Exclusive Clip
- Thread starter Romulan_spy
- Start date
The 32nd century was a monumental failure of promise - and of worldbuilding.
We've pretty much had it all-but confirmed they picked that time originally more-or-less at random, since they knew it was after the Temporal Cold War, nothing was established in the Trek timeline, and it would finally give them an excuse to tell the big, galaxy-threatening stories they wanted to without tying continuity into pretzels with questions of how all of this happened in what amounted to a prequel. The Calypso thing was more or less an accident (some would call it a happy one).
So, if they went into the far future, they essentially had three options.
On cultural issues, things are - again - superficial. People make a big deal out of some superficial differences in Season 3, like Earth not being in the Federation, or the Vulcans and the Romulans reuniting, but practically speaking, they matter little, as Earth rejoins, and functionally, Ni'Var just acts like Vulcan. If they committed to real cultural shifts - Ferengi being communists, Klingons becoming pacifists, etc. - this would've gotten across the alien nature of the future better.
While I could explain part of this as being due to a lack of creativity, I am guessing a lot was due to Paramount's insistence that Trek remain recognizable after the frosty reception of the first two years. In some ways, it's not unlike the failures of VOY and ENT. Both shows tried to do a new format (with VOY going to the Delta Quadrant, and ENT being a prequel) but the network most wanted a TNG clone to try and bring the old fans back, so the unique promise of the setup was slowly squandered over time instead.
We've pretty much had it all-but confirmed they picked that time originally more-or-less at random, since they knew it was after the Temporal Cold War, nothing was established in the Trek timeline, and it would finally give them an excuse to tell the big, galaxy-threatening stories they wanted to without tying continuity into pretzels with questions of how all of this happened in what amounted to a prequel. The Calypso thing was more or less an accident (some would call it a happy one).
So, if they went into the far future, they essentially had three options.
- Go "fallen Federation." Setting the show in galactic dark ages would allow Discovery some sense of agency, despite being 1,000 years out of date, and allow them to set things on the right path. Though some people would find it a downer to discover that nothing from the earlier series lasted in the longer run.
- Show a logical progression of technology, allowing the far future to have some awe, but destroying the ability of Discovery to have any practical effect.
- My favorite solution - Star Trek: Left Behind. Essentially nearly everyone in the Federation made the transition to a higher plane of existence as energy beings about a century before, leaving a mostly empty quadrant with scattered luddite colonies, folks in suspended animation/transporter buffers, etc. Could've spent a whole season trying to solve the mystery of where they went, then another season trying to regroup those folks who didn't ascend.
On cultural issues, things are - again - superficial. People make a big deal out of some superficial differences in Season 3, like Earth not being in the Federation, or the Vulcans and the Romulans reuniting, but practically speaking, they matter little, as Earth rejoins, and functionally, Ni'Var just acts like Vulcan. If they committed to real cultural shifts - Ferengi being communists, Klingons becoming pacifists, etc. - this would've gotten across the alien nature of the future better.
While I could explain part of this as being due to a lack of creativity, I am guessing a lot was due to Paramount's insistence that Trek remain recognizable after the frosty reception of the first two years. In some ways, it's not unlike the failures of VOY and ENT. Both shows tried to do a new format (with VOY going to the Delta Quadrant, and ENT being a prequel) but the network most wanted a TNG clone to try and bring the old fans back, so the unique promise of the setup was slowly squandered over time instead.
I think it might come down to the kinds of things that are discussed in the "brave new paradigm for Star Trek" thread. How much can you change it and have it still be Star Trek?
I think if they were as big as the MCU (holding my nose), then they'd be in a position where they could just leave "Star Trek" off the title, just have what would've been the subtitle, and say that it isn't Star Trek, but it takes place in the Star Trek Universe. I'm not talking about SFA in particular, but any type of series set within the Star Trek Universe in general.
But Star Trek isn't in that sort of scenario, so I guess it has to be kept recognizable. Ideally, different shows would have different fans and maybe there would be some overlap but they wouldn't be dependent on the overlap. Instead, it's the same fans going from one show to the next.
So, it comes down to what they could do, versus what's realistic.
Meaning that whether I end up liking Starfleet Academy or not, I fully understand why they have to go out of their way to say, "Even though we have a different premise, we still have things in it that make it Star Trek!" The same as with DS9 and every other series that doesn't follow the "it's another show on the Enterprise!" format.
Last edited:
Superman movies (and TV shows and books and comic books) pick and choose which parts of the lore they want to use in their stories. And they invent new lore. A prime example being the "Crystal Palace" fortress. Another would be the Kents living past Clark's teen years. Respect doesn't mean slavish devotion.
Kurtzman acknowledged this and has stated that worldbuilding will be a focus of SFA
And find that damn ZPM factory....
Pleaseee
Technically true.
But directors who don't respect the setting they're creating things in is how you get shows like Wheel of Time, Witcher, and Lord of the Rings that end up wasting hundreds of millions of dollars for no real return.
Don't forget that pre-refit Discovery took a pair of 32nd century quantum torpedoes to the face and only lost their shields.
A photon torpedo detonated a few hundred feet away from Kirk in Star Trek 5, and he was fine.Technically true.
But directors who don't respect the setting they're creating things in is how you get shows like Wheel of Time, Witcher, and Lord of the Rings that end up wasting hundreds of millions of dollars for no real return.
Don't forget that pre-refit Discovery took a pair of 32nd century quantum torpedoes to the face and only lost their shields.
please, what?
They get hit by one, which drops the shields. It's stated that if they get hit by second it would destroy the ship. Voyager was able to withstand 29th century weapons and ended up doing significant damage to the Aeon with a deflector pulse. Later they ended up destroying it with a single 24th century photon torpedo. So it's not the first time we've seen that past technology can hold up to future technology.Don't forget that pre-refit Discovery took a pair of 32nd century quantum torpedoes to the face and only lost their shields.
I'm guessing you don't realize that just reinforced my point by showing how weak Torpedos were in the TOS era compared to even just the TNG/DS9/VOY era.
That scene shows two torpedo's hitting Discovery at the same time.
As to to your example, that kind of proves my point. A single shot from a one man shuttle's energy weapon was enough to completely knock out Voyager's shields.
And as a point 24th century to 29th century is less a lot less to overcome then 23rd century to 32nd century. Or for those who don't want to do the math, that's around five hundred years more advanced vs around nine hundred years more advanced.
I do wonder if the bridge of the Athena utilises programmable matter or if that'll get quietly forgotten about for budgetary reasons.
I thought that they said it was programmable matter that was attacking the ship in the preview.
I think you're right I had forgotten about that.
The consoles don't seem to be made of it like they were temporarily during the Discovery's retrofit.
It doesn't prove your point at all. It just shows how inconsistently technology is portrayed in Star Trek and also how the needs of the plot demand what technology can and can't do.
that what you said will turn out true
Photon Torpedoes are essentially antimatter bombs. There's no such thing as a "weak" Photon torpedo. You could adjust the yield, but a photon torpedo that was strong enough to destroy the god creature should have wiped out everything for miles. Kirk was just a few feet away he should have been vaporized. Once more, and as always, you are grasping at straws.
Missed him by that much...
Similar threads
