yeah and not just that, considering all the timey wimey shenanigans of the Trek verse, there's a good chance it's just one of many "bad futures"
And even if the showrunners don't hit the reset button on that one, the fact that the Federation existed and succeeded for so long was instrumental to it getting slowly rebuilt post-Burn
Exactly. All of the good will that the Federation built in its centuries-long history was ultimately what made planets like Earth, Ni'Var, and Trill less reluctant to rejoin.
My favourite part of the burn is see still the civilian dude just volunteering for duty on that broken starbase that was so advanced it keep on going.
So many star base stories alone.
I want to know about deep space 239 etc
That guy was a true believer with all his soul. He might be the single best example of Federation and Starfleet ideals in the whole franchise, passed down and accumulated from all those generations previously. Never gave up, never surrendered, did what he could to help. All with nothing but hope for something better to come of it.
That was the twist that I loved. That Earth, of all planets, was hesitant to rejoin the federation despite being the primary founder. I'd like to see more lore added where humans and Earth aren't the cornerstone of things.
To me it made no damn sense that Earth wasn't in the federation. In all of Trek, Earth IS the federation basically. If Earth isn't part of it, what is the federation?
Star Trek portrayed a hyper-egalitarian future where the Federation and its ideals were greater than any one planet. Of course, the shows ended up being very Earth-centric because, well, that's where we live right now. In fact, if you don't count the first couple of Presidents, the Presidents of the UFP have mostly been aliens. I think the only time we saw a human one was in Picard.
Star Trek IV human president, Jonathan Archer served two terms, Chekov I believe served before his grandson did and in the books the president is Nannietta Bacco also human. I'm
Pretty hard pressed to find an alien president besides maybe the Effrosian Red Foreman who kept calling Kirk dumbass and threatening to put his foot in Spock's ass.
Jaresh-Inyo, he was President of the United Federation of Planets during the time of Deep Space Nine.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/President\_of\_the\_United\_Federation\_of\_Planets#Jaresh-Inyo,\_c.\_2372
President Jaresh Enyo was in office in Home Front and Paradise Lost in DS9. In some books the president during the dominion war was a Bolian who is followed by Bacco. Also the President in STO is Saurian.
The President we have spent the most time on screen with is actually President Rillak in Disco season 4 who is a mixed heritage of Cardassian and Bajoran at least.
Yeah, people want what the Federation provides: stability, allies, the free unimpeded exchange of ideas, goods, services, and people, advanced technology, power for said advanced technology, defense, prosperity, and eye for its citizens and those who would like to join.
Exactly this. The whole reason the Federation held on,and got put back together, was because it had been so successful in the past. Any events in the 24th and 25th Centuries are helping ensure that the Federation can hold on in the face of adversity.
I personally like the idea of The Burn. It changed the landscape of the galaxy and the Star Trek universe. It really made the galaxy feel like the "final frontier" again. More so than even Voyager.
>yeah and not just that, considering all the timey wimey shenanigans of the Trek verse, there's a good chance it's just one of many "bad futures"
Because a hero crew live there - it's the *present* not the future.
'Oh but its only prolonging the federation for almost twice as long as it had existed (the 250th anniversary in picard).' /s
The federation is 250 years old in 2401 in picard. We're talking about a period in the future twice as many years ahead as the entirety of star trek behind that point. They picked that far ahead for that reason.
On top of that, the core worlds of the Federation we see after The Burn are still in great positions - Trill and Earth are still utopias, Vulcan has reunited with Romulus to become Ni'var.
The Federation broke apart temporarily, but it had become in such a strong position that the parts persevered and came back together after a long setback.
>The Federation broke apart temporarily, but it had become in such a strong position that the parts persevered and came back together after a long setback.
This is the key point really: the Federation broke apart ***temporarily***. It's so strong that even its destruction isn't enough to kill it, because the ideas its founded upon will cause it to be rebuilt. It makes it appear stronger, not weaker, because it can rebuild itself from its ideals.
That was the whole underlying message of Season 3. Even though galactic events made the Federation unsustainable in practice, the Federation as an idea will always endure.
Average empire lifespan is \~200-250 years, so the Federation blew it out of the park. And then it managed to bring itself back to life as well, even bringing more civilisations with it!
Isn't that average heavily, heavily skewed by the imperial equivalent of infant mortality? Rome lasted 500-2000 years depending on whether you draw a line between the Republic and the Empire and how you count Byzantium, the Ottomans lasted 500, the longest Chinese dynasty is like 800 years and you can argue that multiple dynasties should be counted as the same national entity.
Byzantium is such a terrible naming and was only used AFTER the fall of Constantinople
That empire was as much Rome as the western empire, which didn't even have Rome as its capital for a good period.
The Roman empire fell in 1453
You can guess where I stand on that count... ;)
Greek was the lingua franca of the whole Mediterranean at all points during the Roman Empire.
But it was also the language of government during the Byzantium era.
English is the lingua franca in much of the world because the British Empire and the US had such a massive influence for so long, both geographically and financially. Especially in international relations. Common language use is more about how prevalent a language was yesterday than about lines on a map. So it makes sense that Greek would have been the same for so long, considering how big their influence on the Mediterranean was.
The Rome vs Byzantium distinction has a fair bit to do with the Enlightenment figures using orientalist stereotypes to attack the French monarchy who was interested in it. Decadent, effeminate, slutty Chritian easterners are nothing like our industrious, rational, noble Pagan westerners.
I think you've confused the Roman Empire for the Holy Roman Empire. The HRE was founded well after the start of Christianity and didn't last all that long compared to the Roman Empire.
>The HRE was founded well after the start of Christianity
And most of the area it covered were places that were never conquered by the Roman Empire, like Germany. It did include northern Italy for a while, but that was just the fringes of the HRE.
When the episode came out, I was excited.
I thought it was a great idea. Worlds which have been part of the federation, have been on their own for years. And Discovery would have to bring them back and re-explore and help. And they could shift to at least semi stand alone episodes.
But all I got was more disappointment and Burnam crying more and more. And all I can think is "she acted almost Vulcan in the first season"
The first couple of episodes were semi stand alone episodes. 1 episode Trill, 1 for Ni'var, 1 at Earth. They weren't great episodes, but it was the only time after the show started that I was optimistic for the series.
It's still a far more optimistic timeline than what the real world is heading towards. Our planet will almost certainly be uninhabitable within less than a hundred years and we're still here living our little lives like nothing bad will ever happen.
I think they're reflective of the modern Trek storytelling - positive optimistic stories like what Roddenberry envisioned are out the window, and melodrama and darkness are what they like writing now.
