Where would you place Star Trek Picard and Star Trek Discovery?

[Jokerz79]

Haven't seen DSC yet, but I think PIC slots in after TNG and TOS in terms of favorites.



The other installments contradict each other on certain points; TOS never had a consistent time stamp until the movies, there were at least three different "first warp starships" (the Bonaventure, the original TOS Enterprise, and the Phoenix), the center of the Galaxy could be easily traveled to until TNG and VOY decided it couldn't, Starfleet was written like a military until it wasn't, money was used until it was retconned that it never was, the change in Klingon makeup was so infamous it inspired whole stories to address it, TAS shows holodecks were used during TOS but VOY would claim that they didn't exist, ENT had cloaking technology when TOS had it as a brand-new invention, etc. The franchise has always reimagined its visuals with minimal concern to continuity, at best.

Clearly, DSC and PIC is just business as usual in terms of its approach to the franchise.

While I dislike Picard and Discovery more for their writing than retcons and it's true there has been hiccups in continuity before Discovery by claiming to be the original timeline feels more like a Reboot than the 2009 film reboot of the Franchise. At least shows like TNG with Relics, DS9 with Trials and Tribulations, VOY with Flashback, and ENT with Into the Mirror Darkly visited that era or it's technology tried to be faithful.

To be clear though I don't care honestly because I can ignore all the Trek Kurtzman has made and just watch TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, & the 13 movies (Yes as noted im my movie list I like the JJ movies change doesn't bother me). Just commenting because the retcons on Discovery in particular are so glaring.

[Exciter]

DS9
TNG
TOS
VOY
ENT
PIC
Lower Decks
...
...
DIS

[Cyke]

Star Trek discovery over Voy? why?

I feel like any answer I give would be deemed unsatisfactory unless I placed Discovery and Picard at the bottom of the list.

However, the three main advantages that DSC has over VOY for me:

- More consistent emotional beats with more fallible, vulnerable characters
- Serialized storytelling so that actions have lasting consequences
- character growth -- Stamets, Culber, Saru, and Tilly are different characters now than they were in their first episode and Mount's Captain Pike is wayyy more charismatic and courageous than Hunter's Pike, even after one episode, but they feel like natural expansions of their older selves.

Now, that's not to say the show is perfect by any means -- the show is very uneven about how it depicts emotion or consequence of choices, and I'm irritated at both its mystery box approach and that every mystery must be about the end of all life in the galaxy. DS9 is still the champ in all those regards (seriously, the kind of characterization we've seen with most of DSC's main cast is something DS9 afforded to both its main cast *and* many supporting characters, including villains!), TNG was much more consistent in its quality and didn't need serialization, and even though TOS lacked those 3 things, it had a much better grasp of adventure, drama, and color than Discovery does to set the standard for all its successors. And I give points to Picard for at least aiming to do more than maintain a status quo (though Picard constantly confusing escalation for emotion made it disappointing -- the last episode really should be more of a series finale than a season finale, or better yet, be a limited series).

I also feel like Voyager's the show that aged the worst out of previous Trek, even moreso than TOS -- bland music, repetitive enemies (only different foreheads and different color beam weapons), too much technobabble-as-conflict-resolution, a bit too cheesy, super-bland music, the ship back in tip top shape every week (and thus betraying its own premise) and maybe only half the main cast experiencing sizable growth (sorry Chakotay, Kim, Paris, and Tuvok).

But that's me. If you like Voyager more than Discovery, then more power to you. I'm not going to knock anyone for liking a different show. I will always give credit to the strength of Voyager's cast, but they did what they could with material that seemed almost boilerplate for them. Yes, Voyager has its own share of classic episodes, too. But I find myself prioritizing Discovery more than I did when Voyager was on in its heyday, when watching it was sometimes out of obligation than interest.

I'd also take this moment to make a complaint about Enterprise -- for the first 3 or 5 episodes, I didn't know what the real differences were between Trip, Reed, and Mayweather, despite their different jobs, backgrounds, and accents. Unfortunately, Mayweather came out the worst of them all -- 20 years later and he's still a blank page.

[WebLurker]

While I dislike Picard and Discovery more for their writing than retcons and it's true there has been hiccups in continuity before Discovery by claiming to be the original timeline feels more like a Reboot than the 2009 film reboot of the Franchise. At least shows like TNG with Relics, DS9 with Trials and Tribulations, VOY with Flashback, and ENT with Into the Mirror Darkly visited that era or it's technology tried to be faithful.

