Discovery - Timeline, continuity and other canonical issues [** SPOILERS **]

Evade

corkie wrote: »

I wonder what Sheldon Cooper would/will have to same about that quote?

One of the Disco writers should probably have read this.

Slydice

corkie wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoW8Sq8-hr4

Cool video.

corkie wrote: »

Star Trek: Discovery NCC 1031 ~~~ Section 31

That might be more related to the Space Shuttle Discovery having designation: OV-103: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/shuttleoperations/orbiters/discovery-info.html

Section 31 would be cool though.

heebusjeebus

Discovery being 1031 doesn't make sense unless all these black science ships (like the Glenn) reference Section 31 too.

Goodshape

heebusjeebus wrote: »

Discovery being 1031 doesn't make sense unless all these black science ships (like the Glenn) reference Section 31 too.

Memory Alpha lists the USS Glenn's registry as NCC-1030 – http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/USS_Glenn

So presumably it's just coincidence and/or misdirection from the writers room.

seamus

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

My whole take on TranSPORtation is that it was looked into but eventually deemed too unreliable and was never widely adopted. Maybe used by S31 in extreme cases.

Or unsafe; if a huge jump turns people inside-out, maybe there's a continual deleterious effect from short jumps.
Or maybe you find there's a huge cool-down (or, why don't they just do a series of short jumps rather than one huge one?) which negates benefit of the jump and leaves you without warp propulsion for a long time? That's no good in a battle.

Anyway, we're jumping the gun on pointing out problems with a technology that we've had a 3 minute introduction to. No doubt the series will go into more detail as time goes on.

FutureGuy

Trek yards had the Glen down as NCC-1010 but the registry is very blurry.

There is a lot of tech that, in a hundred years, could explain a lot of S31 shenanigans. We know this is not widespread by the time TNG roles around but that does not mean it's not out there.

Remember, we are watching a franchise which develops transwarp before mothballing it completely because Scotty took out some parts. 🙄

It seems that people cant forgive ST:DISC for what they are doing when Trek as a franchise has been liberally changing canon around around to suit the need of the story for decades.

I fully believe that the people involved in Discovery are paying more attention to canon than any other Trek film or tv crew.

PhiloCypher

FutureGuy wrote: »

Trek yards had the Glen down as NCC-1010 but the registry is very blurry.

There is a lot of tech that, in a hundred years, could explain a lot of S31 shenanigans. We know this is not widespread by the time TNG roles around but that does not mean it's not out there.

Remember, we are watching a franchise which develops transwarp before mothballing it completely because Scotty took out some parts. 🙄

It seems that people cant forgive ST:DISC for what they are doing when Trek as a franchise has been liberally changing canon around around to suit the need of the story for decades.

I fully believe that the people involved in Discovery are paying more attention to canon than any other Trek film or tv crew.

As someone on reddit pointed out if you followed canon established in TOS's 'where no man has gone before' where the Enterprise enters the galactic barrier around the edge of the galaxy or Star Trek V where they reach the center of the galaxy all within a couple of days then Voyager makes no sense .

FutureGuy

PhiloCypher wrote: »

As someone on reddit pointed out if you followed canon established in TOS's 'where no man has gone before' where the Enterprise enters the galactic barrier around the edge of the galaxy or Star Trek V where they reach the center of the galaxy all within a couple of days then Voyager makes no sense .

Or again, how the Enterprise, with a few quick calculations, figures out how to time travel but never uses it again, nor does any other ship in the fleet.

Or how the Enterprise gets to the centre of the galaxy in the space of a movie. And back. Or how the Enterprise E can time travel back from First Contact

The truth is, we have seem Star Trek through the eyes of 6-7 crews on 6-7 ships and stations. Those ships have been exploratory/diplomatic ships with a specialised mission. That's a VERY narrow view of the Federation.

Who knows what secret or failed technologies have never been shown in Canon before.

But there is definite undercurrent of sh!tting on Discovery for the sake of it.

Theacros

FutureGuy wrote: »

Or again, how the Enterprise, with a few quick calculations, figures out how to time travel but never uses it again, nor does any other ship in the fleet.

