Would you say Picard is prime timeline or part of the Discoverse?

[Dar70]

But not as crewmembers or regulars.


Yup. We want new Star Trek just don't change it.

So why make new Star Trek?

Change is fine. But Stat Trek has become a convoluted mess, both visually and story wise. But mostly visual. BEFORE ANYONE SAYS IT....no I dont think we needed to see 1960's sets. The very reason Discovery is now in the far future of trek is because the writers and production just could not adhere to simple story telling guidelines or set design. People use to complain about Enterprises visuals, but they were much more believable of what could have come before than discoveries. In the end, they need to stop with the before TOS BS and just move the franchise forward. If they want to create something different.

 

[fireproof78]

Change is fine. But Stat Trek has become a convoluted mess, both visually and story wise. B

Agree to disagree.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The very reason Discovery is now in the far future of trek is because the writers and production just could not adhere to simple story telling guidelines or set design.

How do you know this?

 

[The Wormhole]

So tell me... what happened to the Brophy-thread?

The Brian Brophy thread is still active, but there's no reason why we can't bring him up in other threads. Especially when you consider the magnitude of the crime/sin that is neglecting him.

 

[Dar70]

How do you know this?

Its obvious...isnt it???

 

[BillJ]

Does it really matter? The only thing that concerned me about the show was that I got bored with it (still haven't seen the last three episodes) after it had an engaging start.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Its obvious...isnt it???

No.

edit - To elaborate, "Calypso" was a first season Short Trek. So, the idea of setting things far in the future predates the release of any Pike episode. When they committed to having a whole season start off in the future, I do not know.

Also, we haven't seen any DISCO S3 episodes. We don't even know what the story there will be.

 

[Tuskin38]

Its obvious...isnt it???

We don't know why they chose to go to the future. It isn't obvious.

 

[Sci]

I would just say this: I find the decision to set DIS ten years before TOS to be puzzling and kind of arbitrary. There's no compelling storytelling reason why it had to be set in the 2250s -- the core of the story they were telling in S1 (Klingons taken over by extreme nationalism, Federation values of multiculturalism winning out, Burnham acts out of bigotry but learns from her mistake) could have set in, say, the 2390s. The details would need to be different (e.g., instead of Burnham's parents killed in a Klingon raid in the 2230s, you could say they were killed during the UFP-Klingon War from DS9's fourth and fifth seasons), but the broad story would be the same. It goes without saying that the story of S2 could have been done with only minor tweaks as a 2390s-era story.

The characters don't really gain anything from the TOS connection -- Sarek and Spock could have been any Vulcans in terms of how they relate to Burnham. Sarek is just a generic "stern Vulcan with a secret heart of gold" type. Spock's eternal "Human/Vulcan" conflict barely registers until the end of S2, when suddenly he's developed a catharsis to his internal conflict that seems... about 15 years too early given what we saw of his internal conflicts in TOS and TMP. Amanda is only barely a presence until a few key scenes in S2. And having Burnham be this previously-unseen Spock sibling retroactively creates this weird subtext to Spock/Sarek scenes from the prior shows. Sarek, Spock, and Amanda could have been different Vulcan characters and the dynamic would mostly have been the same.

For the most part, Pike could have been any generic Charming White Guy Leader Dude. Really, the only time a DIS episode benefited from and used its TOS connection in a meaningful way was "If Memory Serves" and Pike's vision of his fate from later in S2.

And, yes, it would have been a side-benefit if setting the show post-VOY instead of pre-TOS meant that it didn't have minor continuity hiccups like the spore drive being around 120 years before Voyager got trapped on the other side of the galaxy, or the ship designs generally all looking like they evolved out of the John Eaves-designed ships of Star Trek: First Contact instead of fitting into the TOS visual aesthetic, but that's a side benefit rather than a direct reason to do it differently.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I would just say this: I find the decision to set DIS ten years before TOS to be puzzling and kind of arbitrary. There's no compelling storytelling reason why it had to be set in the 2250s -- the core of the story they were telling in S1 (Klingons taken over by extreme nationalism, Federation values of multiculturalism winning out, Burnham acts out of bigotry but learns from her mistake) could have set in, say, the 2390s. The details would need to be different (e.g., instead of Burnham's parents killed in a Klingon raid in the 2230s, you could say they were killed during the UFP-Klingon War from DS9's fourth and fifth seasons), but the broad story would be the same. It goes without saying that the story of S2 could have been done with only minor tweaks as a 2390s-era story.

