News Kurtzman: Discovery: The Finale And The Future

[Jackson_Roykirk]

first off i haven't managed to see any of this show yet
so if they time travel into the future chances are that they at some point end up in a space battle episode against ships from that time frame ,problem is they are equipped with obsolete weapons/shields that wont scratch the paintwork on those future ships ,wonder how writers work with that one?

That depends.

If the ships are alien, and those aliens have no connection to the Federation, then those aliens might just as easily have weapons that are less advanced as they are likely to have weapons that are more advanced. But that's the same as it is for TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, or ENT.

If (for example) Picard met a previously unknown alien species from outside the Federation, there is no reason why that alien's weapons would be at the same level as the Enterprise's weapons. Or Voyager running into a Delta Quadrant species.

And that's assuming that if they do go into the future -- say the 32nd or 33rd century -- there is still a Federation. If they go to a future where the Federation as we know it has collapsed or changed (which is hinted at in the short trek Calypso), then maybe some Federation technology has been lost to time, and the Discovery's weapons are a good -- or better -- match for the types of weapons they might encounter.

Or they upgrade once they get there.

 

[Jadeb]

My first reaction to the time jump, like to much in Discovery, is that it's too much. I'd be interested to see 50 years after Voyager, maybe. But this premise -- let's go to the far, far future -- sounds like it could be a totally different sci-fi property. Do I care to invest in that? I'm not sure. If it's a dystopian future that will end up being rewritten, probably not. At the same time, I don't know know that I trust the Discovery folks to map out the "real" future of the Trek universe.

That said, I might have had a similar reaction to the premise of TNG back when it was announced, and that turned out well.

This move kinda guts Burnham's emotional core, doesn't it? No more Sarek, Amanda, Spock or Ash. I can't say I'm saddened by that, TBH. I will be fascinated to read the behind-the-scenes story about the time jump when it finally comes out. Did they just want to dump a lot of unwanted baggage?

I commented in another thread that I find it amusing that Michelle Yeoh gets the same "special guest star" billing for playing campy Georgiou that Jonathan Harris got for playing campy Dr. Smith on Lost in Space. And now, trapping her on the lost Discovery, they've taken that to a whole 'nother level -- she essentially is Dr. Smith.

 

[Ravenswood]

The prequel setting was a holdover from Bryan Fuller, and it didn't seem to suit the skill sets or interests of those who inherited it.

Central to Fuller's concept, as I recall, was an event ten years prior to TOS that had been mentioned but never explored. I was looking forward to seeing what it was, but then, of course, Fuller was dropped and they took it in another direction. What was that event? I'd love to know—or have they said, and I'm just too dense to have picked up on it?

 

[Jeyl]

While we're at it, I suppose you're upset with TOS that even after the events of the episode Amok Time Spock didn't bother telling Kirk who his father was?

Please. A person with that mentality would argue that every written character doesn't have any parents unless they explicitly establish they do.

Besides, they explained in the DSC season 2 finale why TOS Spock never mentioned Burnham -- although I don't think the explanation was required, nor was it better than simply the already-known fact that "because Spock is notoriously secretive about family"

Spock may be privy about his family, but what about the Klingons? What about other members of the Enterprise crew? Are these characters such perfect beings that they can with 100% certainty never divulge any details surrounding the Discovery else they be charged with treason?

Sorry, but treason in Star Trek has never stopped characters (Even highly decorated Starfleet officers) in from doing things they're not supposed to do. So having everyone literally keep all of this to themselves isn't believable even within the ruleset of Star Trek in all it's 50+ years of content.

I don't buy it.

 

[Fateor]

I am not sure what adventures Discovery could have given the Federation should be nearly at Timelord level now...

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Sorry, but treason in Star Trek has never stopped characters (Even highly decorated Starfleet officers) in from doing things they're not supposed to do. So having everyone literally keep all of this to themselves isn't believable even within the ruleset of Star Trek in all it's 50+ years of content.

I don't buy it.

That's why the reason for there being no spore drive in TOS, TNG, etc should have been that over-use of it damaged the mycellial network in such a way that it can't be used for travel in the 23rd and 24th centuries (and maybe longer if the writers want).

And as I said, a better explanation for why Spock doesn't mention Burnham in TOS is that he's secretive about his family. There is no disavowing of Burnham's name required.

If Starfleet wants, the official story could be that Discovery disappeared and is presumed lost. That's pretty much in line with what happened anyway. And just like with Spock/Burnham, that doesn't really require that much lying, or that much "disavowing".