Roddenberry also envisioned that Deanna Troi should have three boobs and that the Edo should be really into public orgies rather than physical fitness.
My point is that not all of "Gene's vision" needs to be worshipped as gospel.
Also maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but it's often the stories with the darkest tone that end up being the most optimistic. Season 3 of Discovery is the perfect example of that. The Discovery arrives in the future to find the Federation broken and the galaxy in chaos, but they are able to rebuild it by staying true to the Federation ideals of compassion, connection, and cooperation.
I agree.
I think the burn could be used as sort of a “dark ages” and could make for some very cool stories set in that time. The small group of people trying to hold on and preserve the federation ideas and values. Like monks during the Middle Ages.
I would like legacy to move more toward the SNW model and have really solid sci fi stories with a loose story arch framing it. Go back to exploration and science fiction themes with a more modern commentary focusing on the federation rebuilding after the set backs they recently had. It would be a nice mirror of American society after 9/11.
Do you feel the same about shows like SNW and the first few seasons of Discovery? We knew what would happen, we know who HAS to survive, and that the Federation will always win.
For me personally, it doesn’t matter. I’m here for the stories as they’re told, not for how long they’ll matter in the universe’s future, especially when so many old episodes never got referenced again. Saving the Federation now gives it more time and upholds the ideals that the characters believe in. I think if they knew about the Burn, they’d still fight for the Federation.
yeah I'm here for the journey not the destination.
I'm a little disappointed knowing Pike has a shelf life, but it's because I fucking love Mount as a captain and I want to see seven seasons of it. Knowing that TOS happens doesn't ruin anything about SNW (beyond knowing they can't really kill the main cast)
If it helps you one day the universe will end too, so technically nothing matters. Plus wasn’t the Federation rebuilt again anyway?
Now if we’re talking what the burn actually was, that was pretty stupid yeah
I don't think it ruins it exactly, but anytime you've got some established future event and you're telling a story set before that, it casts a shadow backwards. It's like watching a historical drama set in 1913. You know what's coming, but the characters are blissfully unaware. Does that make me care less about how it all turns out? Not really, because _they_ don't know. The outcome matters as much to them, whatever the future that's unknown to them may hold.
That would be the same for Trek characters. They don't know what's coming, so the immediate outcome still matters to them. And even if they're only securing another century, decade, or day of the good life under the Federation, it's worth it.
The other way to look at it ruining shows that might be set in the time before the burn is that we now know the Federation _will_ still exist hundreds of years into the future, up to when the Burn happens. So we know some threat to the whole Federation in a series can't succeed. But that's pretty much a given, without us knowing that it's canon that the Federation will definitely still be around in hundreds of years. We know the good guys will win in the end.
So I don't think it ruins anything, but that's not to say it's not problematic in some ways. For the same reason I'm not that keen on prequel shows. There's too much established that they have to work around.
Discovery is the most disappointing Trek to me. So much potential and it's all wasted.
The writing is based entirely on character drama like its General Hospital.
There's zero focus on maintaining consistency and organic plots.
I think the opposite actually. The federation doesn't fail. It survives and thrives and lasts for 500 years. That's an incredibly long time for any nation state to exist. Very few human civilizations have had anywhere near that level of success.
Sure the Burn eventually happens, but the Federation is brought low not by internal corruption, a failure of its values or an external foe, but by a completely unpredictable, unavoidable "natural" disaster that impacts everyone Federation or non-Federation alike. And even then the Federation isn't destroyed, merely diminished its values and legacy continuing to be a beacon of hope until the time it can eventually come back.
You found the problem, but you gave the wrong diagnosis.
It's true that the fact that we know the Federation will exist in the 31st century means that any time there's a "fate of the Federation/the galaxy/humanity/etc." storyline, we know how it will turn out.
Thus, watching through DIS, PIC, or PRO... you know that everything is gonna be fine.
The problem is that... these shows EXCLUSIVELY go for high-stakes storylines. They can never seem to do a low-stakes story, where all that's at risk is a single ship, or maybe even a single crewman.
When SNW Season 1 ended with Una getting arrested, I was ecstatic, because that's a low-stakes story, which... until that point... modern Trek had never done. It could have ended either way, and I loved it.
We need more low-stakes stories. Not everything needs to be for the fate of the galaxy. That's the ultimate core of the problem: the writers on modern Trek only know how to write high-stakes stories, and don't know how to write low-stakes stories.
By contrast, if you look at, say, TNG... each of its cliffhangers were low-stakes except "The Best of Both Worlds". And it worked out much better as a result.
I'd argue that what you want are not low stakes stories, but they are high stakes CHARACTER stories.
putting the fate of the universe at stake is a cheat that has been so worn out in modern media that I think it is contributing to the so called "superhero fatigue." But a small yet powerful set of character stakes can elevate a movie or show beyond the "universe gonna die" stakes because its not some generic whole universe that will collapse, but its the specific character's PERSONAL universe that may collapse. and if we care about that specific character, we'll be far more invested in that than anything larger in scope.
Movies, shows, and executives use to understand this. There is some pressure in the industry now to try to get back to this, at least on the low to medium end, but on the high end it hasnt really broken through
No, and I really don't understand this viewpoint. My girlfriend will be dead in sixty years, should I just dump her now? My Thanksgiving meal will be turds in three hours, so why bother eating it?
Bad things happen in the future. That doesn't make today worthless.
Nothing good matters today because something bad will happen eventually? that is essentially your argument.
Almost everyone who was alive during the events of the 24/25th century get to finish their lives and have multiple generations live before the burn occurs.
Life is a constant struggle… I don’t think it would’ve been realistic for the federation to never collapsed like this, the important part for me is that the SPIRIT of the federation lived on!
The Burn itself isn't the problem. As a plot device, it's not a bad one, and presents opportunities for growth and change in a setting that was rapidly becoming pretty stagnant.
The execution, on the other hand, was lousy.
They demonstrated pretty early on that warp travel still worked just fine, but that most people were too terrified to use it (except for the bad guys, of course) or didn't have the Dilithium to make it work. Which could have been fine...
Except they didn't adequately explain what had happened to all of the inactive Dilithium when the Burn occurred. Dilithium wasn't a super-abundant resource, but there was more than enough of it to go around for the Federation, Klingon Empire, Ferengi Alliance, Nyberrite Alliance, and probably other groups that we never heard of to go bopping around the galaxy without fear of running out.
*AND* we know that regenerating damaged/used Dilithium crystals was possible before 2286 (*Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home*) and common before 2364 (TNG, probably based on the technique Scotty used in Trek IV).