Or how the Enterprise gets to the centre of the galaxy in the space of a movie. And back. Or how the Enterprise E can time travel back from First Contact

The truth is, we have seem Star Trek through the eyes of 6-7 crews on 6-7 ships and stations. Those ships have been exploratory/diplomatic ships with a specialised mission. That's a VERY narrow view of the Federation.

Who knows what secret or failed technologies have never been shown in Canon before.

But there is definite undercurrent of sh!tting on Discovery for the sake of it.

Of course there are plot holes in the other series, but the Abrams movies and this Discovery series take it to a whole other level, and far more frequently.

ezra_

My biggest bug with Star Trek is this:

you have ships out there with cloaking devices, of which no ship can really detect until they start getting attacked.
most ships don't travel around with shields up
every ship has a transporter.

So why are they bother with weapons that aren't fast enough to knock out a ship with one shot, when they could just transport everyone off the ship and into a sun, or into the vacuum of space, or into their own warp core (you get the point).

Why not just transport a photon torpedo into the engine room of the ship?

Transporters seems to have the potential for the ultimate weapon in trek, yet more and more I'm getting frustated that they aren't being used either as a weapon (beam someone into space) or as a delivery method (beam in a bomb).

This really was the case in the DS9 episode with the crashed Jem Hadar ship, where the dominion spend hours trying drive the people out of the ship by shooting around them, and then just beam directly to Sisko when the founder dies. Odo has transported! Beam the founder (or star fleet) out!

Its the same for every series (Disco included), it would have been way easier just use the transporter in many situations

Sad Professor

^ I believe the original explanation for this was that the cloak used so much power that firing weapons, raising shields or even using the transporter wasn't possible and/or would have resulted in immediate detection. Cloaking tech in TOS was far from perfect. Hell, in STIII, Kirk spotted a cloaked ship by looking carefully out the viewscreen. Then in TNG there was apparently political reasons for why cloaking tech wasn't more common.

Transporter technology was originally a lot more limited as well, not to mention risky. Transporting within the ship almost never happened. Abrams made a joke out of the transporter, using it to teleport across the galaxy and onto a moving starship and other silly sh*t.

ezra_

Sad Professor wrote: »

^ I believe the original explanation for this was that the cloak used so much power that firing weapons, raising shields or even using the transporter wasn't possible and/or would have resulted in immediate detection. Cloaking tech in TOS was far from perfect. Hell, in STIII, Kirk spotted a cloaked ship by looking carefully out the viewscreen. Then in TNG there was apparently political reasons for why cloaking tech wasn't more common.

Transporter technology was originally a lot more limited as well, not to mention risky. Transporting within the ship almost never happened. Abrams made a joke out of the transporter, using it to teleport across the galaxy and onto a moving starship and other silly sh*t.

True I guess, but there have been many incidents in all series where they had a Deus Ex Machina in the form of the transporter and just ignored it.

DS9 is the worst for this

Evade

After watching the latest episode I still have to wonder why they went the prequel route. If you change the date in the first episode to 2450 the only change that would have to be made is the inclusion of Sarek.

The dash drive is even faster than any of the other impossibly fast drives like transwarp and quantum slipstream. The only thing faster seems to be the mildly pedophilic drive.

silverharp

so far the oversized bug is the only one I am rooting for.

seamus

Evade wrote: »

If you change the date in the first episode to 2450 the only change that would have to be made is the inclusion of Sarek.

I think I had said this on the pre-release thread, but your issue with a new series is the Superman problem.

Think of the augmentations and the technology that Voyager returned to Earth with. A absolute f*ckload of Borg technology & scientific information (fluidic space?) that gives Starfleet absolute superiority in the galaxy, not just the alpha quadrant.

Voyager's over-reliance on miraculous last-minute lifesaving technology now makes it really hard to write a Starfleet-based story where anyone is really at any risk.

Evade

seamus wrote: »

I think I had said this on the pre-release thread, but your issue with a new series is the Superman problem.

Think of the augmentations and the technology that Voyager returned to Earth with. A absolute f*ckload of Borg technology & scientific information (fluidic space?) that gives Starfleet absolute superiority in the galaxy, not just the alpha quadrant.

Voyager's over-reliance on miraculous last-minute lifesaving technology now makes it really hard to write a Starfleet-based story where anyone is really at any risk.

