They can say whatever they want. They don’t make those choices.
Ok. What is the chance of a Picard spinoff?
- Thread starter ELCHawk
- Start date
They can say whatever they want. They don’t make those choices.
IIRC, Doug Drexler was the one who made the comments about Disco (more specifically the 32nd century) being a different timeline. Drexler's not in a position of authority, is known to be a bit of a loudmouth, and in this case was likely raging against the fact that Disco's version of the 32nd century is incompatible with his imagined 26th century, as outlined when he gave his own background on the Enterprise J.
There is nothing about Drexler’s ideas about the 26th century that is incompatible with the 32nd century as shown in Disco. There is gap of 600 years there, and there was something called the Temporal Wars taking place in between to explain the differences. Plus, Burnham and her crew are also notorious for lacking curiosity when it comes to history, which is odd for a science-based ship. Picard was an afterthought to them outside of his golem, after all! Its entirely possible that Drexler's vision is still around somewhere in the galaxy; the Disco crew haven't - at least at the time of this post - ever explored the Gamma or Delta Quadrants, or even Klingon or Cardassian/Bajoran/Ferengi space to ever find out.
But if it was revealed that the 32nd Disco entered was an alternate timeline, say the Kelvinverse version of the 32nd century, it would make things very interesting for Disco and the rest of Trek going forwards.
Not to mention Kovich referred to the Kelvin timeline as an alternate timeline.
A. Kelvin Spock is just a younger version of Nimoy’s Spock. And there’s no rule that say the events of “Unification” could not have happened in the Kelvinverse as well. At least it would explain where the recording of Spock came from.
B. Theoretically, Ni’Var could be New Vulcan for all they know. Discovery’s crew aren’t interested in history, at all.
Yor was wearing a TNG S1 uniform. Even if Yor’s from an alternate timeline, and he last hopped over from the Kelvin timeline, are they exactly sure he’s specifically from the Kelvin timeline?
No one with the authority to make that decision
Kovach said Yor is from an alternate timeline created by a Romulan mining ship.
No it has been confirmed to be the original Vulcan
I don't know which I believe less.
How much you're stretching for an explanation OR if you actually believe that explanation.
The writer's intent was the obvious "same timeline" one. Not the preposterously convoluted intent you're going for.
Trust me, they didn't go into the 32nd Century Kelvin Timeline.
In the show, they flat-out say that the Kelvin Timeline has diverged so far from their timeline that they can no longer travel to it. If I have to type out exact dialogue, I will.
.
.
.
.
Shifting my attention to others...
As far as differences between DSC/SNW and the rest of Star Trek: "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow" establishes there have been changes due to the Temporal War. The Eugenics Wars now take place in the mid-21st Century instead of the 1990s. If there was one change, there were others. Not that hard of a concept to grasp, unless you don't want to get it on purpose.
In this new version, the Eugenics Wars happen later, the mid-23rd Century looks different, everything else is pretty much the same. A 10-year-old could get it. Anyone who's read comic books, especially DC Comics, could get it.
As far as people with the Ultimate Authority: They're filthy rich Corporate Democrats or Country-Club Republicans, waiting to see who the Koch Family or Wall Street tells them to support, hanging out on their yachts after a "tough" day of playing golf. They've never seen an episode of Star Trek in their life. Their decree in the late-2010s was that CBS-brand Star Trek was "Prime" was a business decision, that was probably recommended by those "in the know" who were beneath them, and nothing more. It doesn't take into account any new developments because they hadn't happened yet. And I doubt they care about any new developments. They made their business decision and they'll stick to it, until it makes business sense to change it.
EDITED TO ADD: And aren't you all the people who are always saying, "canon and continuity are different things"? So, before someone tries to spin what I said, I think it's all Canon. Canon and how they fit together or don't fit together are two different things. For the things that don't look like they fit, I just gave my explanation for how that can be possible.
Last edited:
There's an argument to be made the 32nd century of Discovery is not the future of the other shows in the Prime Timeline.
Here's where the convoluted nature of time travel comes into play, and how one chooses to see how it works.
Discovery travelled into the future from a point of time in the 23rd century before any other changes. Unless we go with the idea that the timeline is continuing to evolve and time travel to the future takes into account all changes to a timeline in the years in-between, they would go into a future that's the future of the timeline that existed from the point they left.
If we go with Doc Brown's explanation, any change after they left would mean traveling to the future would mean they could only go to the future of "Timeline A," not the future of the timeline that's altered in the interim between when they left and the events of the other shows. It's the reason Marty and Doc can't go back to the future to stop Biff from stealing the Delorean, since that future exists in a different timeline and would NOT be the same timeline as the one experienced by the people who lived through the other changes in the 23rd and 24th centuries.