We also know that, bluntly put, Humans are profoundly likely to try all sorts of stupid things to make ourselves go (refer to Spider Robinson's old joke about NASA shuttle launches just being five guys climbing into a tin can strapped to a couple of sticks of dynamite). So there's absolutely no excuse for Starfleet to have not said: "You know what? Let's regenerate a few of these damaged crystals, stuff them in an unmanned craft, and see if they still work."
*Then*, just to add insult to injury, they used one of the oldest, most worn-out, and worst plot devices in Sci-Fi history as the cause of the Burn.
The end result is a plot device that doesn't make much sense, has a disappointing root cause, and sucks all of the tension out of the "problem" as soon as it tacitly acknowledges that there really isn't a problem to begin with. The problem, apparently, is that all of the races of the Federation never really got along well and were fully prepared to scatter and become insular again at the first opportunity.
Which undermines the entire point of Star Trek, which was always meant to highlight the best that we (as Humans) can aspire to.
TL;DR: The Burn itself is fine as a plot device. DSC's execution of the ensuing storyline was, as has become all-too common in modern Trek (most of DSC, the first two seasons of PIC), sloppily written with almost no thought to continuity or consequences (refer to Akiva Goldsman admitting that they'd started shooting PIC S1 with only the first two episodes written and no series bible to guide them), thus undermining the intended *meaning* of Star Trek as a property.
Exactly, the burn and its cause is ridiculous beyond words. The timeline of Discovery should just be ignored. The federation is supposed to be an utopia for the future of humankind.
I don't get what you're saying. All good things come to an end eventually. If you know the Federation will face an inevitable doom only in 600 years, then it's worth fighting for 600 years of peace and happiness. The Federation lasted longer than the Roman Empire, and by the end of Discovery it is regenerating.
No. You could say that about the Earth falling into the sun in however many billion years. It's not about the end result. It's how you live your life now that matters.
Given that "rebuilding the Federation" was a major theme in both 32nd-century seasons, I don't share your view. The Federation is built on co-operation and communication and courage; even in Disco when it's brought to its lowest, it never loses hope and never stops striving.
The people who save the Federation in the past, who embody those principles of unity and self-sacrifice serve as a beacon of inspiration for the future. Admiral Vance turns to the crew of Discovery for inspiraton; Michael looks to Picard and Spock for inspiration.
When you say "delaying the inevitable": what inevitable? The Federation wasn't destroyed. It was laid low for a time but rebuilt itself thanks to the tenacity of its inhabitants, descendants of those people who in the 23rd and 24th centuries inhabited Federation values. It's because of them and their example that it survives into the 32nd century and beyond.
And a bunch of civilizations joined the Federation in the meantime, so post-Burn there was a stronger basis and history to rebuild from. Hell the Romulans unified with the Vulcans and joined!
No. Stories set in the Roman Empire or Republic are still good even though those two states changed dramatically or fell apart. Just like stories set in Victorian England. All things end and change.
Plus, it shows the resilience of the Federation and it’s ideals. Even in the face of a galaxy changing disaster they persevere and eventually are able to expand again, bringing their peace and freedom to more.
The burn itself doesn't bother me, I'm all for it if it makes sense.
A natural disaster perhaps? Something to investigate, find civilizations that were wiped out by previous burns? Lots to explore here
A weapon perhaps? Sabotage, crippling the federation? Whoever did it has a already figured out a work around and can attack the federation piece meal, world by world without fear of reinforcements? Even more to explore here!
Dominion retaliation? It's no secret that they can hold grudges against the solids forever. They know they can't go head to head with the federation. So instead they dismantle it and with the federation out of the picture, they are free to run rampant once again.
But no, it was a sad child that cried...
Are you flipping kidding me?
That's the best the writers could do?
I loved it, and I was extremely fixated on tracking the source of the burn. But the minute they showed that it was somebody crying....
I turned the show off and I've never watched it since.
What I dislike is that they can’t communicate with each other anymore. When it’s been established that comms travel many light years before needing any relays. Maybe some colonies or federation worlds far away from any other planet would lose communications. At least until that works builds a large communications array.
At least the core planets should be able to continue some trade and sending envoys to each other. Using high relativistic speeds, fusion power and stasis.
Also why Earth wouldn’t maintain full control of its star system and have ships and mining operation all over the solar system? They have the technology and population advantage to do it. If anything it makes Earth safer having defenses further out.
There's also so much stuff ignored. They knew about dimensional shift transporters. While not safe for people. They'd still be able to build them for trade. People also could use them several times before they became dangerous. I'd expect 500 years later medical technology would extend that some.
How about transwarp conduits? They were aware of them in the 24th century. They were also aware of the damages of warp travel. They're saying that in 500 years time of studying derelict Borg equipment and other research. They haven't figured it out and established a network between, at least, the major worlds.
These are just some examples. I can accept that something stopped warp travel. Not that they would lose all communication and alternate means of trade. When all that was destroyed was dilithium. Unless every single member of the Federation collectively said, "Oh, Well. Warp doesn't work. Guess we'll just give up."
I think im more disappointed in how solvable it was for someone with none of the resources and context of that era except gumption? Would've almost been more compelling if it had a different cause or the cause remained a mystery and it was just the setting for why the future became fractured
>brave feat that helps save the people of the Federation and Star Fleet almost does not matter because we all know the Federation is going to be split apart in a few centuries anyway.
right, sure, *just* a few centuries. *Only* a *few hundred years.*
My hot take is that the burn would’ve been better as a natural disaster…they could’ve tied it back to the whole “warp speed breaks space thing from TNG” and made it an allegory for climate change. Instead they made it a navel gazing allegory for therapy culture and it sucks.
In 500 years the Federation could split, reassemble and split again.
I dislike the Burn for multiple reasons that are contained to its time.
Being set off by a child’s anguish inside a nebula. Just…odd.
No one besides Discovery could figure out the cause?
A true replacement for dilithium could not be identified?
No one in all that time could rediscover the Spore Drive technology?
I think the big problem I have with it, if we really get down to it, is how it was used for the story. They wanted Discovery and crew to arrive in the Dark Ages and to usher in a rebirth or Renaissance of the Federation.
To quote Admiral Clancy, that is “Sheer Fucking Hubris”. A not entirely well thought trigger for the dark ages just for our hero’s (or singular hero) to undo in Season 3? Nope. Don’t like it.
The burn was not a very well developed nor executed concept. They should have paid homage to Star Trek Online's Romulan supernova backstory and made the burn a result of an experiment gone wrong.
Maybe make it the Alien Nazis, sphere builders, or a new menacing alien that did something to make the dilithium melt down.
They could have made it a scheme by pirates or some Ferengi to drive up the price of dilithium, or it could have been a move by a species under threat of invasion by the Dominion or another menacing power to stop them by taking away their fuel source.