Ok, but then they introduce the dash drive which arguably surpasses all those things.

They could write around the tech gap especially given 70 plus years. Do you think Romulan, Klingon, Breen, Dominion, etc scientists and intelligence agencies would just sit by and let the Federation have such a huge advantage for all that time?

Goodshape

Evade wrote: »

Ok, but then they introduce the dash drive which arguably surpasses all those things.

That's my only real annoyance with the "more advanced" technology.

I'm totally fine with most of the tech updates and visual overhaul, and I too have made the argument that post-VOY has too much silly technology to be interesting on a human-story level, but now we have a super advanced technology anyway :-/

Diminishes the point of setting it in the time they did, somewhat.

Not a huge deal though. I'm sure there'll be good reason why the tech wasn't continued; the writers seem pretty in-touch with the canon that matters, imo, despite changes to what I'd consider surface-level details.

AtomicHorror

Goodshape wrote: »

That's my only real annoyance with the "more advanced" technology.

I'm totally fine with most of the tech updates and visual overhaul, and I too have made the argument that post-VOY has too much silly technology to be interesting on a human-story level, but now we have a super advanced technology anyway :-/

Diminishes the point of setting it in the time they did, somewhat.

Not a huge deal though. I'm sure there'll be good reason why the tech wasn't continued; the writers seem pretty in-touch with the canon that matters, imo, despite changes to what I'd consider surface-level details.

The tech evidently requires them to keep an animal in captivity and torture it every time they jump, so I guess that'd not work well for Starfleet, ethically. Of course, other civilisations might not have such an issue with it.

pixelburp

Yeah, still way too soon to draw absolute conclusions, but going by the events of Episode 4, it's clear that the simple reason this Spore Drive doesn't become a thing is that it's ethically reprehensible.

More than that, the namedrop of the tardigrade suggests that the writers are taking inspiration from current popular science, so with that in mind I am wondering if the spores themselves - or indeed the network that stretches across the galaxy - is also a sentient / sapient life-form itself. Popular science has highlighted how the largest organism on earth is actually a giant fungus that stretches for KMs, and this network Stamets refers to sounds awfully like this real-world equivalent. It'd kill the research dead in its tracks if it wasn't just hurting a few single creatures, but a giant lifeform too. It'd also act as a nice capper to the whole ethical drama if indeed the principles of the Federation ultimately win out - which presumably they do given the continuity.

FutureGuy

Some interviews yesterday.

Akiva Goldman, a producer, responded to concerns that Discovery seemed to sidestep or contradict existing facts within the Star Trek mythos.

"We are wildly aware of everything that appears to be a deviation from canon," he said. "We will close out each of those issues before we arrive at [the end of the show]."

Likewise, other members of the cast and crew weighed in on how the show takes place ten years before the original series, but looks more advanced as a result of modern filmmaking techniques.

"There is a traditional in Star Trek of attempting to use modern storytelling: visual techniques, props, visual effects, et cetera, to contemporize the original feeling that was generated by the props, and the sets, and the visual effects at the time," Goldman said. "We're trying to remain true to the technology that was available then, but represent it with the technology we have now."

"[Discovery] isn't just made for the Trekkies," Isaacs added. "It's for all the new people who have never seen it before. They want to see new stories with new tech. The fact that you don't see it ten years later on a different show is consistent."

Inviere

It's definitely Star Trek, perhaps not as we've known it before, but it's definitely Trek. It's had the most solid start out of ANY of the existing franchise shows, and I say that as a person who could be considered a strong conservatist when it comes to Star Trek. All the BS touted that it isn't Star Trek, to me, is coming from people who have seen 4 bloody episodes of the show...imagine judging TNG based off of Encounter at Farpoint 1 & 2, The Naked Now, and Code of fecking Honor!!! All complete muck, yet we largely define the question of "what is Star Trek", based off of The Next Generation. People need to cop on, or this show will die before it's even given a chance to live.

In saying that...

FutureGuy wrote: »

...with new tech. The fact that you don't see it ten years later on a different show is consistent."