There's some support for this view of time travel within canon. When Daniels brings Archer to the Battle of Procyon 5 in Enterprise, it's a future that exists given the circumstances of the timeline at the moment Archer left. Given the Sphere Builders are defeated, the anomaly of the Expanse shouldn't fill the quadrant the way it does in that battle. Therefore, the circumstances of that timeline collapsed and traveling to the same date and moment in the future after the Sphere Builder's defeat should be totally different.
Here's where the convoluted nature of time travel comes into play, and how one chooses to see how it works.
Discovery travelled into the future from a point of time in the 23rd century before any other changes. Unless we go with the idea that the timeline is continuing to evolve and time travel to the future takes into account all changes to a timeline in the years in-between, they would go into a future that's the future of the timeline that existed from the point they left.
If we go with Doc Brown's explanation, any change after they left would mean traveling to the future would mean they could only go to the future of "Timeline A," not the future of the timeline that's altered in the interim between when they left and the events of the other shows. It's the reason Marty and Doc can't go back to the future to stop Biff from stealing the Delorean, since that future exists in a different timeline and would NOT be the same timeline as the one experienced by the people who lived through the other changes in the 23rd and 24th centuries.
There's some support for this view of time travel within canon. When Daniels brings Archer to the Battle of Procyon 5 in Enterprise, it's a future that exists given the circumstances of the timeline at the moment Archer left. Given the Sphere Builders are defeated, the anomaly of the Expanse shouldn't fill the quadrant the way it does in that battle. Therefore, the circumstances of that timeline collapsed and traveling to the same date and moment in the future after the Sphere Builder's defeat should be totally different.
Whether or not Yor originated from the Kelvin timeline or it was just the previous timeline he was in before coming over to the Prime Universe is immaterial to the fact that Kovich specifically referred to the Kelvin timeline as an alternate timeline, thereby proving that Disco is not currently set there as you previously asserted.
63,754... which is already more than twice the one that SNW got before it was green lit. And yes, some people seem threatened by Legacy.
I'm against SFA not just because I think it'll likely be bad, but because it's also a waste of limited financial resources and unlikely to succeed. Maybe others are against Legacy because it's likely ~to~ succeed?
As Terry Matalas said a year ago, not every fan was finding their flavor of Star Trek on offer post 2017. Why not serve everyone then?
Luckily Legacy could be made at half the cost of an early DISCOVERY season, and Matalas has a track record shooting in Toronto at $3MM an episode.
Not just Doug Drexler, but Dave Blass and others... who, in just one episode's background graphics, tied down the year TWOK took place and established what Uhura did post-TUC.
&
Everyone can appeal to different authorities. If the emperor isn't wearing any clothes, yet the authorities in power say that he is, officially he is, but in reality he isn't. Based on what's already been established about the Star Trek universe (and even in NuTrek with the Abramsverse), the best in-universe explanation is that DISCOVERY and SNW are an alternate timeline. Otherwise TOS and everything with direct call backs to it has all been overwritten.
Imagine someone moved World War II from the 1940s to the 1970s. Things would be a bit different today, yes? Different geopolitical situation. Different people alive and dead, let alone decedents. Ohhh but TNG moved World War III! Again, this can already be headcanoned away with a real world example of when World War II really started or ended being subjective. For Lithuania, it effectively ended in the 1990s!
The "canon and continuity are different things" part is a good observation. Often "oh but it's canon" is used as a cudgel on Twitter against people that post about not liking a NuTrek live action series. I think part of it comes down to some people liking that the more continuity minded fans get pissed off about it. Up until 2009, canon and continuity meant the same thing. Now Star Trek really is a multiverse.
I ultimately think they're going to call Discovery a Possible Future. I have nothing to base this on, other than a guess. Not today, not tomorrow, not a few years from now, but eventually. Why? Because I think they're not going to fully commit to the Far Future setting. I think they want the "default" era to be something recognizable, which means 23rd-25th Century.
So that would make Discovery kind of like the Batman Beyond of Star Trek.
My position since Day One (of the Kurtzman Era) has been there were three timelines.
Here's what I said on May 19th, 2017:
Then "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow" (SNW) came along and outright said what I thought for years. Nice of them to do that for me.
Last edited:
No.
Not why I'm skeptical.
That's not authoritative.
It's not reality. It's fantasy m
It always has been.
Lazarus.
Mirror Universe.
Parallels.
Kelvin Universe.
This is not new to the franchise.
I agree mostly.
TOS though has always been a separate thing to me than TNG, and TMP. They are connected but not literally so. The events happen, but on screen is a dramatization of those timeline's events.
It'll be awesome if Legacy happens and Matalas gets in a definitive enough reference to 12 MONKEYS that the entire series somehow gets ported over to Memory Alpha
You called it early!
Similar threads
