how about Hikaru Sulu? Just set it so Takai's age is right. Probably have to make it a shorter story arc, given his age. But I suppose its unrealistic he wouldn't be an Admiral.
Did They Jump Too Far?
- Thread starter MikeS
- Start date
how about Hikaru Sulu? Just set it so Takai's age is right. Probably have to make it a shorter story arc, given his age. But I suppose its unrealistic he wouldn't be an Admiral.
^ If it's late 2310s or 2320s, his age would be right.
And a temporary demotion to captain for the mission might suit him.
And a temporary demotion to captain for the mission might suit him.
Fan demands should always be treated with a grain (or more) of salt.
In the end, canon or not, nothing was done in DSC 3-5 that couldn't have been done in the 25th century (Just after PIC). The only references we ever had were from the 23rd-25th century. Several stories tied back directly to that period. It added nothing but made other problems, which is really the opposite of what the decisionn should have done.
If they'd stick with the post-Fed, Andromeda- style story season 3 set up, then you have something unique, something that justifies the time setting. But they abandoned that immediately with season 4. By season 5, all we got were some paltry references to the Burn.
It was the biggest waste of a premise, the most egregious missed opportunity, since Voyager.
It's ironic that Discovery traveled to the far-future in order to escape canon, because so many people were upset the Klingon War/Control stuff had quadrant-level impacts, yet we never heard about it in the other shows.
Then, when they get to the 32nd century, they don't do anything involving stakes anywhere near as high.
Okay, so the negative space wedgie---erm, DMA---could have destroyed Earth. But Trek is full of one-off things like that, and I'm sure we've heard of others in the past. But the Season 3 big bad (Emerald Chain) was really second tier, as was the Breen threat in Season 5. Absolutely the sort of shit that could happen in the past in Trek and not have been heard of.
Now SNW is building up the Gorn threat to a level that kind of stretches canon, and nobody really cares that much.
Then, when they get to the 32nd century, they don't do anything involving stakes anywhere near as high.
Okay, so the negative space wedgie---erm, DMA---could have destroyed Earth. But Trek is full of one-off things like that, and I'm sure we've heard of others in the past. But the Season 3 big bad (Emerald Chain) was really second tier, as was the Breen threat in Season 5. Absolutely the sort of shit that could happen in the past in Trek and not have been heard of.
Now SNW is building up the Gorn threat to a level that kind of stretches canon, and nobody really cares that much.
At this point, from my observations, fans only care about the continuity when it impacts something they care about. The Gorn, lets face it, are not a fan favorite. They are not popular, and they don't warrant the same level of consternation as, say, Klingons or Romulan changes (though those are more common and frequent in Trek history).
What it comes down to is aesthetic preferences. I recall having this weird cognitive dissonance moment with Discovery and fans when I watched a Pike fan film. In it, Pike is a sullen alcoholic struggling with PTSD and thinking about resigning. Now, in Discovery (at the time), people were complaining that this was "too dark" and Star Trek should be lighter and more optimistic. Yet, this fan film was praised for it "capturing the tone of Star Trek" and the inevitable "real Star Trek" comments because it utilize something closer to TOS in the set design.
It comes down to aesthetics. The inevitable canon question is a nonstarter but the standard is applied very generally.
To be fair, that's literally Pike's character in The Cage.
I completely agree and that's one of my favorite episodes.
But, this came on the heals of Discovery being called "too dark" for having rape, torture and PTSD, as Lorca was theorized being.
Yeah, I saw no issues and saw the wonderful dramatic dissonance of separating Discovery as being "unclean" from the Trek flock.
I quit Strange New Worlds after its season 1 finale and it was only the Lower Decks crossover that dragged me back in (thankfully, as Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Under the Cloak of War were really good), so I've kind of renegotiated my mental contract with the series. The writers are going to do whatever they want to do with canon and I have to accept that in order to enjoy the gems when they turn up, but every individual episode has to convince me to give a damn about its story because I'm defaulting to disinterest.
So for me it's not that I don't care about SNW's Gorn stories breaking canon, it's that I'm not wasting my time thinking about the Gorn episodes at all.
Discovery had its own problems, but past season 2 it was rare that I was taken out of an episode because it slammed right into the events of an earlier one, and I could appreciate that.
Last edited:
Why the hell do people force themselves if disinterested in a show?
Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow, Those Old Scientists and Under the Cloak of War.
I don't know what I'm going to like unless I watch the series.
I watch one episode of a series. It's got one chance.
I'd say this is unusually harsh, especially because it's not uncommon that first episodes aren't particularly good, as the production team gets the bugs out.
That said, the modern-day practice of simultaneous release of two or more episodes at once (even when doing weekly streaming) sticks in my craw, and this is absolutely something Discovery did. It's basically saying you don't have the confidence that you can tell a good enough story in an hour to get the viewer hooked, and they really need at least two episodes to make any sort of judgement.
