Kelvin Timeline all but confirmed

[Shamrock Holmes]

I think the differences in the designs of DSC vs TOS can best be explained by Voyager's "Future's End" episode. In this episode we learn that the computer revolution of the 20th century would not have happened if not for Henry Stalling interfering in the past. So, if we assume that The Cage & TOS happen in a timeline with no meddling by Stalling, and ENT & DSC happen in a timeline in which he did meddle, this can explain why the latter two shows look more advanced and use more advanced technology.

That would make a certain amount of sense (if you need to justify it).

I'd also suggest that the design (especially of starship exteriors) is likely to have been influenced by Lily Sloane and Cochrane's knowledge of the Enterprise-E.

 

[jaime]

Yet they seem to want to be consistent with that TV show from twenty years ago that viewing audience probably never saw.

I can assure you we saw it old chap. America might have shunted it round the time slots, but Trek was always Prime time in the UK.

 

[Upper pylon 3]

I realize you're just joking, but DSC doesn't need to justify how it looks by using an episode from a tv show made 20 years ago that the viewing audience probably never even saw.

I did use a LOL smiley, but i wasn't really joking. In my mind it makes the most sense.

 

[Columbus019]

I know that I am deviating from the specific subject of conversation here, but does anyone know why we can't have a series set after nemesis (And into sto era) so that they can make it their "new star trek for a new generation" without mucking up the other generation's star treks? Every few years star trek gets a visual reboot because they're going forward in time. It happened in '79, '82, and '87. However it didn't happen in 2009, because that was a reboot and it can't happen in 2017 (And keep the timeline intact) because they're not moving forwards into the future. The 60s trek reflected the 60s, the movies reflected the 80s, the TNG onwards stuff reflected the 90s, enterprise managed to pull off reflecting the 2000s but it worked because it bridged the gap and it started to look tos a bit more towards the end, 2017's star trek should reflect 2017 but it would only work if it was progressive because it was set further than any other star trek we've seen so far.

 

[Tuskin38]

Nothing says they can't set it post-Nemesis, but the show runner just wanted to set it in the 23rd Century for the story he wanted to tell.

 

[Columbus019]

Nothing says they can't set it post-Nemesis, but the show runner just wanted to set it in the 23rd Century for the story he wanted to tell.

But it would be nice if they could bother to make it fit in the timeline.

 

[Upper pylon 3]

That's the problem with pre-quels. They're nice in a way, but if you keep moving forward instead of backwards, this would not be an issue.

 

[Tuskin38]

But it would be nice if they could bother to make it fit in the timeline.

We don't know enough about the story to see if it fits.

Nothing story wise so far contradicts any series set after it. But a single episode isn't out yet so it is hard to tell.

 

[BillJ]

I know that I am deviating from the specific subject of conversation here, but does anyone know why we can't have a series set after nemesis...

Sliding ratings for DS9/VOY and Nemesis bombing at the box office is why. People lost interest in that particular part of the universe. There is a lot of material there.

If Discovery is a hit, then they may eventually head back. But it won't be the 24th century you know. Just like Discovery isn't really the 23rd century we know.

 

[Columbus019]

Sliding ratings for DS9/VOY and Nemesis bombing at the box office is why. People lost interest in that particular part of the universe. There is a lot of material there.

If Discovery is a hit, then they may eventually head back. But it won't be the 24th century you know. Just like Discovery isn't really the 23rd century we know.

Problem is it probably won't be a hit, at least in the US (I don't live there so I'm guessing here) because outside of the US it's on Netflix which lots of people have because it's got lots of quality entertainment on it (star trek, red dwarf the list goes on) and so it may do ok because people already have, and budget for having, the platform on which it is available. However In America it's on cbs's awkward new streaming thing so people are less likely to watch it (at least until the whole season is out then get the 30 day free trial and watch it all).
In effect, CBS are using our beloved franchise and possibly ruining it beyond repair (because of if they say it's Canon, it is and there's nothing we can do about It, I wish the star wars prequels weren't Canon but lucasfilm says they are so they are and I can't change that) to make people get their streaming site/app (I don't know what it is) and make money, not quality television, money. This is why the BBC system works better because they're already funded and don't have to rely on independent variables to get money.

 

[BillJ]

It is "Star Trek", people here will hate watch if nothing else...

In effect, CBS are using our beloved franchise and possibly ruining it beyond repair (because of if they say it's Canon, it is and there's nothing we can do about It, I wish the star wars prequels weren't Canon but lucasfilm says they are so they are and I can't change that)...

I'm treating it as a reboot. I have no worries about how the stories line up with previous ones.

 

[Tuskin38]

In effect, CBS are using our beloved franchise

Ruining it how?

 

[Columbus019]

It is "Star Trek", people here will hate watch if nothing else...



I'm treating it as a reboot. I have no worries about how the stories line up with previous ones.

True and Great plan! I think it's another universe actually. I feel similarly about discovery to what I felt about the Australian k9 spin off.

 

[Columbus019]

Ruining it how?

They're messing up the astetic and the history. Look at the shinzau, that looks next generation/next generation movie era to me. Yet it's tos?

 

[Tuskin38]

They're messing up the astetic and the history. Look at the shinzau, that looks next generation/next generation movie era to me. Yet it's tos?

Because it isn't the 1960s.

 

[Columbus019]

Because it isn't the 1960s.

If it isn't the 60s why are they making a 60s show. As I've said, (up until enterprise) the newer the series, the further into the future it is. Set it in the star trek online era if you want a star trek for today, set it in TOS era if you want star trek continues (not that I don't like star trek continues).

 

[BillJ]

If it isn't the 60s why are they making a 60s show. As I've said, (up until enterprise) the newer the series, the further into the future it is. Set it in the star trek online era if you want a star trek for today, set it in TOS era if you want star trek continues (not that I don't like star trek continues).

There's a fine line to walk, you have to create something modern audiences will buy. I think they could have come closer to the original look while modernizing it. They disagree. No harm, no foul. It's entertainment.

 

[Columbus019]

There's a fine line to walk, you have to create something modern audiences will buy. I think they could have come closer to the original look while modernizing it. They disagree. No harm, no foul. It's entertainment.

Yes, you're right. All they need are some massive tos fans in the design team. I like the bridge and the hand props. They just need some more work on the ships and uniforms. I'll forgive the Klingon if they do that.

 

[Tuskin38]

All they need are some massive tos fans in the design team.

That is the last thing they need.

We don't need people stuck in the 60s when designing a 21st century show.

 

[BillJ]

That is the last thing they need.

I think the last thing they needed was anyone associated with Trek in the past. I was hoping for a completely clean slate.