant to be.

 

[cultcross]

Remember to keep discussion on the topic and not on each other please, and it possible to disagree without the antagonism and accusations.

 

[Annorax849]

I was definitely not a fan of jumping that far (800 years from 24th) into the future, but there could be somewhat of an explanation why it seems like they didn't advance as much as they could have. The Temporal Cold War (and later wars) seemed to start around the 28th century (maybe even 26th given the Xindi storyline), and it's possible the UFP put almost all of its resources into time exploration technology around that point, leading to stagnation and possibly decline in other areas. And as soon the wars, end, the Burn happens. So 800 years of advances becomes 400 years.

 

[vulcancicada]

I don't think it was a mistake per se. For me it was more the writing wasn't as tight as the first two seasons. Season 3 held my attention well until towards the end. There is a bit too much going on in season 3 and they didn't really utilise Burnham's head start into the time period. And there's a lot of federation dogma, for better or worse, which doesn't gel so much with the kind of flawed federation that was portrayed in the first two seasons. It might have been more interesting if they had explored how to have 'principles' or 'morals' without some kind of government guidance/ideology. Nevertheless, I haven't seen season 4, but season 3 is still great tv.

 

[WarpTenLizard]

It should've been a post-Voyager setting to begin with. Those fancy gold uniforms and funky ship would've been believable abd fantastic for the next era of Starfleet.

 

[Dukhat]

The only reason the 32nd century was chosen was because of the Calypso Short Trek. Unfortunately, while the original intent was to follow up on Calypso (with evidence such as the implied non-existence of the Federation and Starfleet, and the syncope 'V'Draysh' in the first few episodes of S3), things quickly changed and we got a Federation and Starfleet that was not all that different from the 23rd, 24th, or 25th centuries, other than ships with floating parts and programmable matter. If Calypso didn't exist, it would be questionable if the ship would have even went into the future, or if it did, that it wouldn't have gone so far. Perhaps the mid 25th century post-Voyager.