"paramount should quit streaming"

[William Gatsby]

Dude, did you know that the 23rd century is actually the future? We're only up to the 21st.

Yes, the 23rd century is our future, but for Star Trek it's their past.

The 25th and 32nd is their future.

I mean, Uhura and Chapel knowing who T’Pring is already clashing with continuity.

Now will they lose their memories of T’Pring in a future episode of SNW? Or will the writers use it to further establish the Discoverse? Only the writers know. I’d personally just establish the Discoverse, but that's just me.

Yep, that's what I'm talking about it. They have to make stuff fit when you're doing a prequel series.

In the 25th and the 32nd century they can do whatever they want.

Not true. I can think of stories that connect SNW to TAS, TNG S1 & S2, DIS S3 & S4, and can build off of DIS S1 and S2. I can think of a reverse “Trials and Tribbl-ations” involving the TNG crew on Pike’s Enterprise. I can even think of a retcon regarding the Earth-Romulan War that still respect Spock;s claim that the conflict was fought ship to ship, but also opens up that there were a bunch of ground battle and black ops going on at the time too and only Pike, Una & April know about it.

Yep, that's what I'm saying, you're filling in the blanks. Be it up to 1966 or 1987 or whenever.

You're not really breaking any new ground. You're, again, filling in things that weren't up until then told.

Yes, it's a way to do things, but... eh.

25th century answers all the lingering questions from '90s Trek. Once that concludes, they could jump ahead 150 years to the 26th century and the Ent-J. And the Ent-J doesn’t even have to stay in our galaxy. They could journey to the Andromeda galaxy or another nearby galaxy. It, of course. retcons DIS S4 in crossing the galactic barrier. But that does not feel like a big deal to me.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with exploring the 32nd century either. But if they give it a break, they’ll be able to resume at the start of the 33rd century and explore that century.

Yep, that's the thing. They (Alex Kurtzman) are apparently in a place where they can't do everything that they may want to do, they have to pick and choose now.

Because I imagine they wouldn't mind doing that Star Trek: Legacy idea, and another season or two of Discovery. And the academy show to tie in with Discovery. And a few seasons of a Section 31 show with Michelle Yeoh. Although, she may not want to be tied down to a TV series right now. Also, that Star Trek: Khan: Ceti Alpha V scripted podcast... I'm sure they'd like to do that as a live-action mini series but I'm guessing that the money just isn't there.

So they have to choose, and again, this is apparently what Alex Kurtzman wants to do. And Discovery is his thing, so things that tie into that is what gets made.

If there were a "The Next Generation guy" in charge, we'd probably be getting something different.

 

[FederationHistorian]

Yep, that's what I'm talking about it. They have to make stuff fit when you're doing a prequel series.

Which they would not have to worry about if they’d just acknowledge that Disco and SNW are in a different universe.

Yep, that's what I'm saying, you're filling in the blanks. Be it up to 1966 or 1987 or whenever.

You're not really breaking any new ground. You're, again, filling in things that weren't up until then told.

Yes, it's a way to do things, but... eh.

Any show made set before the 32nd century is going to be filling in the blanks. That includes whatever 25th century show that is greenlit.

I also know I haven't really enjoyed the 32nd century as its been told so far, so I'm going to gravitate towards the 23rd and 25th centuries.

 

[Dukhat]

Honestly, the whole "They need to make a Star Trek series that takes place in the __ century" thinking is pretty flawed, because whether a show takes place in the 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, or 32nd centuries, they're not going to be all that different. Star Trek is a universe where there is very little change no matter what time period a particular show is set in. So saying that a show taking place in the early 25th century will be an inherently better idea than a show taking place in the 32nd, doesn't really hold all that much weight. I would bet that if anyone completely unfamiliar with Star Trek watched both SNW and PIC, they probably would have no idea that the shows take place 150 years apart.

 

[FederationHistorian]

Its matter in terms of tone.

The 32nd century is a lot more dystopic than the 22nd, 23rd and 24th centuries. There’s a learning curve, 22nd century. A learning curve is associated with the 22nd century. The 23rd century has a more optimistic tone, but are also not the flawless utopian humans of the 24th century. 25th century is broken utopia, but not the dystopian setting of the 32nd century. There are differences between the centuries in Star Trek.

And the people that can’t tell the different between SNW and PIC also probably think Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica & The Orville are all the same thing.

 

[fireproof78]

And the people that can’t tell the different between SNW and PIC also probably think Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica & The Orville are all the same thing.

They are. They are entertainment.

