Should Picard be the last major show to take place in that time period?

[Tim Walker]

A show might be set in the very early years of the 25th. This is when a stagnant pool of history-Reconstruction-starts to transition to something else.

These years are-in effect-the last gasp of the 24th century. Society has been at a low ebb. Now we are starting to see glimmerings of new, different era.

 

[Tim Walker]

Yes, I'm not a fan of the crazy advanced tech they had at the beginning of TNG, let alone what they had by the end of Voyager. To be honest I'm for a reboot/alt-universe show, as long as it has decent writers.

Perhaps taking inspiration from the ring ship thread, or maybe warp ship with rotational gravity.

 

[Tenacity]

I'd rather the adventures of a young Picard on the USS Stargazer.

Young Johnny Picard, swashbuckling starship captain, and part time archeologist adventurer.

If the 24th Century had always been portrayed as it is in Picard, I never would've been tired of it

In my own mind, the federation during TNG was always like it is in Picard, it's just that we saw TNG through Captain Picard's rose colored glasses.

 

[fireproof78]

Young Johnny Picard, swashbuckling starship captain, and part time archeologist adventurer.

Indiana Jones in space? O_o

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

At first I thought I'd be all up for a Stargazer series but now I don't think it would work. Fans just wouldn't accept anyone but Sir Pat playing Picard. Even if it's a prequel.

 

[Soong-type Android]

Doubt it will be the last 24th century set Trek series, but personally I'd prefer Trek to do another TNG style jump ahead several decades to have a clean slate where we don't know what will happen and new stories can be told in a new status quo.

 

[fireproof78]

Or, you know, an adventure of the week show in the same era since we have seen so little of it.

 

[Lord Garth]

Well, since Picard takes place in 2399, chronologically it probably will be the last Star Trek series set in the 24th Century. Pretty much by default.

 

[Jinn]

Well, since Picard takes place in 2399, chronologically it probably will be the last Star Trek series set in the 24th Century. Pretty much by default.

Just wait until you see the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine 2399 New Year's Eve Special, where, we experience the final hour of 2399, but in every episode we see the same events from the perspective of a different character, and by the end of the mini-series we have a completely different understanding of the events of the party than at the start.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I don't really care which time period gets focus in general. I like both the main time periods we've seen so far, and the 22nd century period (even though ent barely used it properly) and the idea of any potential new time period one might want to introduce.

At the end of the day, quality is the only thing that matters. A quality show in a familiar time period is still a quality show. And 'moving things forward' never has and never will do anything to improve the quality of a poorly made series.

Having said that, this whole thing being presented as a binary choice (should we have 23rd, 24th or 25th century) is just weird to me at this point. The company has clearly already made the decision that the answer to this question is all of the above. Strange New Worlds. Lower Decks. Picard. Discovery. They're all being made and all likely carry the potential for further spin-offs in their immediate temporal vicinity. And if there can be four time periods at once, then there can be five, or six, or however many, should anyone have a good pitch for a 22nd century show or a 27th century one, etc.

And I have to say that answer makes a hell of a lot more sense to me in just about every way than any post in this thread arguing that 'x' time period needs to go away because I want my 'y' time period.

 

[ThreeEdgedSword]

Just wait until you see the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine 2399 New Year's Eve Special, where, we experience the final hour of 2399, but in every episode we see the same events from the perspective of a different character, and by the end of the mini-series we have a completely different understanding of the events of the party than at the start.

I know you're joking, but if done well, I'd totally watch that!

 

[fireproof78]

And I have to say that answer makes a hell of a lot more sense to me in just about every way than any post in this thread arguing that 'x' time period needs to go away because I want my 'y' time period.

It does make a lot more sense to have a lot more variety than just the X century dominate. Star Trek is a fairly large universe to play in, with time travel, parallel universes and the like. Why in the wide world of sports would we want to say no to a particular century?

 

[seigezunt]

At some point, you end up with something that isn't distinguishable from Trek. If you go way forward, you have to deal with technology that would make most of the problems set out in a drama immediately solve-able, or you face doing something like DSC is apparently doing, when there's been some sort of disaster setting things back. While I'm on board to see where that goes with Discovery, I suspect they are going to reset it at some point to the Trek we recognize.

