I guess we're on opposite sides of this then. For me, Star Trek was always about the ethos, the outlook, and the style of storytelling rather than the lore. I mean, when TOS was put together they were literally just making shit up as they went along with no real plan - something very clear if you watch Season 1 in production order. Basically it started as the Twilight Zone with a set group of main characters - though with a generally much less dark and cynical, and more optimistic humanist overall arc. I simply don't know what sort of "generic sci-fi shows" have had the sort of top-quality thematic episodes that Trek has put in over its various incarnations over the years. That said, Discovery did push away from many of these elements at times, although Season 2 was closer to classic Trek both in tone and story structure than the Season 1. I've said at times that I felt like Discovery was only recognizable as a Trek series because of canon connections, while The Orville was in some ways its mirror opposite, in that it tried to be as much like Trek shorn of canon as was feasibly possible. I do think it's the case that unless they start moving more towards the classic Trek format, Discovery will pretty quickly stop feeling like a Trek show as a result. I think the failure of Voyager had very little to do with not using the Alpha Quadrant honestly. They found excuses to have individual episodes which featured the Klingons, Romulans, Ferengi, Cardassians, etc over the course of the show, and I don't think they were particularly more successful than whatever random-ass boring aliens the Voyager writers concocted on their own. I think the failure of the show had much more to do with the showrunners not being brave enough to hold true to its premise and ultimately just telling dull, beige TNG stories.
My big fear about the "jump to the future" is it's really because Kurtzman wants to have an excuse to have yet another existential crisis which is a threat to the entire galaxy/multiverse or whatever. I realize he wasn't the showrunner really when Season 1 was being planned out, but it really seems like he thinks continually upping the stakes, rather than rooting them in the characters, is good storytelling. I really, really, really do not want to see another season where Discovery's crew again overcome overwhelming odds to save the day. That format works okay for blockbuster films that come out every few years, but it doesn't work well for a supposedly serialized television show where seasons follow in quick succession. Let's just limit the stakes to the crew and maybe a solar system or two they run into along the way.
I don't even want to hazard a guess about what Discovery does in the 33rd Century besides probably wanting to go to Terralysium since that's where Gabrielle Burnham lives. Michelle Paradise will be the showrunner for Season 3, so I have no idea what she'll be like in the role. There's too little to really gauge what she'll do. I think being in a different century millennium in and of itself, and the adjustment to it, would give them enough to work with. I'm anticipating a much more character-driven season. They're displaced in time from everything they know, all they have is each other, and Burnham is seeking out a parent who she previously thought was dead for 20 years. And what does Gabrielle do now that the Discovery and the Enterprise have saved the day from Control? I don't think Discovery will really be in much of a position to Save The Day. Being 1,000 years out-of-date, they're technologically at a major disadvantage.
Using that analogy, I'd rather have them as a Roman legion transported into pre-Columbian America shortly before the Spanish arrive.
After the Federation's piss poor performance in the Klingon war I don't think I'd be so ready to compare them to Rome Although now that I think about the Rome/Federation comparison I hope that if we see a Federation successor state in S3 that it'll all be purple and they'll have flamethrowers on their ships.
Well, the Romans did get their butts kicked big league by Hannibal at Cannae or the Germans at the Teutoburg forest... and there was a reason they had to build that wall to keep the Picts out or why they never could conquer Persia... they definitely weren't as invincible as their historiography liked to claim. I'd love to see some 32nd century analogue of Greek Fire with some piece of lost Federation technology no one ever could recreate until the Discovery shows up with a working (if obsolete) copy.
Discovery's tech may be centuries out of date, but it will have one thing the ships of the day almost certainly won't. Spore. Drive.
Oh, I don't think they were invincible and I think the Dan Carlin 'teleport a legion 1000 years in the future and they could beat anyone' thing is wrong on a few different levels*. But, to take your Cannae example, they may have lost that battle (understatement) but they ended up marching troops into Tunisia and winning 15 years later. I don't think the Federation was in any shape to win that war without the timely intervention of the Discovery. *no stirrups, no crossbows, shittier and less cavalry, cut off from their supply lines, etc..
A fair point. That's why I'd personally prefer that modifed version of the analogy of the Roman legion in pre-Columbian America: because I think a setting that's at a comparable technological level to Discovery (with either the ship or the natives of the future having a definite, but not game-breaking advantage) could work, with the advanced future Federation mostly being a rumored, outside-context force slowly enroaching on the region the crew finds itself in; either villainous (akin to the the rumors about the Dominion in early DS9), or benign. Of course, 50 thousand light years away from any places we know, it's nigh impossible to find out what kinds of civilizations will be there until Season 3 finally airs. It's just a matter of preference for me, but I'd be more comfortable with something the crew is able to understand and integrate into than Babylon 5-style Old Ones who give primitives like the Discovery as much thought as we do to ants, with Discovery's only choice being to stay out of their way or to be stepped upon. Granted, what we eventually get will be probably between these two extremes (comparable vs. Clarke-style godlike tech).
I quite like this idea. But I know I shouldn't get too attached lol There's always option 3. Tell them to GET the HELL out of OUR GALAXY!
Considering all my own speculation about possible Season 3 settings I'm starting to get the idea I shouldn't get any pre-built expectations lest I feel let down simply because my ideas were debunked. Maybe I should just collect all my posts and see if I'm capable enough to mold them into an Alternate Continuity fan fiction form worth putting online... I guess we might end up seeing some alternate third seasons on fanfic sites soon enough anyway.
Which is why they had to take Dr. Hugh Culber with them because: "Hugh and only Hugh can prevent mycelium forest fires"
Just got a message from an ex-colleague who loves Discovery (I encouraged to get her into Star Trek previously - she tried TOS and wasn't a fan and then randomly tried a movie...which happened to be The Final Frontier. Sigh). She was so disappointed that the show seemed to be over. Luckily I was able to give her the good news about season three. She was also completely unaware of the Short Treks, which are buried in a Netflix submenu. I bet a lot of casual viewers will be similarly confused on both counts.
Unless the Federation and galaxy hit a galactic "dark ages". Think the fall of the Roman Empire. Think the Galactic Empire in Asimov's Foundation falling.
Plenty of Star Trek stories have involve existential crises. And what do you mean 'quick succession? We have to wait at least 12 months between seasons.