Spoilers A big hint about the finale/season 3 has dropped...
- Thread starter eschaton
- Start date
I literally addressed this in the post.
Since it's all in an undetermined future it can all be re-written by future shows as needed, so there's no need for the continuity gatekeepers to get upset that the Federation has fallen or is acting corrupt or evil.
It's bad enough people are overly beholden to past events from 50+ years of shows in determining how "present" shows should act, but now the shows have to adhere to how the Federation was depicted in a distant undetermined future? Because Daniels made one comment about the 28th century or Voyager did that one episode with the 29th century future cops all future incarnations of Trek have to take that into account and make sure we're working toward that specific future and never exceed its technology or change how the Federation is depicted or whether it even exists?
It's the future, it is by definition not set in stone. Knowledge of possible future events can cause you to make changes to those events, even unknowingly.
If you use those future references, it should be at most a guideline of where you might want to go. It should never be a limiting factor or treated like some kind of immutable future canon that can not be violated.
At the risk of sounding hypocritical it doesn't make me invested just because it's "new."
Dull and preachy doesn't strike me as something that could be a spectacular failure. YMMV.
That visit by the archaeologists and Future Guy are practically the only canonical things we know happen in the 28th century. We know a bit more about the 29th (timeships) and the 31st (Daniels time period). Discovery could clearly work itself around the few things we do know to ensure it's not an entirely new continuity.
Particularly if they decide to reset the timeline at the end of the current season to align better with existing continuity, it would be damn stupid to reset it again to align with continuity at the end of the 3rd season. It establishes a precedent that nothing matters in Discovery, because the stakes aren't real past the core crew.
I pretty strongly disagree with this. There is no "present" of the Trekverse, except insofar as each character is concerned. There are areas we know more or less about, but I don't see any reason to not treat the few things we know about post-Nemesis Trek with the same level of seriousness we do earlier continuity.
No, they're swinging big, which is something you praised before--even at the risk of failure. To paraphrase you from another conversation, "It's better to fail spectacularly than to not take risks."
Now, you're against that approach--apparently saying it inexplicably leads to "dull and preachy" despite no evidence of that!
So, to get this straight, you're now saying they should aim for something small and mediocre?!
They should aim to tell an engaging story. Nothing more, nothing less. Trying to win awards is a fools' errand.
I think that makes it better, it lets them tell stories about the people without fucking up continuity permanently. We know that Discovery has to be abandoned in the 23rd century in order to be adrift for a millennium to match up with Calypso. I don't think they'll defeat Control this season, I think it'll carry into the next with them stuck in the Control-timeline 28th century and tie it in with Calypso somehow. Maybe it'll be separate and Calypso and the V'draysh will be the focus of the 4th season.
Whatever happens I expect a reset eventually that affects the timeline but not the crew, like the end of the Temporal Cold War.
Based on some of Brannon Braga's quotes, maybe Discovery will end with--
Burnham: We're here in the 28th century. There's a lifeform reading on the planet below with highly advanced technology. Let's beam down and investigate.
Future Guy: Welcome Discovery crew. I've been expecting you.
(turns around to reveal an aged Scott Bakula as President Archer)
I dunno dude. There's very little continuity from the 28th century to screw up. Just have The Federation exist in some form. That's all you really need. It can be knocked back pretty far on its heels, only to come roaring back a century later. It can be going through a corrupt, inward focused period. The sky's the limit. But I think it would be a lot more narratively powerful to discover Burnham and the rest transformed a flagging Federation from a second rate power into one which sent out timeships only a century later (and turned into Daniels' Federation) to having some sort of escapades and then erasing everything they did with a single timeline alteration.
I mean, which is a better story?
1. A man from the future goes back in time and successfully turns around the Roman Empire through lots of hard work and adventure.
2. A man from the future goes back in time and ensures the Roman Empire never falls through changing one tiny little thing - which invalidates everything he did prior to that point.
I mean there is still the issue of Control existing in a big way in the 28th century. If the 28th century Discovery ends up in is the "correct" 28th century what was Control doing from the 2260s through the 2390s? Or are they going to end up in yet a different version of the 28th century?
I mean they've got like a half a dozen different things going on here.
1) Control in the 28th century
2) Time Traveling archaeologists in the 28th century
3) Temporal Integrity Commission in the 29th century
4) Daniels and the Temporal Agents in the 31st century
5) A lifeless galaxy in the 32nd century
6) The V'draysh in the 33rd century
Its like they threw paint against a wall and now are trying to connect the dots to make a picture.
By approaching the 28th century we are approaching a time where time travel is commonplace. It just makes things muddier.
This is not completely accurate. No actual date was said in Calypso. All we know is that Discovery was abandoned for 1000 years but we don’t know from when. Maybe it’s abandoned for 1000 years sometime in the 2700s.
For all we know, "Calypso" takes place in the Distant Past.
Why do you think Control exists in the 28th century? I mean, that's where the probe came back from of course during this season. But if Discovery successfully destroys/hides the sphere data, that future is written out of existence. Hence I'm guessing there will be no Control at all in the third season, with that arc totally wrapped up. The 3rd season arc may revolve on getting back home, or something else altogether.
None of it matters because those are just snapshots of possible futures, outside whatever current timeline they are in. Like Admiral Janeway, Captain Kim of the Rhode Island or Captain LaForge of the Challenger. Everything outside the main show is malleable.
The Control in the 23rd century in control of the Section 31 fleet is the one form the 28th century that copied itself into Airiam, so by it still hunting the sphere data means it didn't already have it in the 28th century.
If Control doesn't come into existence in the 23rd century, it can't exist in the 28th century.
The "bond villain" infodump by Gant hinted at how the arc is going to end, IMHO. Lemme quote from the transcript:
Look at the bold. Gant outright says the Klingon War accelerated AI research by Section 31. No Klingon War, no self-aware Control. Change Michael Burnham's past - by say ensuring that her birth father never dies and her mother isn't lost in time - and she doesn't cause the war to begin. No Control in the 23rd century, no Control in the 28th century.
Last edited:
Feeling this for sure. It sounds interesting. This could win back some fans who weren't keen on a series that wasn't looking past VOY/NEM timelines. It's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too scenario: prequel and sequel.
Gotcha! You're trying to have it both ways so you can complain both when they aim big and not so big (at least according to you)!