 

[The Old Mixer]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Dukhat]

The 32nd century is a lot more dystopic than the 22nd, 23rd and 24th centuries. There’s a learning curve, 22nd century. A learning curve is associated with the 22nd century. The 23rd century has a more optimistic tone, but are also not the flawless utopian humans of the 24th century. 25th century is broken utopia, but not the dystopian setting of the 32nd century. There are differences between the centuries in Star Trek.

The 32nd century as presented in DSC is nowhere near as dystopic as you’re making it out to be. Perhaps in the first few episodes of season 3, but after that they went right back to the formulaic premise Trek has always had. And the other tonal attributes you point out for each time period are fleeting at best.

And the people that can’t tell the different between SNW and PIC also probably think Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica & The Orville are all the same thing.

Which only reinforces my point about the futility of thinking that one era of Star Trek will be any better or different than any other era.

 

[William Gatsby]

Honestly, the whole "They need to make a Star Trek series that takes place in the __ century" thinking is pretty flawed, because whether a show takes place in the 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, or 32nd centuries, they're not going to be all that different. Star Trek is a universe where there is very little change no matter what time period a particular show is set in. So saying that a show taking place in the early 25th century will be an inherently better idea than a show taking place in the 32nd, doesn't really hold all that much weight. I would bet that if anyone completely unfamiliar with Star Trek watched both SNW and PIC, they probably would have no idea that the shows take place 150 years apart.

Yeah, that's why I say, it all comes down to the person in charge.

Alex Kurtzman is a "Discovery guy," I guess, for lack of a better description. So the kind of shows that we get reflect what he wants to do.

If someone like Mike McMahan was in change, I'm guessing we'd be getting The Next Generation kind of shows. He would probably do shows set in the 25th century. That seems to be his main interest.

What you're saying though, yeah, makes sense.

Which they would not have to worry about if they’d just acknowledge that Disco and SNW are in a different universe.

It is a curious thing that this is not an official thing.

To new fans of course it makes no difference, they don't know otherwise.

Like myself, for the most part. I know the new stuff and just a little bit of the old stuff. So little, that all of the "nostalgia" things they did in season three of Picard to me was a big, "this is important, why?" But of course that season was not made for me, that was made for longtime fans of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Naturally though I guess they have to strike a balance. They can't make things only for new people and leave the old fans out in the cold. Likewise, it probably isn't a good idea to make things only old fans would enjoy and care about, because any potential new people won't know and won't care.

When money is seemingly no object, you can make a variety of shows to cater to everyone. When the financial situation changes, you have to focus.

Any show made set before the 32nd century is going to be filling in the blanks. That includes whatever 25th century show that is greenlit.

I feel the same way.

Some people of course get a kick out of filling in the blanks. Everyone likes what they like.

I also know I haven't really enjoyed the 32nd century as its been told so far, so I'm going to gravitate towards the 23rd and 25th centuries.

Yeah, and if someone like you were in charge, you would green light shows set in either one of those time periods, right. So yeah, that's kind of how it goes.

If I were in charge... 32nd century all the way. Detached nacelles, programmable matter, personal transporters, cool new uniforms and so on...

 

[drt]

I would bet that if anyone completely unfamiliar with Star Trek watched both SNW and PIC, they probably would have no idea that the shows take place 150 years apart.

It's much the same for TOS and TNG, the uninitiated would look at the "Next Generation" in the title, assume that meant 20 years later and then think, "yeah, that old show looks like it's from the 60s and this new one the 80s, that's 20 years."

 

[Mudd]

Yes, the 23rd century is our future, but for Star Trek it's their past.

The 25th and 32nd is their future.

So what? They're not the audience.

 

[Mudd]

Which they would not have to worry about if they’d just acknowledge that Disco and SNW are in a different universe.

They don't have to worry about it for an instant.

Anyway, all the Trek TV shows ever made take place in the same, single, made-up future.

 

[Sketcher]

It's much the same for TOS and TNG, the uninitiated would look at the "Next Generation" in the title, assume that meant 20 years later and then think, "yeah, that old show looks like it's from the 60s and this new one the 80s, that's 20 years."

Personally I have a harder time (if it wasn't the same characters in both) grappling that TOS and TMP are only 5 years apart.

 

[Francis Tonay]

Quite a damning day for paramount, but perhaps a silver lining in licencing
https://www.indiewire.com/news/business/paramount-plus-quit-streaming-analyst-1234859135/

Anyway i also hope Trek played a role in bumping those subscribers, but it's also a bit dismal on the future - enjoy our new trek while we can
-
Other sites covering this, with quotes from the meetings. Here's the Hollywood Reporter:


Another article from HR about the debt too.

