Did They Jump Too Far?

[MikeS]

I understand the reasons the showrunners used for taking the show into the 32nd century - being free of any prior canon. But would ot have been better to jump to the 26th, or thereabouts?

The technology didn't seem that much further advanced in the 32nd from the 24th (consider 21st century tech compared to 13th century tech) Likewise, their constant harking back to the 24th century (Dominion War, last appearance of a Q, The Chase etc) seemed a bit of a stretch - we don't harken back to the specifics of 13th century history much. Both these things made me feel like there hadn't been much development in eight centuries and I found it a bit distracting.

Perhaps a one or two century jump, not too disimilar from that between TOS and TNG might have worked better?

 

[The Wormhole]

I understand the reasons the showrunners used for taking the show into the 32nd century - being free of any prior canon.

But therein squats the toad. The whole decision to leave the 23rd century was motivated by the complaints by people saying things like "there's no drama when we know everything has to turn out properly because of TNG and its kin." From the other shows, we know the Federation lasts into the 31st century. They wanted to kill that complaint, and the only way to do that was to go further than the franchise had previously depicted, making the 32nd century the earliest practical option.

Plus there's the time travel option to consider. They wanted the ship to be stuck in the future permanently. But we know from Trek Canon that Starfleet has time travel capabilities as early as the 26th century. So how do you adequately address why they're staying in the future instead of going back to the 23rd century? You can't. Going to an era where time travel has been outlawed, however, is the best plausible option for keeping the ship in this future time period.

And ultimately, it wouldn't have made much of a difference. The third season probably wouldn't be doable in the 26th century or whatever, that did depend on the setting of a crippled Federation and a galaxy in disarray, but the fourth and fifth? Yeah, they'd have still have been done with either no changes or really minimal ones. So we'd still have gotten pretty much the same show anyway.

 

[Jayson1]

Eventually I suspect they will just write this future off as being in a alternate universe. Sooner or later someone will want to come along and create their own future, post Berman era Trek and not want to deal The Burn and all of that stuff. Kind of like how The Terminator movies kepth changing the future for each movie and even it's tv show.

 

[Tiran O'Saurus]

If someone wants to go post-Berman era, they'd just set it after PIC's third season. Somewhere around the 2450s. The only reason to go as far in the future as DIS did is if you want to do something radical, and at that point you can add another thousand years and go to the Calypso time period.

 

[Jayson1]

I know but it's possible also someone will want to someday come along and even do their own fall of the Federation idea. Or you might have a show that involves lots of time travel.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I’d prefer future series to be set from the 33rd century and onward. There’s no real reason to do otherwise unless you actually want those connections to past shows.

My ideal traditional episodic Star Trek series would be set in the 33rd century. No legacy characters in the main cast. Few callbacks. Mainly focused on establishing their own cast and the universe around them. I know that’s what studios wouldn’t like, but that’s how TNG was made, so if they want their “next TNG” that’s how you do it, as opposed to having a series with Seven, Raffi, and Picard’s bastard child.

 

[Aragorn]

Trek has a problem being unable to write for a world where super technology they created exists. The Flash had the same problem with Barry’s speed and made him look like the biggest idiot on the planet. It’s like on 24 when a nuke went off downtown and a few episodes later people were out shopping like it never happened.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

One of the early ideas for TNG was that tech had advanced so far that starships are no longer required for space travel. But that got pushback because so much of Star Trek is set in tropes, and having a series ship is huge one. So Roddenberry backed off on his ship-less TNG.

I suspect a lot of those kinds of discussions were brought up in S3. How advanced is the 32nd century? How far can we show it without giving up traditional Trek tropes? Crew members casually transporting themselves from one room to the other with the tap of their combadge is a nice one. It essentially renders turbolifts useless unless you wanna take scenic routes, but can come in handy if transporters are offline.

There’s also the factor that sometimes tech may not advance as we would expect due to cataclysmic events such as The Burn. I have no doubt such an event put a huge pause on technological progress when so much of the Federation is fractured and unable to coordinate.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

It had to be something after anything we saw in Relativity or Enterprise, so I don't think they did. But I just think they didn't advance technology enough.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I mean the whole point of the Burn was a galactic dark age and regression.

 

[Fateor]

I mean the whole point of the Burn was a galactic dark age and regression.

Dark Age yes, regression no.

Or at least, the idea that everybody regressed technologically was never claimed on screen.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

I’d prefer future series to be set from the 33rd century and onward. There’s no real reason to do otherwise unless you actually want those connections to past shows.