To be clear though I don't care honestly because I can ignore all the Trek Kurtzman has made and just watch TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, & the 13 movies (Yes as noted im my movie list I like the JJ movies change doesn't bother me). Just commenting because the retcons on Discovery in particular are so glaring.

Yeah, it's annoying, but the movies did it before (I do get that the passage of in-universe time and the refit explanation do soften it considerably). Granted, I've reached the "understanding" that Star Trek canon and continuity has been smashed beyond repair (and maybe it always was more broken then we want to admit, efforts to be consistent be damned), so I'm kinda operating under the assumption of taking each show as its own thing and just accepting that DSC will never fit very well with TOS in certain aspects.

Also, I guess it was kinda inevitable that any modern show going back to the TOS era would would wholesale reimagine the props and sets; while past flashbacks to the TOS stuff had kept continuity intact, they were usually one off episodes that were written to appeal to fans of the original show. DSC/PIC have been the latest steps in modernizing Star Trek since the Abrams movies and they're wanting new audience members who are probably going to be put off by kitschy '60s designs, no matter how much we may love them.

[Alan2099]

I also feel like Voyager's the show that aged the worst out of previous Trek, even moreso than TOS -- bland music, repetitive enemies (only different foreheads and different color beam weapons), too much technobabble-as-conflict-resolution, a bit too cheesy, super-bland music, the ship back in tip top shape every week (and thus betraying its own premise) and maybe only half the main cast experiencing sizable growth (sorry Chakotay, Kim, Paris, and Tuvok).

Voyager didn't age poorly. It was poor to begin with. People were complaining about it way back when it was still new.

[thwhtGuardian]

Voyager didn't age poorly. It was poor to begin with. People were complaining about it way back when it was still new.

Yeah, Voyager is the only Trek show I've stopped watching and I've never seen all the episodes to this day.

[Cyke]

Voyager didn't age poorly. It was poor to begin with. People were complaining about it way back when it was still new.

Well, I stand corrected, then.

But whenever I rewatch 90s shows, Voyager (along with Frasier) strike me as particularly stuck in the 90s -- even the alien costume designs use the same patterns as hotel upholstery of the day.

To be fair, so does Jake Sisko's wardrobe, but he wasn't in every episode of DS9.

[The Overlord]

Star Trek discovery over Voy? why?

Voyager is kinda dull and meanders a lot. I think Discovery should be above Voyager, even if it had some problems in season 1. It's not dull and does not meander.

While I dislike Picard and Discovery more for their writing than retcons and it's true there has been hiccups in continuity before Discovery by claiming to be the original timeline feels more like a Reboot than the 2009 film reboot of the Franchise. At least shows like TNG with Relics, DS9 with Trials and Tribulations, VOY with Flashback, and ENT with Into the Mirror Darkly visited that era or it's technology tried to be faithful.

To be clear though I don't care honestly because I can ignore all the Trek Kurtzman has made and just watch TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, & the 13 movies (Yes as noted im my movie list I like the JJ movies change doesn't bother me). Just commenting because the retcons on Discovery in particular are so glaring.

Except I can point about continuity problems even within Berman era Trek:

1. The Trill from TNG ''The Host'' look different from the DS9 Trill and the Trill seem like a species the Federation just met in the Host when they were established members of the Federation in DS9.

2. The limits on Warp Drive from the TNG episode Force of Nature are quickly forgotten.

3. The Ferengi act very differently in their debut episode compared to how they act.

Continuity nitpicking does not lead to good writing and Star Trek has never been consistent in terms of contunity.

[Celestialbeyonder]

The trashcan.

Discovery is a Star Trek show in name only. They should have called it "The walking dead in space with lots of drama". Maybe it could have worked if the setting had been in its own original universe.

Picard is ridden with logical holes that could swallow a Borg Cube and to much political commentary/preaching and contradicts TNG every 10 Minutes or so.

Whats puzzling is that the writers had at their disposal the time period from 2500 A.D. basically untouched by previous Star Trek shows. They could have created a brand new series about Starfleet exploring other Galaxies or shown the Galaxy after the defeat of the Dominion/Borg, Star Fleet exploring the regions previously held by these powers. Instead they had to make a series set a few years before TOS and a few years after TNG. Were they afraid that these new shows would not work without help from past characters?