I'd disagree with that, it's the very definition of inconsistent. Which brings me to the larger point, the only true mistake they've made with Discovery, is not one we've seen on screen, but the writers telling us that it's set in the Prime Universe. Why, why, have they boxed themselves in with that comment, set limits that didn't need to be set, and thrown a match on the fire with die hard fans. I find the show very enjoyable to watch because I've told myself, this isn't the universe where the other shows have been set (how could it be?).

Are we really expected to believe that Starfleet allowed a Borg Cube to reach Earth (twice!), and allow millions to die in the Dominion War, despite having 100 year old tech that could have radically changed the result, or even prevented them from happening in the first place? It's too much of a stretch for me, which is why for me, Discovery is ever so clearly a reboot in a fresh, unexplored era and universe. Why the writers didn't take this route is beyond me, I can only imagine a bunch of suits and accountants making that call.

In fact, I challenge anyone to complete this sentence in a believable and provable way: "I feel Star Trek Discovery is set in the Prime Universe because..." For me, there's only one correct answer, which is, "because they said so." Not good enough for me, so I'm making my own damned canon

Goodshape

Inviere wrote: »

"I feel Star Trek Discovery is set in the Prime Universe because..."

...they've given us no reason to suspect otherwise. A propulsion technology that ceases to exist in "later" eras? We've had exactly two episodes of that so far; perhaps some benefit of the doubt can be extended for a little while yet. Annoyingly deus-ex-y? Maybe. But there's no reason to believe there won't be a good reason for discontinuing it's use and development.


Now, honestly, without referencing that things look different, can anyone complete the reverse sentence in a credible way?

"I feel Star Trek Discovery must be set in an alternate universe because..."

Inviere

Goodshape wrote: »

...they've given us no reason to suspect otherwise. A propulsion technology that ceases to exist in "later" eras? We've had exactly two episodes of that so far; perhaps some benefit of the doubt can be extended for a little while yet. Annoyingly deus-ex-y? Maybe. But there's no reason to believe there won't be a good reason for discontinuing it's use and development.

It's not just the propulsion tech, there are a lot of differences thus far from the established Prime Universe timeline. I'm fine with them by the way, no issues for me, as I said, I'm really enjoying the show...but if I was a stickler for canon, I totally see where the angst can come from. For me, it's easier, simpler, and more credible to believe it's an alternate reality.

Now, honestly, without referencing that things look different, can anyone complete the reverse sentence in a credible way? "I feel Star Trek Discovery must be set in an alternate universe because..."

You didn't really answer my question though, give me solid reasons based off of what you've seen on screen, which give you an arguable sense that it's set in the Prime Universe. I'd be happy to tackle the reverse, but I'm genuinely interested in seeing how people answer the original question

Goodshape

Inviere wrote: »

It's not just the propulsion tech, there are a lot of differences thus far from the established Prime Universe timeline.

Like what though? Again if you discount the fact that things look different, because that's happened before in the Prime Universe without any dimensional rift, what are you really left with to make that case?

It's different if you just don't like the new tone, or new ship, or crew, or the stories they're telling, or even if you just don't like the visual changes they've made or simply can't stand a prequel on any terms. Fair enough, but none of that precludes it from being in the same universe as TOS, TAS, TNG, etc.


Even the Klingons. Sure they look and sound different but surely you can see they're obviously Klingons. The update to appearance and culture seems (to me at least) a totally natural progression from what was established from TNG onwards. The warrior race with a penchant for the spiritual. They're unmistakably Klingon.


Put it like this, we're four episodes in (a fact worth remembering!) and, discounting 50+ years of SFX updates and a change in uniform, have you really seen anything yet which would prevent TOS, TNG, etc. from playing out exactly the way we know they did? I don't think I have.

You didn't really answer my question though, give me solid reasons based off of what you've seen on screen, which give you an arguable sense that it's set in the Prime Universe. I'd be happy to tackle the reverse, but I'm genuinely interested in seeing how people answer the original question

But I think the burden of proof is on you here. We've been told it's Prime Universe. I see no reason to disbelieve that. I think it's up to you (and/or others) to make the case as to why that somehow isn't true.

server down

Goodshape wrote: »

...they've given us no reason to suspect otherwise. A propulsion technology that ceases to exist in "later" eras? We've had exactly two episodes of that so far; perhaps some benefit of the doubt can be extended for a little while yet. Annoyingly deus-ex-y? Maybe. But there's no reason to believe there won't be a good reason for discontinuing it's use and development.