 

[Sakonna]

Central to Fuller's concept, as I recall, was an event ten years prior to TOS that had been mentioned but never explored. I was looking forward to seeing what it was, but then, of course, Fuller was dropped and they took it in another direction. What was that event? I'd love to know—or have they said, and I'm just too dense to have picked up on it?

I thought it was supposed to be the Federation/Klingon war. Even though, as I understand, it is not specifically referenced in TOS (which is not my area of Trekexpertise). But I thought what he was getting at was he always wondered the history of Klingon/Federation conflict that pre-dated TOS, so that's what ended up getting explored here.

 

[rhllot]

Discovery is leaving the 23rd century but Star Trek isn't. Georgiou's Section 31 show and, unless CBS is insane, Pike's Enterprise show will still set be in the 23rd century.

I probably would've just ended Discovery and went a thousand years into the future with a new cast of characters in a separate show but let's see what happens. It's so far in the future it might not even come to pass as a real timeline. For all we know something could happen in one of the other shows that renders Season 3 onwards obsolete. A possible future that doesn't come to pass in the Prime universe but still happens in a "Parallels" kind of way.

that is something that some people may want because they do not like the idea that the federation ceased to exist in the future. the states are not eternal, I'm fine with the federation ceasing to exist! I hope to see more of the war we saw in calypso

 

[Succubint]

Isn't the cover up also implying the spore drive destroyed itself? I mean I got the impression they were saying it blew up and not necessarily because it got overcome by enemy fire. Another way of saying the spore tech was too unstable and ended in catastrophic failure. A further disincentive to try to replicate the tech, not that the Klingons (for example) or anyone outside of a select few in Starfleet have much concrete info on what the spore drive does and how it works, anyway.

From what I understand, the Federation has only been around for 200 years max, and went through some incarnations over that time period. A lot can change in 200 years. Or 500 years, or 1000 years. Look at how different earth was at 1000AD compared to now. Perhaps the Federation when through periods of ascendency and then nearly collapsed several times.

I never really paid attention to the future time police, so I really don't care about their existence and how that relates to the Federation.

 

[donners22]

Now that I have bought into the show, it feels like kind of a betrayal to completely and entirely throw 2 years(!) of the show just away!

Had they done as some proposed, with Michael going back to when she was a child and changing events, thus resetting the last two seasons, I'd be leading the pitchfork brigade.

However, I don't think they have. The events depicted in those two seasons still happened. The characters still experienced those events, and retain the resulting growth. I'm more invested in the characters than the setting (especially as we know, broadly, how the 23rd century setting turns out), so changing the timeframe doesn't diminish that.
It's perhaps a soft reboot in the same way that season 4 of Enterprise was, but not a hard reset like Year of Hell.

I'm not overly thrilled that there's an air of pandering to haters around it, but I don't feel like it has dismissed what has gone before.

 

[SolarisOne]

Although to Picard and TNG fans... Are you now going to dis the 25th century Picard show because it's now going to be 'in the past' (compared to the Federation of the 32nd century we'll see in ST: D). I remember all the cries of:

"Star Trek is ALWAYS about the future and should move forward..."

To be perfectly honest, the 32nd century is so far ahead of everything else, that there's gonna be next to no impact on either show, besides maybe a mention in DSC that Romulus is gone.

 

[T'Bonz]

Mudd acting unlike Mudd, Sarek smiling, Mirror Universe people's sudden photosensitive eyes, no sign or mention of Sybok during flashbacks on Vulcan = story-wise and character-wise contradictions of TOS and the other series

Mudd was more malevolent than clownish but it fit better. He was not a nice man and perhaps TOS made the criminal TOO nice. I preferred the Disco version.

Sarek smiled at Amanda when alone in Journey to Babel. I will admit that this Sarek is a tad more emotional than TOS Sarek. He's more intense.

I'm GLAD that didn't mention that abomination Sybok. Besides, Spock was private as heck. He never mentioned any personal details unless absolutely necessary.*

*I don't count the sex discussion in The Cloud Minders.

 

[Ravenswood]

Mudd acting unlike Mudd, Sarek smiling, Mirror Universe people's sudden photosensitive eyes, no sign or mention of Sybok during flashbacks on Vulcan = story-wise and character-wise contradictions of TOS and the other series

The differences in Mudd are the differences in age. A lot can happen in ten years. I know I look back at my own younger self, and it seems like someone else's memories and behaviour compared to now.

Sarek smiled! But you know, from the earliest we see him (TFF) to his death (TNG) he displays conflicting, even contradictory attitudes and emotions, especially as regarding humans. And family members. And himself. It's almost as if he had a steadily worsening neurological condition that went undiagnosed until too late.