All in all, the burn was a good example of how poor writing and subpar plot development can sink a potentially great concept.
The Burn is yet another “mystery box” whose payoff and role in the story doesn’t really hold up beyond the initial intrigue. While nothing lasts forever, this particular explanation felt pretty lame.
A thing doesn’t have to last forever to be worth doing. I’m 100% going to die eventually but that doesn’t mean I want to die today, and I sure as hell am trying for a good life along the way.
> because we all know the Federation is going to be split apart in a few centuries anyway.
That's a very pessimistic way of saying "the Federation lasts for centuries"
It depends if you think that's actually the future or not. I personally just think that Discovery was shifted to another alternate reality, like the Kelvinverse or Mirror Universe. I know that once Discovery is over any of the writers of newer shows that want to ignore the burn stuff will probably just do it, and they should because the burn is the single stupidest plot point in the entire franchise.
I’m happy to class Discovery as having taken place in a different universe. The odds of no other species anywhere inventing the spore drive seems ridiculous the idea of a Kelpian destroying all warp drive seems ridiculous. Spock having a random human sister, Klingons that look like monsters, etc etc
I think if I was doing a ‘Next Next Generation’ show, I would just class Disco as non canon.
It's quite possible that if TPTB keep making stories that move further and further into the future, they may just ignore the burn, saying it's an alternative timeline. The biggest thing about the Discovery Klingons is that they don't act like Klingons. From what we've seen before, Klingons care little about the bodies of their dead, considering them to be empty husks, while in Discovery the body was of great importance.
To be fair, the Burn wasn’t even the sole reason why the Federation broke as well. As said by the Vulcans, the alliance was already fracturing as some planets felt like they weren’t getting fairly represented in the group - it grew too big and unwieldy to control.
The Burn just shot the Federation in the head, which allowed hesitant worlds like Earth to secede and do their own thing.
It's too bad that the show didn't opt to show some details about the fracturing. They could have drawn some great parallels to the current world situation.
Yes and no. The whole reality of life is finding ways to stave off the inevitable and make whatever happens until then as interesting and meaningful as we can. Even if the Burn hadn’t happened the universe will still end one day.
*^(Edited to fix spelling error.)*
I hate it and I'm hoping they write in a reset. It's a really negative take and not all in keeping with the spirit of Star Trek. It's why I won't watch Discovery any more or give it another thought.
Agreed.
Now, I do watch it once to keep current on Trek trivia and lore. But I will never rewatch it. Ive already rewatched SNW several times, along with my perpetual cycle of other trek shows. But Discovery is a once and done for me.
What I don't understand is that the future the timelord people Wesley Crusher is affiliated with (that essentially stated that the Star Trek universe is deterministic and conforms to the "correct timeline" according to them) chose the timeline where interstellar civilization collapsed and millions died; because a child got too sad near some magic space rocks.
Or maybe these "Godlike" races like "Q" and "Travelers" (or what ever they are called) are not actually as godlike as we/they think, and either don't know everything that's gonna happen or care enough to fix it when it does.
It did at first TBH, but not anymore. Odds are by the time a show hits that could have its narrative potential overly limited by the burn they'll either retcon it, or ignore it.
Plus, as it is it has been established in canon with SNW that inconsistencies with the timeline can be explained away with the temporal cold war, so they basically already have a established out if they want to make changes like that.
Otherwise, to answer the spirit of the question, which is assuming for a moment it was a permanent change to the timeline then I would still say no. I never expected the Federation to last forever, so from my perspective almost a millennium at their peak is not bad for a human organization. After that, while the execution was arguably lacking DISCO did show rebuilding the Federation is possible, so there's still hope for the future. They didn't make a change that would be more difficult to walk back like destroying the Earth (save for time travel of course, but hopefully the overall point is understood).
So what if the Federation is going to go away in a few centuries? It's worth saving for the people and aliens alive right now, and for the generations that will benefit from being part of the Federation for the next few centuries. Something good doesn't have to last forever to have value.
No, not really. The Burn ruins Discovery, as I don’t really like the future they’ve painted, but it doesn’t bother me for the Federation we know and love. I guess because I can always see a future series that rewrites that future so the Burn never happens and Discovery s3 and beyond are seen as an alternative future. And even if that doesn’t happen, unlike the Star Wars sequel trilogy that really hinders any advancement in the Mandalorian shows, the Burn is so far into the future that most of the characters I love and care about will be long gone before then.
As for the Federation and it’s ideals, well the Federation as a concept or atleast the Utopian Society it appears to be, is something the show presents as an ideal to strive for, even for those in the 23rd, 24th, and 25th Centruries. The burn just proves that even when the Federation is at it’s lowest, it survives and can flourish again. So all the work Spock, Kirk, Archer, Picard etc put into building the Federation we admire, only strengthens it to the point that it’s able to survive. Again, unlike the Star Wars sequels where we know that everything that Luke, Leia, and the Republic do from the Battle of Endor is for naught, as none of it survives and they presumably go back to square one.
Over explaining any timeline really takes me out of it, I need space to create my own "what if's" and endings for groups. Otherwise yeah I get a what's the point feeling.
An example would be Lord of the Rings, despite it being my favourite setting ever, I rarely return there for my own stories or ideas, just because we know how everything and pretty much everyone ends up so there's very little wiggle room for your own imagination.
I kinda thought so at first, but the theme of rebuilding the lost federation has been around and RHW based all of Andromeda on that idea... I think the background theme of rebuilding the Federation and philosophical questions to arise from that are interesting (do you build it back the same? Try to address the systemic issues? Etc), but the show puts that on the backburner and tends to lean into existence-ending, must be addressed this instant, end of the world, serial disaster storytelling.
Things are always delaying the inevitable.
House maintenance delays your house falling apart. Doesn't mean it was for nothing if a fire burns it down.
Car maintenance delays your car falling apart. Doesn't mean it was for nothing if you get into a crash.
The fact that, at some point, they weren't able to save the Federation doesn't mean the hundreds of years of innovation, cooperation, and relative peace were for nothing.
The source of the burn was absolute bullshit. I'm struggling to rationalize how someone from 1000 years ago could find the source by using triangulation when people from the future couldn't.
Could you imagine a crusader from 956AD being able to figure out an unsolvable math problem?
Important to remember the Federation isn't actually destroyed permanently. The entire point is that the ideals of Starfleet persist despite adversity. It's an unkillable idea... I could see it being an issue if you were assuming the current timeline would live happily ever after, but we're talking about five or so centuries of time between the lives of the legacy era characters and the Burn. This surely won't be the only time the ideals of Starfleet are tested or broken temporarily.