Now, honestly, without referencing that things look different, can anyone complete the reverse sentence in a credible way?

"I feel Star Trek Discovery must be set in an alternate universe because..."

I think it is obvious why it will be discontinued, its harming a sentient proably intelligent species.

The_Valeyard

ive a sneaking suspicion, the drive actually catapults them into the future (post TNG) and thats where season two will begin.

flaneur

I'd love to know how they're going to explain away that "spore drive" technology didn't become mainstream. This ancient starship is making Picard's Enterprise look positively old fashioned with its primitive warp technology.

It's also the kind of stuff that the Voyager crew would have happily sold Nelix for.

Inviere

Goodshape wrote: »

Like what though? Again if you discount the fact that things look different, because that's happened before in the Prime Universe without any dimensional rift, what are you really left with to make that case? It's different if you just don't like the new tone, or new ship, or crew, or the stories they're telling, or even if you just don't like the visual changes they've made or simply can't stand a prequel on any terms. Fair enough, but none of that precludes it from being in the same universe as TOS, TAS, TNG, etc.

I do like the tone, I do like the ship (kinda), I do like the crew, I do like the story, and I do like the visual changes, yet I still don't feel it's set in the Prime Universe.

Even the Klingons. Sure they look and sound different but surely you can see they're obviously Klingons. The update to appearance and culture seems (to me at least) a totally natural progression from what was established from TNG onwards. The warrior race with a penchant for the spiritual. They're unmistakably Klingon.

I seem to be in a minority re the Klingons, I really enjoy them! Anything that oozes that socio-cultural theism vibe they're going with, will hook me in - I'm a sucker for that stuff. I love how the language sounds, very alien, different, and direct. Yet, I still don't feel they fit in the Prime Universe!

Put it like this, we're four episodes in (a fact worth remembering!)

I know, I pointed it out above...we're at Code of Honor levels of development! Very, very, early days (hopefully)

...and, discounting 50+ years of SFX updates and a change in uniform, have you really seen anything yet which would prevent TOS, TNG, etc. from playing out exactly the way we know they did? I don't think I have.

I'll put it this way, I feel canonically, it's a very jarring juxtaposition.

But I think the burden of proof is on you here. We've been told it's Prime Universe. I see no reason to disbelieve that. I think it's up to you (and/or others) to make the case as to why that somehow isn't true.

Thought not You've basically given the "because they told me so" answer I pre-empted above. There's no burden of proof on anybody here, it's a discussion with both equal sides. I asked for on-screen reasons that'd convince you it's a Prime Universe show, had the writers not said so...so far, I've not got one. As I said, I'll happily address the reverse of that question, but in order to compare shows, we'd have to acknowledge and cement down a lot of details about the previous shows, in order to compare against this new one.

People seem to be very resistant to what the canon holds, and are quick to brush it aside in the name of updated tech and visuals. Updated tech and visuals are perfectly fine, but committing to an in-universe prequel in ANY show will hold writing and exploration back a lot...doing it with Star Trek, well, as I said before, I feel it's a mistake for them to commit to it. I'd not change a single thing about the show, apart from its setting. For me, it's far more closely aligned to the JJ-verse, that it is to the Prime Universe, for various observable reasons.

server down

The_Valeyard wrote: »

ive a sneaking suspicion, the drive actually catapults them into the future (post TNG) and thats where season two will begin.

Ooooh!

PhiloCypher

flaneur wrote: »

I'd love to know how they're going to explain away that "spore drive" technology didn't become mainstream. This ancient starship is making Picard's Enterprise look positively old fashioned with its primitive warp technology.

It's also the kind of stuff that the Voyager crew would have happily sold Nelix for.

I'm fairly sure if you read back through the posts in this thread and the episode thread you'll find your explanation. TBH its clear as day if you watch the "Butcher cares not for the lambs cry" that we're heading towards a reckoning between Burnham and Lorca on the ethics of using the Tardigrade (a life form) in their Spore drive. Either Burnham will go over Lorca's head and inform Starfleet command and they will ban its use , the spore network will be destroyed or the Tardigrade will turn out to be of unknown origin and when he dies so does their Spore Satnav thus making it unsafe to use.