The characters don't really gain anything from the TOS connection -- Sarek and Spock could have been any Vulcans in terms of how they relate to Burnham. Sarek is just a generic "stern Vulcan with a secret heart of gold" type. Spock's eternal "Human/Vulcan" conflict barely registers until the end of S2, when suddenly he's developed a catharsis to his internal conflict that seems... about 15 years too early given what we saw of his internal conflicts in TOS and TMP. Amanda is only barely a presence until a few key scenes in S2. And having Burnham be this previously-unseen Spock sibling retroactively creates this weird subtext to Spock/Sarek scenes from the prior shows. Sarek, Spock, and Amanda could have been different Vulcan characters and the dynamic would mostly have been the same.

For the most part, Pike could have been any generic Charming White Guy Leader Dude. Really, the only time a DIS episode benefited from and used its TOS connection in a meaningful way was "If Memory Serves" and Pike's vision of his fate from later in S2.

And, yes, it would have been a side-benefit if setting the show post-VOY instead of pre-TOS meant that it didn't have minor continuity hiccups like the spore drive being around 120 years before Voyager got trapped on the other side of the galaxy, or the ship designs generally all looking like they evolved out of the John Eaves-designed ships of Star Trek: First Contact instead of fitting into the TOS visual aesthetic, but that's a side benefit rather than a direct reason to do it differently.

It did seem odd, but Discovery has been through so many creative changes since it's inception I'm not sure any of the current people know hat the initial point was.

Personally I've loved the Sarek Family Drama™ element of the show, and seeing new versions of classic characters.

 

[garakvsneelix]

When DSC came out people were outraged about the new designs and proclaimed the show wasn't part of the prime universe, and when it became clear that it wasn't set in the Kelvin timeline some proclaimed it to be in its own universe, which some people call Discoverse.

Ah ok, thanks a lot. So those are the people, who also say, that DS9 doesn't play in the same universe like TNG because the Trill look very different...

 

[Yes Man the Great]

The into Darkness Klingons sucked as well. But still the Discovery ones are the worst.

Personally, I thought the into Darkness Klingons were ok, I didn’t really even noticed the pointed ears at first, I actually sometimes kinda wish the into Darkness ones were used on Discovery instead.

 

[Sci]

It did seem odd, but Discovery has been through so many creative changes since it's inception I'm not sure any of the current people know hat the initial point was.

Fair point!

Personally I've loved the Sarek Family Drama™ element of the show, and seeing new versions of classic characters.

It's not that I've disliked the Vulcan Family Drama element, it's just that I felt making them Sarek, Spock, and Amanda in particular didn't really add anything to DIS, and that the only thing it added retroactively to earlier installments was a weird subtext that kind of undermined the existing scenes. Like to me, the Vulcan Family Drama works, but it would probably work better if it was, like, Federation Councillor Sarnak, Lieutenant Sorban, and Dr. Sierra Weise (to make up three names off the top of my head) instead of Ambassador Sarek, Lieutenant Spock, and Lady Amanda Grayson. To me it just feels like the links to the original version of the characters keeps DIS's versions of them from becoming complete characters in and of themselves. But, hey, Your Mileage May Vary here.

 

[Jinn]

So those are the people, who also say, that DS9 doesn't play in the same universe like TNG because the Trill look very different...

Mostly not. There are a couple of people that seperate just about everything, but mostly, the people who said, DSC wasn't in prime included everything from TOS to ENT in prime. At least that was my experience from posting in the DSC forum since its inception.

 

[Tenacity]

We want new Star Trek just don't change

we (well some of us) want more star trek, more of what we fell in love with.

 

[fireproof78]

we (well some of us) want more star trek, more of what we fell in love with.

Which is impossible.

 

[EnderAKH]

we (well some of us) want more star trek, more of what we fell in love with.

The problem being, of course, different people fell in love with different things. So if you try ANYTHING new, you are very likely going to violate something SOME set of fans loves about Star Trek.

 

[Turtletrekker]

we (well some of us) want more star trek, more of what we fell in love with.

We (well some of us) are getting exactly what we fell in love with. Discovery and Picard are logical and natural progressions of the stories we got 30 years ago. If we were just getting more of the BermaTrek formula, a formula that grew stale in Voyager, I'd probably still watch it but not have nearly the enthusiasm for it. With both Discovery and Picard, I haven't been this excited for new Star Trek since Deep Space Nine.

 

[BillJ]

Amanda is only barely a presence until a few key scenes in S2.

Mia Kirschner was criminally underused in season two. She was the most engaging of the TOS recast group.

 

[BillJ]

Discovery and Picard are logical and natural progressions of the stories we got 30 years ago.

Unfortunately, TOS was fifty years ago, and Discovery felt nothing like a logical or natural progression. It just felt like TOS was being used to sell the show with no real connection to the material.