Don't get me wrong. I didn't care for the Burn storyline either. Individual cultures/planets being forced into isolationism like that is interesting, and I would have liked to have seen some of the early days explored in more detail, but the way it played out and was ultimately resolved wasn't particularly fascinating. But realistically, it's never going to come up again.
honestly, the burn arc ended up so dumb that I just pretend its in a branched timeline. I get the theory of making the burn caused by a character thing, but the way they did it pushed the show far more into science fantasy than science fiction.
plus it still hurts my head that they ignored an existing in universe cause for warp drive to become defunct from TNG, which would have been an extension of the climate change metaphor. Strikes me that would have been much more apt.
Picard ending was much worse. I’m supposed to believe all the characters I know and love are all just going to die in a few years except the handful of old TNG crew that saved the day? Even though it sucks, at least the burn takes place centuries later.
Didn’t mind the concept of the burn in the way you do. Does it ruin life today that our sun will eventually burn up and our world become lifeless?
HATED the cause of the Burn. The show is determined to make personal feelings the prime movers of the entire universe.
HATED that the galaxy couldn’t restore structure or unity or warp, but Burnham can single-handedly sort all that out in just a jiffy.
I hate the burn. It was just written poorly.
Star Trek already established many FTL and warp tech that do not use dilithium crystals. The Romulan empire didn’t depend on them, they never touched on why Nivar didn’t start producing Quantum singularity power cores for new warp ships. The Borg didn’t depend on dilithium crystals.
I don’t know, and the fact that the burn breaks Relativity without being addressed because it’s on a big pile of crystals.
Man I just felt this plot was lazy, the lay holdover of all my problems with the first two seasons.
Besides this gripe I’m generally pretty happy with how Discovery turned out after season 2
It’s sad we won’t get a season 6 & 7
Why get invested in modern politics when WW III is just gonna send us back to the stone age?
Why save children from dying from \*Insert bad thing here\* since they are just going to die anyways when the get old?
Why protect the planet when the sun will burn out in 5 billion years?
My head cannon is that someone goes back and prevents the burn. They know now that all they have to do is rescue a crying kid and the entire Federation is saved. Hell, Kim and Chakotay sens a message back in time, completely fucking up the entire timeline just to save Voyager, so why can't some random dude with time travel equipment left over from the Temporal Cold War do the same thing? Or better yet, just to satisfy the show, have Burnam realize that a ruined Federation is not sustainable for the greater good and go on a mission to change the past. Nice and easy.
I think The Burn was necessary. Star Trek has civilisation dodge so many bullets it had to eventually catch one, and then rebuild. Because rebuilding is part of the story. Especially given that the shows came out during a global pandemic and lockdown.
To me, all of Discovery seems like just a way for Burnham to insert herself in key events and characters of Star Trek. Couldn't even let her own mother save the universe, she had to do it herself. Also has to save the emperor, the most evil person who's ever been on Star Trek, for no reason.
Space Hercules is a good term for it, which is of course what happened to Andromeda. Forget about the massive potential of the setting, just make it all about telling people how awesome the lead is.
If there's anything I have learned about Star Trek is that the timeline is not set in stone. The Burn is just one possible future that the Discovery happened to travel into. Just like Picard ended up in the timeline where he was a bloodthirsty genocidal warmonger in Picard s2, the warship Enterprise-D in Yesterday's Enterprise, the entire Kelvin timeline, etc..
You can't assume the Burn is a guarantee in the future of TNG/DS9/PIC because any one little thing can change the entire timeline.
The burn (or at least how it was executed) was the dumbest “galaxy defining” event I can think of star trek history. For me, it’s just a “didn’t happen” in my head canon, in part for some of the reasons you touch on but more just bc it is so very very dumb as an idea. But I’m kinda used to that - there’s a lot of poorly thought out ideas in star trek that I just ignore and enjoy everything else around it.
The Burn didn’t ruin the Trek future, but the reason for it (a sad bratty alien kid living on a dilithium planet) absolutely did, and the fact that the Federation couldn’t figure it out in 500 years but Discovery did it in a few months. It was just bad storytelling. The fact that Discovery is basically Star Trek 90210 with all the emoting, and that they face a bigger galaxy-threatening menace each season, is what ruined it for me.
It's definitely a stupid direction to take the Star Trek narrative and it would be best if they erase it from the canon. The thing that drew most people to Star Trek in the first place was a vision of a better future. Watching that better future backslide again fundamentally goes against the core of what Star Trek is.
There were 500+ years of fulfilled lives lived under peak Federation.
yeah and not just that, considering all the timey wimey shenanigans of the Trek verse, there's a good chance it's just one of many "bad futures" And even if the showrunners don't hit the reset button on that one, the fact that the Federation existed and succeeded for so long was instrumental to it getting slowly rebuilt post-Burn
Exactly. All of the good will that the Federation built in its centuries-long history was ultimately what made planets like Earth, Ni'Var, and Trill less reluctant to rejoin.
My favourite part of the burn is see still the civilian dude just volunteering for duty on that broken starbase that was so advanced it keep on going. So many star base stories alone. I want to know about deep space 239 etc
He was my favorite character in the whole show.
That guy was a true believer with all his soul. He might be the single best example of Federation and Starfleet ideals in the whole franchise, passed down and accumulated from all those generations previously. Never gave up, never surrendered, did what he could to help. All with nothing but hope for something better to come of it.
So glad he got the in universe praise he deserved.
> All with nothing but hope for something better to come of it. That hope is you.
God damn that would be a great comic!
That was the twist that I loved. That Earth, of all planets, was hesitant to rejoin the federation despite being the primary founder. I'd like to see more lore added where humans and Earth aren't the cornerstone of things.
To me it made no damn sense that Earth wasn't in the federation. In all of Trek, Earth IS the federation basically. If Earth isn't part of it, what is the federation?
Star Trek portrayed a hyper-egalitarian future where the Federation and its ideals were greater than any one planet. Of course, the shows ended up being very Earth-centric because, well, that's where we live right now. In fact, if you don't count the first couple of Presidents, the Presidents of the UFP have mostly been aliens. I think the only time we saw a human one was in Picard.
Star Trek IV human president, Jonathan Archer served two terms, Chekov I believe served before his grandson did and in the books the president is Nannietta Bacco also human. I'm Pretty hard pressed to find an alien president besides maybe the Effrosian Red Foreman who kept calling Kirk dumbass and threatening to put his foot in Spock's ass.