MU eyes. I'll grant that one.

Sybok. It's almost like Spock and everybody in Sarek's (codependent?) house has this habit of not bringing up awkward family members, especially siblings. Creates a precedent, mightn't we say?

 

[starbuck]

They could have solved that canon problem by setting a show in that timeline in the first place.

I agree with you on that ,so called trek fan and he makes problems about a show set 10 yrs before kirk trying to change trek in his image

 

[Ravenswood]

As perhaps Discovery’s BIGGEST fan, I do not feel this is a cop out or caving in, and I love the idea of a ship ‘lost in time’..!

You know, I may be alone in the feeling, but having DSC set in the 32nd century has the advantage of not being the next clutch of episodes after VOY. I honestly don't care what happened next in the 24th century, it's been done to death already, let alone the 25th century. I am not at all likely to watch Star Trek The Next Next Next Next Generation.

On the other hand, I would be very interested if DSC finds itself in a position to find out something about Future Guy.

 

[Succubint]

The thing that always gets me about Spock in JtB and his tendency to not volunteer info about his family is that he allowed his captain to introduce him to his own parents as if they were total strangers. He embarrassed his superior officer and friend.

 

[Noname Given]

I commented in another thread that I find it amusing that Michelle Yeoh gets the same "special guest star" billing for playing campy Georgiou that Jonathan Harris got for playing campy Dr. Smith on Lost in Space. And now, trapping her on the lost Discovery, they've taken that to a whole 'nother level -- she essentially is Dr. Smith.

To be fair, she's the LiS Season 1 version of "Dr. Smith" <--- And that was a great version of the character (evil and dangerous and NOT afraid); before he became the campy and cowardly comic relief and semi babysitter in LiS seasons 2 & 3

 

[Rahul]

Had they done as some proposed, with Michael going back to when she was a child and changing events, thus resetting the last two seasons, I'd be leading the pitchfork brigade.

However, I don't think they have. The events depicted in those two seasons still happened. The characters still experienced those events, and retain the resulting growth. I'm more invested in the characters than the setting (especially as we know, broadly, how the 23rd century setting turns out), so changing the timeframe doesn't diminish that.
It's perhaps a soft reboot in the same way that season 4 of Enterprise was, but not a hard reset like Year of Hell.

I'm not overly thrilled that there's an air of pandering to haters around it, but I don't feel like it has dismissed what has gone before.

I can totally get that!
My unhappiness with this whole revamp comes directly from what I personally liked or cared about the show, so it's obviously not applying for everybody.

The thing is, for me the show has always been a little seperated from TOS. Whatever happens in TOS is unaffected by DIS, but DIS is affected by TOS, if that makes any sense.

Like, the Klingon war didn't really happen this way on TOS. But it definitely happened in DIS, and I actually liked it being referenced as something that happened in season 2.

That entire "classify everything and never talk about it anymore"-business doesn't change anything about that for me. Even with that clunky explanation, it doesn't fit better with TOS than before in my eyes. The only thing it did, was that it broke it's series-internal continuity. That yes, the characters had experienced these events. But outside of them, no one.

It feels a bit like an episode with a reset button. The better kind, where at least the characters remember the events afterwards. But also worse, because it's not a single adventure or two-parter, but the entirety of the series up until this point.

 

[Relayer1]

We saw what Nero’s ship could do to federation ships from this era. I wonder how discovery in her damaged state will do in the future?

Well, it's got a very, very advanced drive that outperforms anything we saw in TNG, Voyager and DS9, even slipstream. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch for them to use that tech to boost shields, phasers etc.

Also, concerns about Disco being outdated surmise that all species are roughly technologically equivalent throughout the galaxy, which isn't necessarily so (although it does appear that way in the 24th centuriy shows).

The time jump does echo early rumours about the show featuring different time periods each season, albeit with the same ship now. The 'different ships, different crews' bit seems to have been spun off into other shows now.

The massive time jump doesn't constrain other shows set in the 24th, 25th or 26th centuries much. It's not going to back creators into many corners.

I've loved the show so far. Let's see what comes next - I'm looking forward to it !

 

[Kemaiku]

Well, it's got a very, very advanced drive that outperforms anything we saw in TNG, Voyager and DS9, even slipstream. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch for them to use that tech to boost shields, phasers etc.!

Stamets is badly injured and the spore chamber is partly wrecked. They're going to have low warp until they fix the enormous amount of damage with a minimal crew as it is.