My ideal traditional episodic Star Trek series would be set in the 33rd century. No legacy characters in the main cast. Few callbacks. Mainly focused on establishing their own cast and the universe around them. I know that’s what studios wouldn’t like, but that’s how TNG was made, so if they want their “next TNG” that’s how you do it, as opposed to having a series with Seven, Raffi, and Picard’s bastard child.

Take this with a massive grain of salt, but a reddit user who claimed to have some behind the scenes knowledge stated that this is pretty much the plan for the franchise one SNW finishes. SNW and SFA will run co-currently for a little while and then any series post that will be 32nd Century. I think this may not be entirely accurate as I imagine if Section 31 is successful and fans respond strongly to seeing Rachel Garrett again, the mid 24th century might get some exploration.

Personally I'm happy to be done with the 24th and 25th centuries. We've had 6 series set there and i think that era is well and truly played out. I don't particularly find the space in between the 25th and 32nd century that compelling either. We know the Federation just went from strength to strength, became time lords and then had a big time war and ended up collapsing. I'm happy for that to become a new lost era and a well that future 32nd century shows dip into now and then.

I love the 32nd century setting. I think it's pretty reminiscent of how the galaxy was depicted in TOS, as a wild west frontier. Space feels big again and unknown and it's fun having a completely blank slate. I'm excited at the prospect of Star Trek becoming a saga that tells the story of a civilisation across centuries. From it's humble beginnings in the 22nd century, to it's golden age in the 23rd - 25th centuries and to it's decline and rebirth in the 32nd century and beyond. I'm here for it.

 

[Dee1891]

I understand the reasons the showrunners used for taking the show into the 32nd century - being free of any prior canon. But would ot have been better to jump to the 26th, or thereabouts?

The technology didn't seem that much further advanced in the 32nd from the 24th (consider 21st century tech compared to 13th century tech) Likewise, their constant harking back to the 24th century (Dominion War, last appearance of a Q, The Chase etc) seemed a bit of a stretch - we don't harken back to the specifics of 13th century history much. Both these things made me feel like there hadn't been much development in eight centuries and I found it a bit distracting.

Perhaps a one or two century jump, not too disimilar from that between TOS and TNG might have worked better?

How about not jumping into the future at all? I was against this decision before Season 3 began and I still am. I thought it was unnecessary. All of this because Burnham turned out to be Spock's adoptive sister and he had never mentioned her in previous movies and TV episodes? Both TOS and Star Trek V had established Spock's penchant for never discussing his family. Both he and Burnham were serving aboard different ships. What was the use of sending Discovery into the future?

 

[fireproof78]

What was the use of sending Discovery into the future?

Appeasement.

 

[SpockOfNine]

One of the issues with the 25th century is that the Federation is too large, too dominant. There is no power nearby that rivals the Federation in technology, power or prestige. The Romulan Star Empire was sundered, the Klingons are allies (and soon join the Federation), the Cardassians are broken and weak. The greatest existential threats to the Federation - the Borg, Species 8472 & the Dominion were all humbled and defeated. Even the Ferengi have joined the Federation!

Lower Decks manages to make the era feel fresh and vibrant because we are following the lower deckers of a support ship, rather than the flagship. One of the things I liked about S1 of Picard was that we ventured into a lawless border region in a civilian ship. Both of these concepts spiced the franchise up and made it feel fresh.

But we are not likely to get a mainline TV show that follows that formula. Classic Star Trek is centered on exploration by a powerful ship.

The Burn made the galaxy more lawless and more dangerous. Starfleet is not monolithic like it used to be, and the Federation is a shell of its former self. Even though Dilithium works normally now, it is still a dwindling, rare resource. The changes to the setting post-Burn make the galaxy more vibrant & interesting for storytelling purposes. There are new powers that rival the Federation. Conflict will naturally arise around the few remaining Dilithium mines. The era also allows for the natural introduction of cool new species and new stories to be told with them. Also, the removal of iconic things like the Q and the Mirror Universe open up a wealth of interesting possibilities for new concepts to replace them.

For me, the thing the show runners need to fix is the ship design. It is very futuristic and kind of blah. I would like to see a return to more classic style designs, using the return of Discovery as the inspiration for a big aesthetic design change.

I do think Personal Transporters and Programmable Matter are silly but, ship elevators that could go diagonally were also super futuristic, even into the 80s. And to be fair, the TNG-ish era is basically at the point of having both of these technologies anyway.

So, could this era have been placed closer to the TNG-ish era? Definitely but you would be stumbling over things that TNG, DS9, VOY & ENT all set up in regard to time travel, the Temporal Cold War, the war with the Sphere Builders, etc. as well as the continued pre-eminence of the Federation. They basically HAD to set it in the 32nd century to move past all the stuff that had been listed but no one had any intention of really following through on.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

How about not jumping into the future at all? I was against this decision before Season 3 began and I still am. I thought it was unnecessary. All of this because Burnham turned out to be Spock's adoptive sister and he had never mentioned her in previous movies and TV episodes? Both TOS and Star Trek V had established Spock's penchant for never discussing his family. Both he and Burnham were serving aboard different ships. What was the use of sending Discovery into the future?