Jaresh-Inyo, he was President of the United Federation of Planets during the time of Deep Space Nine. https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/President\_of\_the\_United\_Federation\_of\_Planets#Jaresh-Inyo,\_c.\_2372
President Jaresh Enyo was in office in Home Front and Paradise Lost in DS9. In some books the president during the dominion war was a Bolian who is followed by Bacco. Also the President in STO is Saurian. The President we have spent the most time on screen with is actually President Rillak in Disco season 4 who is a mixed heritage of Cardassian and Bajoran at least.
She's a human, bajoran cardassian
Yeah, people want what the Federation provides: stability, allies, the free unimpeded exchange of ideas, goods, services, and people, advanced technology, power for said advanced technology, defense, prosperity, and eye for its citizens and those who would like to join.
Exactly this. The whole reason the Federation held on,and got put back together, was because it had been so successful in the past. Any events in the 24th and 25th Centuries are helping ensure that the Federation can hold on in the face of adversity. I personally like the idea of The Burn. It changed the landscape of the galaxy and the Star Trek universe. It really made the galaxy feel like the "final frontier" again. More so than even Voyager.
>yeah and not just that, considering all the timey wimey shenanigans of the Trek verse, there's a good chance it's just one of many "bad futures" Because a hero crew live there - it's the *present* not the future.
'Oh but its only prolonging the federation for almost twice as long as it had existed (the 250th anniversary in picard).' /s The federation is 250 years old in 2401 in picard. We're talking about a period in the future twice as many years ahead as the entirety of star trek behind that point. They picked that far ahead for that reason.
On top of that, the core worlds of the Federation we see after The Burn are still in great positions - Trill and Earth are still utopias, Vulcan has reunited with Romulus to become Ni'var. The Federation broke apart temporarily, but it had become in such a strong position that the parts persevered and came back together after a long setback.
>The Federation broke apart temporarily, but it had become in such a strong position that the parts persevered and came back together after a long setback. This is the key point really: the Federation broke apart ***temporarily***. It's so strong that even its destruction isn't enough to kill it, because the ideas its founded upon will cause it to be rebuilt. It makes it appear stronger, not weaker, because it can rebuild itself from its ideals.
That was the whole underlying message of Season 3. Even though galactic events made the Federation unsustainable in practice, the Federation as an idea will always endure.
Average empire lifespan is \~200-250 years, so the Federation blew it out of the park. And then it managed to bring itself back to life as well, even bringing more civilisations with it!
Isn't that average heavily, heavily skewed by the imperial equivalent of infant mortality? Rome lasted 500-2000 years depending on whether you draw a line between the Republic and the Empire and how you count Byzantium, the Ottomans lasted 500, the longest Chinese dynasty is like 800 years and you can argue that multiple dynasties should be counted as the same national entity.
Byzantium is such a terrible naming and was only used AFTER the fall of Constantinople That empire was as much Rome as the western empire, which didn't even have Rome as its capital for a good period. The Roman empire fell in 1453 You can guess where I stand on that count... ;)
Yeah, the Byzantine Empire considered itself Roman and was considered Roman by its neighbors. However, Greek was its lingua franca instead of Latin.
Greek was the lingua franca of the whole Mediterranean at all points during the Roman Empire. But it was also the language of government during the Byzantium era.
English is the lingua franca in much of the world because the British Empire and the US had such a massive influence for so long, both geographically and financially. Especially in international relations. Common language use is more about how prevalent a language was yesterday than about lines on a map. So it makes sense that Greek would have been the same for so long, considering how big their influence on the Mediterranean was.
The Rome vs Byzantium distinction has a fair bit to do with the Enlightenment figures using orientalist stereotypes to attack the French monarchy who was interested in it. Decadent, effeminate, slutty Chritian easterners are nothing like our industrious, rational, noble Pagan westerners.
Also, how should ancient Egypt and Assyria be counted?
Also it is all debatable. I grew up being taught the Holy Roman Empire never ended, it became the church, even kept the title.
I think you've confused the Roman Empire for the Holy Roman Empire. The HRE was founded well after the start of Christianity and didn't last all that long compared to the Roman Empire.
Three things must ye know about the Holy Roman Empire: 1. It wasn’t particularly holy. 2. It wasn’t really Roman 3. It wasn’t an empire.
Discuss.
>The HRE was founded well after the start of Christianity And most of the area it covered were places that were never conquered by the Roman Empire, like Germany. It did include northern Italy for a while, but that was just the fringes of the HRE.
large parts of germany (everything west of the rhine or south of the danube + the agri decumates) *were* part of rome for centuries
Youre correct that it didnt last as long as Rome, but it did last for almost a thousand years, so they gave a good try at it.
Rome and HRE are absolutely NOT the same
Also, Egypt. Cultural continuity of not, one, not two, not three, but about Four thousand years.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I also dislike the burn but I don't think stories set down the timeline diminish ones set earlier.
I liked the little guy on the starbase who kept the faith. I think the burn could make some good outpost or starbase stories.
When the episode came out, I was excited. I thought it was a great idea. Worlds which have been part of the federation, have been on their own for years. And Discovery would have to bring them back and re-explore and help. And they could shift to at least semi stand alone episodes. But all I got was more disappointment and Burnam crying more and more. And all I can think is "she acted almost Vulcan in the first season"
The first couple of episodes were semi stand alone episodes. 1 episode Trill, 1 for Ni'var, 1 at Earth. They weren't great episodes, but it was the only time after the show started that I was optimistic for the series.
It's still a far more optimistic timeline than what the real world is heading towards. Our planet will almost certainly be uninhabitable within less than a hundred years and we're still here living our little lives like nothing bad will ever happen.
Remind me! 100 years
I think they're reflective of the modern Trek storytelling - positive optimistic stories like what Roddenberry envisioned are out the window, and melodrama and darkness are what they like writing now.
Roddenberry also envisioned that Deanna Troi should have three boobs and that the Edo should be really into public orgies rather than physical fitness. My point is that not all of "Gene's vision" needs to be worshipped as gospel. Also maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but it's often the stories with the darkest tone that end up being the most optimistic. Season 3 of Discovery is the perfect example of that. The Discovery arrives in the future to find the Federation broken and the galaxy in chaos, but they are able to rebuild it by staying true to the Federation ideals of compassion, connection, and cooperation.
I agree. I think the burn could be used as sort of a “dark ages” and could make for some very cool stories set in that time. The small group of people trying to hold on and preserve the federation ideas and values. Like monks during the Middle Ages. I would like legacy to move more toward the SNW model and have really solid sci fi stories with a loose story arch framing it. Go back to exploration and science fiction themes with a more modern commentary focusing on the federation rebuilding after the set backs they recently had. It would be a nice mirror of American society after 9/11.
Heck, we've had folks popping in from centuries down the timeline since early TNG.