"Star Trek is returning to Television where it BELONGS!"
Nope

 

[Lord Garth]

Alex Kurtzman is a "Discovery guy," I guess, for lack of a better description. So the kind of shows that we get reflect what he wants to do.

Michelle Paradise is the Showrunner for Discovery and has been since the third season.

Alex Kurtzman is the new Rick Berman. DSC, PIC, and SNW are all part of Alex Kurtzman's brand, just like TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT are all part of Rick Berman's brand. Akiva Goldsman runs SNW, but he also worked on PIC. The lines are more blurred between shows of a same production era than most people realize. But they hate the "other" show so much (whatever that other show happens to be), they have blinders on. They want to disassociate their show from the other show as much as possible.

If you want to extend it back to 2009 and include the Abrams Films, those movies are like TNG: two versions of Star Trek that the general audience has actually seen. People you know IRL are far more likely to have seen TNG and the Abrams Films than anything that came out after them. DSC and PIC are like DS9 and VOY. Spin-offs in the TV Franchise. Well, the first two seasons of PIC are a spin-off, anyway; the third season is a TNG Movie (but done better IMO). SNW is like ENT, where they're like, "Sorry about those spin-offs! Here's something closer to what we think you expect!" It didn't work with ENT, but it's working with SNW. SNW and ENT have also had their lifetimes during a point when the expansion of the franchise in its era was over and things started contracting again. In the early-2000s, the idea of having two Star Trek series at the same time and a new movie every two years was over. In the mid-2020s, the idea of having five Star Trek series at the same time again is over.

 

[UssGlenn]

when it come to the creative vision of the current shows, Kurtzman isn't the one with his hand on the wheel. He starts the engine, but someone else is driving.
Discovery: Paradise
Picard S3: Matalas
Lower Decks: McMahan
Strange New Worlds: Goldsman
Prodigy: the Hagemans

 

[StarTrek1701]

In the early-2000s, the idea of having two Star Trek series at the same time and a new movie every two years was over. In the mid-2020s, the idea of having five Star Trek series at the same time again is over.

As thankful I have been in the resurgence of Trek, I do think Kurtzman and others made a terrible mistake by setting Discovery in the pre-TOS era.
We already had a show, ENT, and Discovery with its modern and updated look should have been set post Hobus/Romulus explosion, and the crew exploring deeper part of the Beta Quadrant now that Romulans are no longer a major threat.
And the spore drive can be used once every X-hours because it needs to be reset etc, letting them jump further than transwarp ever could and that's where they discover (pun intended) of these Kilngon/Romulan hybrid warriors that have been laying dormant and amassing power and now when they see the Federation crossing into their territory they start to attack. Or, perhaps an off shoot of the Remans? That would have been something new rather than redesign the Klingons that everyone hated.
So there, no more fan complaints about canon effects, no more dislike of Discovery and shows that are coming after it. More pople watch, we don't worry about Trek hibernating again like it did in 2016.

 

[F. King Daniel]

So there, no more fan complaints about canon effects, no more dislike of Discovery and shows that are coming after it. More pople watch, we don't worry about Trek hibernating again like it did in 2016

I remember reading a complaint in Best Of Trek (I think) about TMP having a warp effect when there was nothing like it in TOS. So era aside, people gonna complain

 

[Lord Garth]

I don't see DSC as going side-by-side with TNG/DS9/VOY, so I think setting it in the late-24th/early-25th Century would've been a mistake. I don't see DSC as going side-by-side with TOS either. I see it as something else. So, I think it's now where it belongs: in the 32nd Century.

 

[drt]

As thankful I have been in the resurgence of Trek, I do think Kurtzman and others made a terrible mistake by setting Discovery in the pre-TOS era.

The reasoning for this is because it's easier to promote something set "before Kirk and Spock", as prequels are a good jumping in point. Otherwise, there's the concern that general audiences might believe a sequel series requires watching 28 seasons of ancient TV shows to understand what is happening.

 

[Phily B]

The reasoning for this is because it's easier to promote something set "before Kirk and Spock", as prequels are a good jumping in point. Otherwise, there's the concern that general audiences might believe a sequel series requires watching 28 seasons of ancient TV shows to understand what is happening.

Sounds like the usual Kurtzman nonsense of zero respect for the audiences intelligence. Lots of examples of shows doing well with a lot of history behind them, especially scifi related stuff.