The reason is Bryan Fuller, who almost ended Discovery before it started by blowing it's budget and then bailing on it. People forget that Kurtzman was brought in by Paramount to clean up after Fuller was fired and I don't think he was necessarily fond of some of the creative decisions that Fuller made. Season 2 begins the walkback of all of Bryan Fuller's influence and moving Discovery to the future was the final step that removed Star Trek as a whole from the shadow of Bryan Fuller's creative decisions. It was also evident from the end of the First season that an Enterprise focused show was coming and there was little creative room for two series set in the same time period albeit on different ships, but which both had a connection to Spock as the focal point.

Changing Discovery's setting to the 32nd century was in my opinion a solid creative decision. It took the wind out of the sails of the overly critical canonistas who hated Michael Burnham being Spock's sister and the spore drive and whatever else. Burnham's character was also allowed to became much more fully formed after the time jump and with her relationship to Spock becoming irrelevant after 'Unification III'. The 32nd Century also gave Michelle Paradise and the writing team a clean slate to work with that wasn't beholden to keeping the status quo.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Take this with a massive grain of salt, but a reddit user who claimed to have some behind the scenes knowledge stated that this is pretty much the plan for the franchise one SNW finishes. SNW and SFA will run co-currently for a little while and then any series post that will be 32nd Century. I think this may not be entirely accurate as I imagine if Section 31 is successful and fans respond strongly to seeing Rachel Garrett again, the mid 24th century might get some exploration.

Personally I'm happy to be done with the 24th and 25th centuries. We've had 6 series set there and i think that era is well and truly played out. I don't particularly find the space in between the 25th and 32nd century that compelling either. We know the Federation just went from strength to strength, became time lords and then had a big time war and ended up collapsing. I'm happy for that to become a new lost era and a well that future 32nd century shows dip into now and then.

I love the 32nd century setting. I think it's pretty reminiscent of how the galaxy was depicted in TOS, as a wild west frontier. Space feels big again and unknown and it's fun having a completely blank slate. I'm excited at the prospect of Star Trek becoming a saga that tells the story of a civilisation across centuries. From it's humble beginnings in the 22nd century, to it's golden age in the 23rd - 25th centuries and to it's decline and rebirth in the 32nd century and beyond. I'm here for it.

I would be fine with this, at least for a Trek series that serves as the flagship series of the franchise.

I’d still be okay with other shows like LDS and PRO still being a part of the their time, because they’re a different twist on the eras we’re familiar with. I do like the idea of different Trek series taking place across multiple time periods. I may not be the biggest fan of Kurtzman but I admire his dedication to providing Trek shows that offer plenty of variety.

I only ask for the flagship series to be set furthest, is all.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

I would be fine with this, at least for a Trek series that serves as the flagship series of the franchise.

I’d still be okay with other shows like LDS and PRO still being a part of the their time, because they’re a different twist on the eras we’re familiar with. I do like the idea of different Trek series taking place across multiple time periods. I may not be the biggest fan of Kurtzman but I admire his dedication to providing Trek shows that offer plenty of variety.

I only ask for the flagship series to be set furthest, is all.

Kurtzman gets a lot of shit, but in my view he saved the franchise. I don't think we would have gotten the modern era of trek had Bryan Fuller stayed on.

As for your thoughts regards the flagship/lead of the franchise, I agree. I have a feeling that the next time we see an Enterprise after SNW, it will be on the next lead series and in the 32nd Century.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Right. Which is why I’m not enthusiastic of Matalas’ own “next next generation” as he had called LEGACY.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Right. Which is why I’m not enthusiastic of Matalas’ own “next next generation” as he had called LEGACY.

Me either. Picard season 3 was fun and seeing the Enterprise D again was a novelty, but the series was all about keeping the status quo and looking backwards. The new characters can't succeed without the old characters, the new hero ship can't succeed without the old hero ship, the main villains are hung up on a conflict that ended 25 years ago, the new peaceful Borg are ignored for the old, malevolent Borg. The Titan can't have it's own legacy but has to become an Enterprise. And Seven being it's Captain and Jack Crusher being assigned to it after skipping the academy entirely was just too much.

There's being reverential, and then there's whatever Terry Matalas wanted . A series being inexorably tied to the Next Generation and having no identity of it's own? Yeah I'll pass.