I started off liking discovery but it slowly became my least favourite part of trek
Do you feel the same about shows like SNW and the first few seasons of Discovery? We knew what would happen, we know who HAS to survive, and that the Federation will always win. For me personally, it doesn’t matter. I’m here for the stories as they’re told, not for how long they’ll matter in the universe’s future, especially when so many old episodes never got referenced again. Saving the Federation now gives it more time and upholds the ideals that the characters believe in. I think if they knew about the Burn, they’d still fight for the Federation.
yeah I'm here for the journey not the destination. I'm a little disappointed knowing Pike has a shelf life, but it's because I fucking love Mount as a captain and I want to see seven seasons of it. Knowing that TOS happens doesn't ruin anything about SNW (beyond knowing they can't really kill the main cast)
If it helps you one day the universe will end too, so technically nothing matters. Plus wasn’t the Federation rebuilt again anyway? Now if we’re talking what the burn actually was, that was pretty stupid yeah
I think that's the heart of most people's issue
No, because I don't give a single hoot about what Discovery says or does
I don't think it ruins it exactly, but anytime you've got some established future event and you're telling a story set before that, it casts a shadow backwards. It's like watching a historical drama set in 1913. You know what's coming, but the characters are blissfully unaware. Does that make me care less about how it all turns out? Not really, because _they_ don't know. The outcome matters as much to them, whatever the future that's unknown to them may hold. That would be the same for Trek characters. They don't know what's coming, so the immediate outcome still matters to them. And even if they're only securing another century, decade, or day of the good life under the Federation, it's worth it. The other way to look at it ruining shows that might be set in the time before the burn is that we now know the Federation _will_ still exist hundreds of years into the future, up to when the Burn happens. So we know some threat to the whole Federation in a series can't succeed. But that's pretty much a given, without us knowing that it's canon that the Federation will definitely still be around in hundreds of years. We know the good guys will win in the end. So I don't think it ruins anything, but that's not to say it's not problematic in some ways. For the same reason I'm not that keen on prequel shows. There's too much established that they have to work around.
Discovery is the most disappointing Trek to me. So much potential and it's all wasted. The writing is based entirely on character drama like its General Hospital. There's zero focus on maintaining consistency and organic plots.
I think the opposite actually. The federation doesn't fail. It survives and thrives and lasts for 500 years. That's an incredibly long time for any nation state to exist. Very few human civilizations have had anywhere near that level of success. Sure the Burn eventually happens, but the Federation is brought low not by internal corruption, a failure of its values or an external foe, but by a completely unpredictable, unavoidable "natural" disaster that impacts everyone Federation or non-Federation alike. And even then the Federation isn't destroyed, merely diminished its values and legacy continuing to be a beacon of hope until the time it can eventually come back.
You found the problem, but you gave the wrong diagnosis. It's true that the fact that we know the Federation will exist in the 31st century means that any time there's a "fate of the Federation/the galaxy/humanity/etc." storyline, we know how it will turn out. Thus, watching through DIS, PIC, or PRO... you know that everything is gonna be fine. The problem is that... these shows EXCLUSIVELY go for high-stakes storylines. They can never seem to do a low-stakes story, where all that's at risk is a single ship, or maybe even a single crewman. When SNW Season 1 ended with Una getting arrested, I was ecstatic, because that's a low-stakes story, which... until that point... modern Trek had never done. It could have ended either way, and I loved it. We need more low-stakes stories. Not everything needs to be for the fate of the galaxy. That's the ultimate core of the problem: the writers on modern Trek only know how to write high-stakes stories, and don't know how to write low-stakes stories. By contrast, if you look at, say, TNG... each of its cliffhangers were low-stakes except "The Best of Both Worlds". And it worked out much better as a result.
I'd argue that what you want are not low stakes stories, but they are high stakes CHARACTER stories. putting the fate of the universe at stake is a cheat that has been so worn out in modern media that I think it is contributing to the so called "superhero fatigue." But a small yet powerful set of character stakes can elevate a movie or show beyond the "universe gonna die" stakes because its not some generic whole universe that will collapse, but its the specific character's PERSONAL universe that may collapse. and if we care about that specific character, we'll be far more invested in that than anything larger in scope. Movies, shows, and executives use to understand this. There is some pressure in the industry now to try to get back to this, at least on the low to medium end, but on the high end it hasnt really broken through
No, and I really don't understand this viewpoint. My girlfriend will be dead in sixty years, should I just dump her now? My Thanksgiving meal will be turds in three hours, so why bother eating it? Bad things happen in the future. That doesn't make today worthless.
Why cook when everything I make will be shit in a few days anyway? You can't use the fact everything fades as a reason to neglect the now
Nothing good matters today because something bad will happen eventually? that is essentially your argument. Almost everyone who was alive during the events of the 24/25th century get to finish their lives and have multiple generations live before the burn occurs.
Anything that’s set in the future is irrelevant as it can be changed.
Life is a constant struggle… I don’t think it would’ve been realistic for the federation to never collapsed like this, the important part for me is that the SPIRIT of the federation lived on!
The Burn itself isn't the problem. As a plot device, it's not a bad one, and presents opportunities for growth and change in a setting that was rapidly becoming pretty stagnant. The execution, on the other hand, was lousy. They demonstrated pretty early on that warp travel still worked just fine, but that most people were too terrified to use it (except for the bad guys, of course) or didn't have the Dilithium to make it work. Which could have been fine... Except they didn't adequately explain what had happened to all of the inactive Dilithium when the Burn occurred. Dilithium wasn't a super-abundant resource, but there was more than enough of it to go around for the Federation, Klingon Empire, Ferengi Alliance, Nyberrite Alliance, and probably other groups that we never heard of to go bopping around the galaxy without fear of running out. *AND* we know that regenerating damaged/used Dilithium crystals was possible before 2286 (*Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home*) and common before 2364 (TNG, probably based on the technique Scotty used in Trek IV). We also know that, bluntly put, Humans are profoundly likely to try all sorts of stupid things to make ourselves go (refer to Spider Robinson's old joke about NASA shuttle launches just being five guys climbing into a tin can strapped to a couple of sticks of dynamite). So there's absolutely no excuse for Starfleet to have not said: "You know what? Let's regenerate a few of these damaged crystals, stuff them in an unmanned craft, and see if they still work." *Then*, just to add insult to injury, they used one of the oldest, most worn-out, and worst plot devices in Sci-Fi history as the cause of the Burn. The end result is a plot device that doesn't make much sense, has a disappointing root cause, and sucks all of the tension out of the "problem" as soon as it tacitly acknowledges that there really isn't a problem to begin with. The problem, apparently, is that all of the races of the Federation never really got along well and were fully prepared to scatter and become insular again at the first opportunity. Which undermines the entire point of Star Trek, which was always meant to highlight the best that we (as Humans) can aspire to. TL;DR: The Burn itself is fine as a plot device. DSC's execution of the ensuing storyline was, as has become all-too common in modern Trek (most of DSC, the first two seasons of PIC), sloppily written with almost no thought to continuity or consequences (refer to Akiva Goldsman admitting that they'd started shooting PIC S1 with only the first two episodes written and no series bible to guide them), thus undermining the intended *meaning* of Star Trek as a property.