 

[Tim Walker]

I'd really like a show set in the late 25th century that features a collapsed Federation and an attempt to rebuild it.

Perhaps with sustainable technology being reset to a much lower level. Perhaps what is buildable is something like the "Warp Ship With Rotational Gravity" designed by Tarek 71. Most of the industrial base has collapsed, so much of the familiar Trek technology is now out of reach.

 

[Qonundrum]

Producers should ignore fans. Imagine Shakespeare taking cues from the audience response

^^this

Showmakers are not betrothed to audiences and can make what they want. Audiences, the peanut gallery, are not betrothed to them and react how they want to these professionals' productions (usually with a modicum of politeness).

Most shows do what they want and don't deviate and still remain fresh and engaging. An example of this might be "Red Dwarf".

Catering to the audience - how isn't that anything other than pandering anyway?

 

[Qonundrum]

Perhaps with sustainable technology being reset to a much lower level. Perhaps what is buildable is something like the "Warp Ship With Rotational Gravity" designed by Tarek 71. Most of the industrial base has collapsed, so much of the familiar Trek technology is now out of reach.

In which case, fusion and other technologies used in previous eras must be addressed. Now remember that episode "Force of Nature" and wince.

And it's a bit trite that "Oh the Federation has collapsed" - ranks up there with the corniness of "evil admiral o' the week", which TNG also delved into way too often for its final years and flicks. Why can't it not collapse instead? Of course, one of these two dramatic choices is easier to churn out...

 

[Mister Spock]

My ideal scenario is really just pulling a TNG - jump forward to 2500 or whatever. It allows a new playing field. New alliances and enemies, new back story to play with and, most importantly, zero prospect of any TNG era veterans turning up due to the characters being long dead.

 

[Antant123]

I think the 24th Century has been mined as much as it can- we have 4 movies, TNG, Voyager, DS9, Lower Decks and Picard pretty much spanning most of that century and filling in the gaps for the rest-there is little that is new at this point-the events not heavily focused on (the Cardassian Border wars, the Tzenkethi wars etc) are not really the kind of material worth dedicating an entire series too.

My suggestion would be a relatively sizeable jump of 100 years-that way the events of the 24th Century are still familiar (and given the longer life spans, many people are still alive from that point), but its enough time for major developments to set in. We know what happened to the Romulans in the immediate post Supernova period from Picard, and we know what ultimately happens to them thanks to Discovery, but there are 600 years to fill.

What about the Dominion? DS9 has the 24th equivalent of World War 2 between the Dominion and the Federation-its very unlikely they will just slink off to the Gamma Quadrant never to be seen again; what impact did Odo have on them for example?

 

[Steve Roby]

I don't really see why the century a Trek series is set in matters. There's going to be phasers and starships and transporter beams and holograms (the first version of the holodeck appeared in the animated series in the early '70s). Fancy ship tech doesn't matter much, either. If there had been a Berman era series about a Prometheus class ship, the fact that the ship could operate as three ships would matter about as much as the fact that the Enterprise could operate as two ships, and you'd just get more TNG/Voyager retread stories.

What we need is another DS9. Discovery, Strange New Worlds, and Lower Decks have the Starfleet ship adventures covered. Picard -- well, we don't know where that's going. But a series set in one place again, with a mix of Starfleet and non-Starfleet characters, with a starbase or a station and a bunch of ships, would allow a nice mix of storytelling opportunities. Could be Picard-era, could be 31st century, whatever. Just something that doesn't use the same formula.

 

[Skywalker]

A new show in the 25th century after Picard could be fun, but it would really depend on what that show would be about. If they have an actual story to tell, like they do in Picard, then go for it. If it's just going to tread ground similar to what Strange New Worlds seems poised to tread, only in a different time period, then there's no point in bothering. Ditto for a Stargazer show, which I would love to see, assuming they nail the casting for young Picard. It needs something tangible, something beyond the gimmick of being set in a different time, to set it apart.