[Jokerz79]

Voyager is kinda dull and meanders a lot. I think Discovery should be above Voyager, even if it had some problems in season 1. It's not dull and does not meander.



Except I can point about continuity problems even within Berman era Trek:

1. The Trill from TNG ''The Host'' look different from the DS9 Trill and the Trill seem like a species the Federation just met in the Host when they were established members of the Federation in DS9.

2. The limits on Warp Drive from the TNG episode Force of Nature are quickly forgotten.

3. The Ferengi act very differently in their debut episode compared to how they act.

Continuity nitpicking does not lead to good writing and Star Trek has never been consistent in terms of contunity.

I said there was always hiccups Star Trek but Discovery seems more glaring to me especially stuff like the Enterprise now having 2 looks during the Pike era. Basically the Ship was upgraded and then reverted back to it's old self by the time Kirk got her at least past changes were permanent once done while Discovery's can't be unless Discovery changes are than it invalidates TOS Enterprise design and that's sacrilege to me. The thing that is maddening about it was it was unneeded Discovery should had been set after Nemesis hell make Burnham Spock's adopted kid looking for her father post Romulus destruction. Besides all that IMO Discovery would still be bad even set post nemesis because IMO and I mentioned in my 1st post it's a badly written show.

For all the hate TNG Season One gets and much is deserved we still got some great episodes IMO with The Battle, Datalore, 11001001, Too Short a Season, Heart of Glory, Skin of Evil, and Conspiracy even When the Bough Breaks, The Big Goodbye, and Symbiosis are all IMO better than anything Discovery has even given us story wise.

[Castle]

I know I shouldn't feed, but this season made it crystal clear that not only are they separate from the Abrams-verse, but that the Prime Universe by the 32nd century is aware of the existence of the other universe.

Secondly, the first season involved the TOS USS Defiant and the 2nd season had an episode that was a sequel to the Cage, the very first episode of TOS. So yes, it was always in canon.

Thirdly, whether or not it's handled well, Discovery *is* about Burnham. She's the main character and the marketing and the promotional materials for season 1 made that clear. Again, whether it does so satisfactorily is up to the individual viewer, but the show is about a central protagonist and never pretended to be otherwise. Its quality (opinion) is different than its premise (fact).

Fourthly, a huge chunk of the setting for this current season is because of the Temporal Cold War, and then the subsequent Temporal Wars itself, all as seen in Enterprise.

Fifthly, "the original tng universe" makes it seem as if TNG exists separate from the rest of the Trek shows, which most certainly is not the case. It is not in isolation of the other shows, even (and especially) the ones that have come after it.

Lord knows I have problems with how Discovery's written and how the show treats its supporting cast -- as evidenced repeatedly in the Discovery thread -- but we can accept the premise while critiquing its execution. Every show (Trek or not) asks the viewer to accept its premise, so the premise is a given; judgement lies in how well it sticks to that premise. Two different things.

Discovery is set in the Prime Universe, A lot of fans who says it is set in the Abram-Universe only say so because Kurtzman is the son of JJ Abrams. Abrams-verse has not been acknowledged in discovery?

I will not place discovery and picard over Voyager and Enterprise. Voyager and Enterprise had many great episodes that was Star Trek. Star Trek Discovery had not turned out a true great episode, Picard is awful. a waste of Patrick Stewart.

[green_garnish]

Discovery is set in the Prime Univers.

Um, this is not the Prime Universe or the Abrams Universe. It is a new thing. Not necessarily bad, not not part of what has come before.

[Castle]

Um, this is not the Prime Universe or the Abrams Universe. It is a new thing. Not necessarily bad, not not part of what has come before.

Discovery takes place 10-15 years before Star Trek TOS.

Fans have theories on if it is a new thing because there are so many plot holes and inconsistency. However Unification 3 certifies Discovery is set in the prime universe at least with season 1 and season 2.

[green_garnish]

Discovery takes place 10-15 years before Star Trek TOS.

Fans have theories on if it is a new thing because there are so many plot holes and inconsistency. However Unification 3 certifies Discovery is set in the prime universe at least with season 1 and season 2.

I don't really care what fan theories say or what Unification 3 (whatever that is) say. You don't get from Discovery to TOS in any logical progression. this has nothing to do with set construction or special effects.

[WebLurker]

Um, this is not the Prime Universe or the Abrams Universe. It is a new thing. Not necessarily bad, not not part of what has come before.

Oh, geez;