Shh don't listen to him beloved Eisenberg class.
32nd century was a big mistake... BIG
- Thread starter ITDUDE
- Start date
The Axiom!
I'm sorry...what? We're missing the point (what point?) by not being horrified by your personal headcanon? Again, what?
Not the biggest fan of the huge jump. Could have easily been like 26th century, 20 years after "the burn" and the burn explanation itself was.. Unimpressive..
The concept of the galaxy, on a high, being brought down to "the stone age" for awhile is a decent concept, but with most of Trek, Great ideas, usually horrible follow thru. , like Top Gear, Ambitious, but rubbish.
Beaming badges, Data had a small transporter in Nemesis,
Separate parts of a ship.. Ok?
Programmable matter, Ok, could have easily been made by 26th century.
What else? As some have said before, 800 years latter and .. this is it? Still Phasers and Photon torpedoes, shields, warp. Thats it?
Star Trek: Final Frontier had a better concept.
The concept of the galaxy, on a high, being brought down to "the stone age" for awhile is a decent concept, but with most of Trek, Great ideas, usually horrible follow thru. , like Top Gear, Ambitious, but rubbish.
Beaming badges, Data had a small transporter in Nemesis,
Separate parts of a ship.. Ok?
Programmable matter, Ok, could have easily been made by 26th century.
What else? As some have said before, 800 years latter and .. this is it? Still Phasers and Photon torpedoes, shields, warp. Thats it?
Star Trek: Final Frontier had a better concept.
So, you don't know about Arthur C. Clarke's three laws.
His first law states 'When distinguished scientist states that something is impossible, he is almost certainly wrong, but when a distinguished scientist states that something is possible, he almost certainly right. ' A "distinguished" scientist is defined by him, as any scientist thirty or older.
His second law, states that the only way to determine the possible is go beyond them into the impossible.
His third law states any sufficiently advanced technology shall seem like magic.
It is not my personal head canon. It is logical conclusion.
Clarke's law is perfectly clear. Your post is the gibberish.
I only write in English.
The 32nd century wasn't a mistake but it was botched from the get-go. The Burn is caused by a disturbed Kelpian kid: kinda dumb. Random space gangs control the galaxy and have for years even though for much of that time there was little to no travel. etc. But it could have been made to work and be interesting. In the end Trek just cant get out from under its own uh legacy.
Letting it just be some hazy future from Calypso would have been fine (which is odd, since now Calypso is even further down the line) but they had to connect every dot. They didn't need to. They shouldn't have, but when writers are fans, and directors have a decades long association with the whole thing, the waters get muddied.
Letting it just be some hazy future from Calypso would have been fine (which is odd, since now Calypso is even further down the line) but they had to connect every dot. They didn't need to. They shouldn't have, but when writers are fans, and directors have a decades long association with the whole thing, the waters get muddied.
well in a way i kinda do not think it was a big mistake and why because it would be kinda in a way a sequel to all of the past star trek shows via reboot to kick off a new era in the star trek universe
"Trek never should have gone into the future future." Why exactly? I have no issue with some form of Trek going to the far future so the setting wasn't the issue for me.
"Delete Section 31 from archives" Yes absolutely agree with that. They should have continued with Lower Decks instead of making whatever that was supposed to be.
"Mark everything in 32nd century non-canon" Again, why? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean other people won't.
"Green light Star Trek Legacy": Would love to see that happen but what kind of a story would you be telling that would be differently from what we've already seen before?
"Fire Alex Kurtzman": His contract is apparently up at the end of this year so it may not be renewed which means you might just get your wish.
Yes, the words you used were English.
Unification III has entered the chat
The Guardian of Forever has entered the chat
The Progenitors have entered the chat
DS9 and The Sisko have entered the chat
The Doctor has entered the chat
My big problem with the 32nd century was always that it wasn't different enough from the "standard" ST universe to justify it being set 8 centuries in the future. Imo, nothing about the storylines or setting required or justified it being set that far into the future of the older shows.
That, combined with the mystery box storyline about the Burn quickly caused me to lose interest in it.
Unless there's something I'm missing, there was really no reason to place the narrative that far into the future, and every reason to place it closer to ST's "present". Say, in the 26th century.
I understand it, you still want your ST series being set in a universe that's recognisable as the ST universe, but...again that's why I wouldn't have advanced the timeline that far.
And yes, when it comes down to it, the timeline of the stories shouldn't matter all that much as long as the stories and characters are enjoyable. But...why include an element into your story/fictional universe without really taking advantage of it?
That, combined with the mystery box storyline about the Burn quickly caused me to lose interest in it.
Unless there's something I'm missing, there was really no reason to place the narrative that far into the future, and every reason to place it closer to ST's "present". Say, in the 26th century.
I understand it, you still want your ST series being set in a universe that's recognisable as the ST universe, but...again that's why I wouldn't have advanced the timeline that far.
And yes, when it comes down to it, the timeline of the stories shouldn't matter all that much as long as the stories and characters are enjoyable. But...why include an element into your story/fictional universe without really taking advantage of it?
YOU think they had poor writing. But you don't speak for anyone else, just yourself.
Not sure why you felt the need to say this? Murphy explicitly said "in my opinion" rather than trying to present their views as objective fact.
I have a LOT of issues with this show and this was one of them. It was a mistake but a mistake DISCO made - not SFA. I personally feel DISCO never should have been in the 23rd century for numerous reasons. They should have started in the late 25th or early 26th century and could have done this "reset" of the Trekverse from there.
Another issue I had with SFA + The Burn era is it made the same mistake of ENT. It tried to combine two interesting ideas and neither one was able to meet its full potential because it was too much. ENT tried to do the rise of the UFP + Temporal Cold War. Each one is enough for its own series and should not have been merged.
Same with SFA. Post-Burn universe and restoration of the UFP + Starfleet Academy. Each of those have too much to mash together and adequately explore. A post-Burn era and showing a restoration of the UFP would be its own show. SFA - watching burgeoning Starfleet officers learn about being officers, sacrifices asked of them, expectations asked of them, etc. would be its own show.
Another issue I had with SFA + The Burn era is it made the same mistake of ENT. It tried to combine two interesting ideas and neither one was able to meet its full potential because it was too much. ENT tried to do the rise of the UFP + Temporal Cold War. Each one is enough for its own series and should not have been merged.
Same with SFA. Post-Burn universe and restoration of the UFP + Starfleet Academy. Each of those have too much to mash together and adequately explore. A post-Burn era and showing a restoration of the UFP would be its own show. SFA - watching burgeoning Starfleet officers learn about being officers, sacrifices asked of them, expectations asked of them, etc. would be its own show.