Time is a finite resource.
I don't think the Gorn really stretch canon as they've been presented so far. We had whole wars apparently happen with the Cardassians and the Tzenkethi that we never heard about until after the fact. And there's been so little established about them that they are practically a blank slate. I think most of what people complain about with the Gorn is that they contradict what's been filled in by fans and tie-in fiction in the years since. But going from what's strictly on-screen? There's nothing that conflicts.
You "Over Estimate" how large the Federation is.
8,000 ly is the max distance quoted but the Federation clearly expanded out in every direction since that line was read, both along the frontiers and into the husk of the Romulan Star Empire. We already know that in the not-too-distant future, the Klingons will also join the Federation, massively increasing the size of the Federation and its dominance of this region of space. Even with just the 8,000 figure, the Federation already spans 8% of the galaxy's width, and that is before the expansion. The Federation is much larger than you give it credit for.
That was not very nice.
1) The Dominion was absolutely defeated. Yes, they still exist on the other side of the galaxy but for all intents and purposes, they do not matter anymore (unless the writers specifically wanted to revisit them).
2) The Borg have been dealt several crippling blows multiple times in rapid-ish succession (Janeway, Picard, 8472). Also, to be frank, the Borg are massively over played and narratively spent. They should not be used for anything, for a long time (IMO). Also, again, they are on the other side of the galaxy and, honestly, do no matter (unless the writers want them to matter (which they shouldn't (IMO))).
3) You absolutely can create new enemies for the Federation but, narratively, what could be both unknown to the Federation and rival it in terms of power? Yes, you could invent one, but this is not the Federation of kirk's era or even of TNG's era. This is a super dominant superpower dominating its corner of the galaxy. Worse, you are going to get a myriad of lame people online bitterly complaining that this "brand new, super special awesome species" appears out of nowhere and can challenge and defeat the Federation even though they have never been mentioned in canon, ever." Which makes my skin crawl and my eyes roll back as far as they can go in my head.
4) 8472 are peaceful, for now.
5) IMO, the multiverse is overused now-a-days. I would prefer the Federation fight bad guys from another part of the galaxy over anything with an alternate universe.
I am not saying you *cannot* make it work. You absolutely, 100% could make it work.
But I think the post-Burn status quo is a more interesting era to tell stories in. Any story set after Picard & before Discoery's time jump will have to deal with the fact that we *know* nothing really bad will happen to Earth, Vulcan, Andoria or Tellar Prime. The core systems & planets of the Federation will be safe & secure for the next thousand years. We know the Federation will continue expanding and expanding. We know they will fight a massive war in time and will eventually win. There are few stakes within the time periods between Picard and Discovery. We know it all works out a-ok.
Do I wish they had just retconned the Temporal Cold War out of existence through time-wimey shenanigans and had Discovery jump to the 26th or 27th century instead? Yes. Would I prefer the 31st century not be plagues by dethatched nacelles, holographic starships and personal transporters? Yes.
Setting that aside, an era where the Federation is on the backfoot & is not the dominant player in its region of the galaxy is interesting. Tons of stories can be told about how the Federation deals with the post-Burn era. Stories that simply cannot be told in an era where the Federation is dominant.
This issue is why I think so many writers, show runners and executives place shows & movies in the Kirk-era (or even before, in the case of Enterprise). The setting is just more interesting to tell stories in. If not interesting, then simpler & easier.
Remember, that space is 3D.
And the 3D volume that we need to explore is MASSIVE.
And the size of our Milky Way Galaxy is ALOT larger than what most people think:
I see it more of a "Passing of the Baton" and building on the foundation that the past has made.
You don't need to forget about the past, but the future is there and ready to move forward based on the actions & consequences of the past. The Legacy is what kind of world our children will inherit and maintain for their next generation.
The identity is what you make of it with your adventures and what you do. Captain Seven will have her own adventures with her crew, it'll be fine.
Most of these are woefully inaccurate maps that do not display the true scale of how messy space is. These 2D maps do not show scale or size or scope very well.
Compare these two maps of the local area 10 parsecs away from our Sun.
The first is a 2D representation. This is what we are used to. It simplifies space.
Compare that to this map of where the stars are in relation to the Sun in three dimensions.
It is plain to see how messy and weird space is. The 2D maps would have you believe that all of the quadrant's nations control all territory spanning from the bottom of the galaxy, all the way up 1,000 light years to the top. But that, absolutely, is not how space actually works. Space is messy and weird. In all likelihood, all of the "Alpha Quadrant" powers have very blobby borders with tons of bulges, extending deep into one another's territory. The Neutral Zones would be more akin to half spheres rather than lines on a map (as presented on 2-D maps).
And realistically, all of these nation's borders likely have huge holes inside of them to account for worlds that have not yet developed warp travel, making their territory even more complex. Like a weirdly cut hunk of Swiss cheese.
