A post-fall Federation woud probably be busy with rebuilding and not discovering, as the title suggests. On the other hand, Bacco did send Titan an on exploratory mission after Destiny. It would probably depend on the size of the fall. Also there are more interesting things in a post-fall Federation than discovering something. My money is on the TOS-prequel.
I'm guessing that it has some connection to TOS. I kind of doubt they could have gotten Meyer interested in the show without that.
I'm pretty confident that most inconsistencies between what we've seen in the novels and what we'll see on-screen in Discovery can be reconciled, as long as it is a prequel, which I believe it to be, and as has obviously been suggested, or it is set concurrently with TOS or immediately following it (older ship, refit and put back into action, just like the Enterprise), which is really what I want, frankly. I mean KRAD did a great job reconciling the Final Reflection depiction of Klingons with the TNG and TOS movie era depictions with the IKS Gorkon series and some of the Rihannsu stuff was folded into book canon by the Vulcan's Soul trilogy as well as the ENT-relaunch novels. We did it with the Andorians too! I just see continuity problems as potential story-fodder, and I frankly can't wait to read newer Trek-lit referencing events from Discovery. Like everybody else, I worry that we'll see Destiny and the aftermath possibly overwritten, but I think we may be safe for now.
I honestly don't understand this reckless haste to cubbyhole Discovery as a TOS prequel based solely on the registry number. Everyone's forgetting that the Constellation had a number in the same range, and that the ship is based on a design from a post-TOS movie project. Not to mention that it's just test footage and we don't even know if that's the actual number.
Since Bryan Fuller said that the registry number was significant, I'd say it's likely the actual number they're going to use on the show. I doubt he'd call our attention to it otherwise.
Bryan Fuller confirms Star Trek: Discovery is set 10 years prior to TOS (plus with a female lead): http://www.deadline.com/2016/08/star-trek-discovery-bryan-fuller-cbs-all-access-1201801698/ So...Pike-era, then (approximately circa "The Cage"/ Greg's Child of Two Worlds, or just afterward). Some more details (taken from another site): Discovery will delve into a part of Starfleet history that has been spoken of but never shown up until now (and that Fuller is fascinated by). He said it was his chance to "Dig deep into something that for me was always very tantalizing." The lead character is not a captain, but is a lieutenant commander, though Fuller than added that title came "with caveats." He liked not focusing on the captain for a change to give "a different perspective," noting the main character will have "a different dynamic and relationship to the crew" than the main characters in other Trek series. He said that this lead character, on her mission with the crew, will learn "how to get along with others in the galaxy," adding, "For her to truly understand something that is truly alien, she first has to understand herself." He confirmed his prior statements from Comic-Con that the show is set in the Prime Universe (the original universe that is, not the alternate reality created in the current movie-series), and stressed again this will be a much more serialized series than Trek has been typically. "We’ll probably have a few more aliens than you normally do in a Star Trek cast," he said. The aliens will include both new races and some re-imaginings of existing races. He is prepared for some purists to bemoan any alterations of designs from how they originally looked, but felt they had to reflect that they were making the show in 2016, with modern technology and makeup. There will "absolutely" be a gay character on the show. Fuller's fellow EP Alex Kurtzman told him they should have a gay character, but Fuller was already planning it. Fuller, a lifelong Trek fan who wrote for Star Trek: Voyager early in his career, still has some vicious hate-mail that show received when there were rumors that Seven of Nine would be gay, and also noted that on his FOX show Wonderfalls, made in 2004, they couldn’t show a lesbian-kiss. He added, "We’ve come a long way since then." With the show set so close to Kirk's time, "We can play with all the iconography of those ships and those uniforms." The ship design seen in the San Diego Comic-Con teaser (which was made specifically for SDCC) is still being tweaked a bit from that footage. They approached the ship design like a race car -- a Lamborghini. There's a bit of a James Bond influence there, as well, Fuller noted, also confirming that they were influenced by Ralph McQuarrie's work on a never-made Star Trek movie from the 1970s. When asked if Amanda Grayson (Spock's mom!) could show up, Fuller responded, "Maaaaaybe." She’s not someone the show centers on, but he loves the character. Fuller is also open to bringing in other familiar characters, including members of the classic show's bridge-crew in guest roles (such as, say, a younger Dr. McCoy), but he wants to establish his main cast first. There will probably be slightly more graphic content than on past Trek shows, since the series is on CBS All Access. They’re discussing language-limits, and if it feels appropriate to have characters sometimes curse. Right now, they are likely going to film different versions, and decide in editing which to go with. There were many attempts to guess what event Star Trek: Discovery is set around, and Fuller shot down the following theories, saying the show is not set around Axanar, Kobayashi Maru, or Section 31. But he did note the Federation event he's referring to is referenced in the original series. Fuller hasn’t made it specific in the writing whether the (non-lead) captain is male or female, so that's still to be determined, as casting has not happened yet. There is an alien named "Seru" who Fuller said has "a wide..." But then he stopped himself. He'd love to use actors he's previously worked with, which is a Fuller-trademark anyway. It will all come down to schedules. Filming on the show begins in two months, so we'll be getting more plot-updates at that point.