The galaxy is presented in 2D because it is more convenient for audiences, who approach the world on 2-D screens, but it is hardly accurate.
This is one reason why I have always been a fan of the DS9 style "small Federation", which is jam packed with worlds inside its bubble. The grotesque sprawl of what TNG implies is unrealistic.
Your math is off, it's no-where near 8% of the Thin Disk section.
I did the math already and it's < ½% of the Thin Disk, despite being that many Light Years² in area on the 2D projection of the Thin Disk map.
They don't matter to the local Astro-Politics of the Alpha/Beta Quadrant in that area where the UFP resides at the moment.
Also, the current Cybernetic Zombie version of "The Borg" that has a Queen for a Leader/Figure Head should be dead IMO.
If you're going to involve "The Borg", it needs to be a drastically different version.
Yet "The Breen" have been mentioned before and have been portrayed as a legit threat.
Same with "The Orions".
We also have the Tzenkethi which we haven't seen before, but were name dropped.
There are plenty of Delta Quadrant species that I'd like to revisit, like the Vaadwaur or the Devore.
I don't need to always invent a new species, there are plenty of older species that we can expand upon.
I say we have a armistice to not start a shooting war at the moment.4) 8472 are peaceful, for now.
I'm open minded, I can use enemies from any where, any place, any time.
I have plans to unravel a bit of that and Paul Stamets is involved along with Discovery's ending.
We'll see Paul Stamets Legacy change the UFP/StarFleet in a dramatic way with what I have him do that comes back to my 26th Century setting =D.
I'm going to have the Temporal Cold War adjusted to be fixed and Time Travel HEAVILY regulated so that the stupid ban on it & Genetic Engineering is gone & heavily controlled by rules/regulations.
Personally, the detached Nacelles don't bother me as much, but it's major Doctrinal Shift in StarShip design focused on Agility / Speed / Acceleration & Heavier Dependence on Shields along with Hull Regeneration instead of Heavy Metals used to Armor ships. It's not necessarilly bad, it's just different. StarFleet focuses on "Sustainability" and "Quick Repair-ability" over tougher hulls.
The Personal Transporters, I can find obvious limitations to the tech where the Personal Transporter has to be linked to a primary transporter on a ship for it to work as well as it does. By itself, w/o a StarShip/Base or major reactor to power it, your teleportation range is pitiful and more used for emergency situations when you're on a away mission given the limited power availability.
Holographic StarShips might be useful for "Very Specific" things, but it shouldn't be the default by any means.
The Federation is generally never as dominant as you portray it to be, think of it as the "High Republic" from Star Wars, but without Jedi/Sith or any of the Force non-sense.
The UFP (A Democratic Republic) has ALOT of work to do to maintain it's small sliver of the Galaxy in a Infathomably large Universe.
It's easier because they don't have the staff or help to think in larger "Space Opera" setting / terms.This issue is why I think so many writers, show runners and executives place shows & movies in the Kirk-era (or even before, in the case of Enterprise). The setting is just more interesting to tell stories in. If not interesting, then simpler & easier.
Something I'm more fond of, especially in the 26th Century UFP that is derived off of major actions of the 32nd Century.
Yes the Spore Drive is back and has MAJOR implications for all of the UFP. Paul Stamets goal to "Have a Legacy" manages to work and my Timeline is a direct off-shoot that mixes the TNG/PIC era and has ramifications on top of DISCOVERY's actions in the Series Finale.
I'm more than happy to explore what happens should Paul Stamets get his way and change the Universe.
I know!
https://gruze.org/fly_10pc/
That's why I would need help to display all the Stars in a 3D Volumetric Cube based Map to show where everything is in relative position to each other and have it portrayed on screen as the "Google Maps" for Space Travelers.
It'd be far worse than that, it'd be literal ink blots and random shapes with no rhyme or reason.
Yup, there are going to be a TON of gaps.
I know, but our minds wrap around 2D maps because they're far easier to understand than full 3D.
The 2D map that I have is fine, but that's just a snap shot in time and a simplified 2D map, a 3D map would need to align with as many real stars as possible and be used to portray a more realistic volume of space and to show the VAST-ness of space.
Last edited:
Are you suggesting that if DISCO had stuck to the 1960s production sets of TOS that this subset of fans whining about “visual canon” would have given the show a pass? Because I do believe they can be that shallow.
It's the superficial and fundamental things that people spot first. When something in an episode breaks the laws of reality or the rules of its setting, when something doesn't look right or feel right. And once the spell is broken the other flaws become easier to see and harder to dismiss.
Which ENTERPRISE in its initial airing definitely struggled with regarding fans thinking Archer’s ship looked “too advanced” because of superficial things like the production designed being a little more detailed and intricate than Kirk’s ship because TV production had come a long way in four decades.
Yup, 100% I believe this. The "flaws" that get pointed out are things present in other Trek productions, yet get a pass.
Similar threads