Also, was just on another forum, and reading posts from people about how the new female commanding officer "not [technically] being a captain" reinforces the Janice Lester-dialogue from "Turnabout Intruder" about there being no female Starfleet captains prior to The Voyage Home. ...Totally ignoring, y'know...Erika Hernandez, etc. etc. (But one particular poster actually even went so far as to argue that "ENT shit all over Star Trek canon" every chance it got, so it doesn't really count.)
It's now confirmed that Star Trek: Discovery will be set in the Prime Universe, 10 years before Kirk's 5-year mission. That makes it sometime around the year 2255. I knew it! The first time I saw the teaser it screamed it was gonna be pre-TOS! I love it! I hope it looks and feels like "The "Cage".
Super excited. This seems (IMHO) like best option. You've got ten years of fresh territory, plus, if more shows continue this Trek story, or we have a Supernatural situation, a parallel narrative to TOS would be, in a word...fascinating. That aside, this also seems like a good play for the book fans. The possibility always exists, as Christopher has pointed out, that the series could contradict knowledge about certain races or events, but in largely staying clear of the 24th century, maybe most of the LitVerse can remain largely consistent with what we'll see on-screen. Plus, we're going to get so much more lore to play with on screen and in novel form! Exciting stuff! Has the question ever been definitively answered as to whether or not the current crop of authors can reference DSC in future novels, legally speaking? I would assume so; Prime Universe, on CBS--doesn't seem to be an issue.
I'm no expert, but from a strictly licensing perspective I can't see any problems. The way the show is set up could be problematic, with it being one story spread over a season leave less of a chance of their being "between the episode" timeframes where you can set a novel. Maybe between the seasons could work, but practically speaking something like that would have to wait until something is known about the show's second season, so you don't step on the toes of the show's writers.
I'm really very surprised by this news. I would've thought this was the last place the creators of a new Trek series would've wanted to go. Ten years before TOS in the Prime Universe seems like an extremely restrictive setting, putting a lot of limits on what they can do. At least the Kelvin Timeline is an alternate history, so they can go wherever they want with events in that time frame. I mean, sure, it sounds like they're going to be forward-looking in the casting and characterizations, modern in the storytelling style and content, etc., so hopefully it will still have the kind of innovation that Star Trek should have. But that's within a rather limiting framework of fitting something new into an established setting and trying to be consistent with the way three centuries in the future was depicted half a century in the past. Which, sure, is the same thing we tie-in authors do, but that's kind of why it's so surprising -- because we're just tie-in authors. What we do is just about supplementing the canon. These guys get to create their own new canon. So I wonder why they chose to do it this way. I guess we'll find out next year.
It's an interesting way to expand the universe by updating to include stuff that was, in a way, always there. Something like what Vanguard did, telling a very '00s story inside a '60s-influenced milieu and, in a way, showing the 2260s don't have to be held captive by the 1960s. I expect "Rogue One" is going to do something similar with the world of Star Wars, being redonkulously faithful to the production design of the '77 original, but also building on it so that the setting of the original Star Wars can include it's '70s influence while also growing beyond it (I can't comment so much on the content of the film as the look, what with it not being out and all, but I'm assuming the larger ethos of the movie is consistent with the props, costumes, and effects). Which, as noted, is something tie-in material has done since the beginning of time. We'll see if DSC is as faithful to the look of pre-TOS as R1 is to the look of Star Wars (which I doubt, because R1 is pulling out all the stops in terms of fidelity to A New Hope, specifically, though, on the other hand, Trek did give us "In a Mirror, Darkly"), but this is an interesting era to be entering where older SFF content is being treated as if they were period pieces instead of imaginary worlds that can be retconned and reimagined without much trouble. I'm still trying to figure out what that unexplored TOS backstory is. Also, I know it probably won't happen, but I'd love a guest spot by Bruce Greenwood as Pike-Prime.
Fuller is brilliant at giving himself extremely restrictive timeline/canon limitations and writing his way around them. If you had told me a few years ago that he'd make a two-season, 26-episode prequel to Red Dragon, and a 7-part mash-up of Hannibal and Hannibal Rising (the two sh-- Lecter novels) and a 6-part remake of Manhunter/Red Dragon, and that it would all be highly acclaimed I'd call you crazy. He's been talking about wanting to make a TOS-era Trek series with a black female lead for about eight years now. I'm sure he's got a solid gameplan in place.
He's also said for years that he wanted Angela Bassett for the lead. It'll be interesting to see if his wish comes true. He wanted Rosario Dawson to play a role too, but I think she might be too busy with the Marvel Television/Netflix projects.
10 years before TOS? Reimagined visuals? The retcons are coming! The retcons are coming! [/Lex Luthor]
I will keep my comments simply to this... So long as CBS and Pocket agree... The Litverse is saved. Long live the Litverse!
Yeah, but in both the Star Wars movies and the tie-in novels, those revisits and prequels are alongside other works that move the timeline forward. Now we have two coexisting Trek series, one in movies and one on TV, that are both revisiting the 2250s/60s. Then again, I've had the thought before that it's hard to move the Trek universe too far forward and still keep it accessible to a mainstream audience, because there are too many 24th-century technologies whose ramifications would make fundamental changes to the nature of existence if they were carried forward to their logical conclusion. For instance, there are multiple potential paths to immortality -- brain downloads into androids or holograms or "A Man Alone"-style clones, nanites that heal all injury, fountain-of-youth radiation, etc. (I tried to give a hint of this in DTI: The Collectors.) Advance the tech too far and civilization becomes too unfamiliar for the casual viewer -- as opposed to the prose science fiction audience, which is generally open to more radical depictions of future or alternate civilizations. But that's what concerns me about the future of Trek. It was created to be forward-looking, to be a vision of the future and to be on the cutting edge of television SF and television drama. True, there was a certain element of nostalgia built into it -- the evocation of Western tropes, the use of Earth-duplicate worlds as an excuse to save money by recycling historical costumes and props -- but it was mainly about looking forward. I don't want it to become seen as just some retro thing, some nostalgic relic of an earlier time. Again, I'm sure that with Fuller at the helm and with its diverse writing staff, it will be pushing forward in terms of its style of writing and characterization. It'll finally include a gay character, it'll be more serialized than ever, it'll be more adult and uncensored, etc. So it's not like it'll be some fan film slavishly trying to copy TOS. Still, I feel it'd have more freedom if it were doing something completely new rather than trying to mesh modern storytelling with a nostalgic setting. I doubt they'd have anything more extensive than something like McCoy's "Farpoint" cameo. Spinoff shows in their debut seasons generally try to establish their own independent identity and avoid riding too heavily on prior characters or continuity -- note how Supergirl avoided having Superman appear in season 1, though he's now showing up in person in season 2. TNG had a brief, anonymous McCoy cameo in its pilot, then a rehash of "The Naked Time" which was widely criticized for being too imitative, but otherwise strove to be as disconnected from TOS as possible. With only 13 episodes, I'm sure this debut season will be focused on its own original characters. And that's how it should be. Honestly, if I were in Fuller's shoes, I'd be frustrated if I announced something new of my own and the only thing anyone seemed to care about was whether I'd rehash pre-existing characters from other shows. I'm hoping for Nicole Beharie. She's free now... Doesn't work that way. Pocket's job is to follow CBS's lead. Tie-ins are merely a supplement to the main work. They are not on an equal footing. The show will be free to establish whatever it wants, and the books will simply have to adapt to that new reality. This is how it has always been. Canon is "history," and tie-ins are just "historical fiction." They're conjectures about what might have happened between the events we know. New canon is like newly uncovered history, and the historical fiction simply has to adapt to those new findings. After all, the "Litverse" is just one of several mutually contradictory tie-in lines, alongside IDW's comics and Star Trek Online. Why should CBS give privileged treatment to one of its tie-in lines over the others?