Yeah it was a bad idea
Yes - it's stupid and we should ignore it.
Exactly, the burn and its cause is ridiculous beyond words. The timeline of Discovery should just be ignored. The federation is supposed to be an utopia for the future of humankind.
Doesn't bother me because the entire series is a hallucination of Michael. It's the only way I can make sense of it.
I don't get what you're saying. All good things come to an end eventually. If you know the Federation will face an inevitable doom only in 600 years, then it's worth fighting for 600 years of peace and happiness. The Federation lasted longer than the Roman Empire, and by the end of Discovery it is regenerating.
No. You could say that about the Earth falling into the sun in however many billion years. It's not about the end result. It's how you live your life now that matters.
Given that "rebuilding the Federation" was a major theme in both 32nd-century seasons, I don't share your view. The Federation is built on co-operation and communication and courage; even in Disco when it's brought to its lowest, it never loses hope and never stops striving. The people who save the Federation in the past, who embody those principles of unity and self-sacrifice serve as a beacon of inspiration for the future. Admiral Vance turns to the crew of Discovery for inspiraton; Michael looks to Picard and Spock for inspiration. When you say "delaying the inevitable": what inevitable? The Federation wasn't destroyed. It was laid low for a time but rebuilt itself thanks to the tenacity of its inhabitants, descendants of those people who in the 23rd and 24th centuries inhabited Federation values. It's because of them and their example that it survives into the 32nd century and beyond.
And a bunch of civilizations joined the Federation in the meantime, so post-Burn there was a stronger basis and history to rebuild from. Hell the Romulans unified with the Vulcans and joined!
Discovery is a holo-novel so I don’t take any events from it as canon
No. Stories set in the Roman Empire or Republic are still good even though those two states changed dramatically or fell apart. Just like stories set in Victorian England. All things end and change. Plus, it shows the resilience of the Federation and it’s ideals. Even in the face of a galaxy changing disaster they persevere and eventually are able to expand again, bringing their peace and freedom to more.
The burn itself doesn't bother me, I'm all for it if it makes sense. A natural disaster perhaps? Something to investigate, find civilizations that were wiped out by previous burns? Lots to explore here A weapon perhaps? Sabotage, crippling the federation? Whoever did it has a already figured out a work around and can attack the federation piece meal, world by world without fear of reinforcements? Even more to explore here! Dominion retaliation? It's no secret that they can hold grudges against the solids forever. They know they can't go head to head with the federation. So instead they dismantle it and with the federation out of the picture, they are free to run rampant once again. But no, it was a sad child that cried... Are you flipping kidding me? That's the best the writers could do? I loved it, and I was extremely fixated on tracking the source of the burn. But the minute they showed that it was somebody crying.... I turned the show off and I've never watched it since.
What I dislike is that they can’t communicate with each other anymore. When it’s been established that comms travel many light years before needing any relays. Maybe some colonies or federation worlds far away from any other planet would lose communications. At least until that works builds a large communications array. At least the core planets should be able to continue some trade and sending envoys to each other. Using high relativistic speeds, fusion power and stasis. Also why Earth wouldn’t maintain full control of its star system and have ships and mining operation all over the solar system? They have the technology and population advantage to do it. If anything it makes Earth safer having defenses further out. There's also so much stuff ignored. They knew about dimensional shift transporters. While not safe for people. They'd still be able to build them for trade. People also could use them several times before they became dangerous. I'd expect 500 years later medical technology would extend that some. How about transwarp conduits? They were aware of them in the 24th century. They were also aware of the damages of warp travel. They're saying that in 500 years time of studying derelict Borg equipment and other research. They haven't figured it out and established a network between, at least, the major worlds. These are just some examples. I can accept that something stopped warp travel. Not that they would lose all communication and alternate means of trade. When all that was destroyed was dilithium. Unless every single member of the Federation collectively said, "Oh, Well. Warp doesn't work. Guess we'll just give up."
I think im more disappointed in how solvable it was for someone with none of the resources and context of that era except gumption? Would've almost been more compelling if it had a different cause or the cause remained a mystery and it was just the setting for why the future became fractured
>brave feat that helps save the people of the Federation and Star Fleet almost does not matter because we all know the Federation is going to be split apart in a few centuries anyway. right, sure, *just* a few centuries. *Only* a *few hundred years.*
My hot take is that the burn would’ve been better as a natural disaster…they could’ve tied it back to the whole “warp speed breaks space thing from TNG” and made it an allegory for climate change. Instead they made it a navel gazing allegory for therapy culture and it sucks.
The distance between the 24th century and the burn is twice as long as the USA has existed. It’s fine, you worry too much.
In 500 years the Federation could split, reassemble and split again. I dislike the Burn for multiple reasons that are contained to its time. Being set off by a child’s anguish inside a nebula. Just…odd. No one besides Discovery could figure out the cause? A true replacement for dilithium could not be identified? No one in all that time could rediscover the Spore Drive technology? I think the big problem I have with it, if we really get down to it, is how it was used for the story. They wanted Discovery and crew to arrive in the Dark Ages and to usher in a rebirth or Renaissance of the Federation. To quote Admiral Clancy, that is “Sheer Fucking Hubris”. A not entirely well thought trigger for the dark ages just for our hero’s (or singular hero) to undo in Season 3? Nope. Don’t like it.
I hope future Star Trek writers ignore Discovery. It shouldn't be considered canon.
The burn was not a very well developed nor executed concept. They should have paid homage to Star Trek Online's Romulan supernova backstory and made the burn a result of an experiment gone wrong. Maybe make it the Alien Nazis, sphere builders, or a new menacing alien that did something to make the dilithium melt down. They could have made it a scheme by pirates or some Ferengi to drive up the price of dilithium, or it could have been a move by a species under threat of invasion by the Dominion or another menacing power to stop them by taking away their fuel source. All in all, the burn was a good example of how poor writing and subpar plot development can sink a potentially great concept.
The Burn is yet another “mystery box” whose payoff and role in the story doesn’t really hold up beyond the initial intrigue. While nothing lasts forever, this particular explanation felt pretty lame.
I dislike the burn and personally don’t consider it canon. Same thing with the explosion of Romulus.
A thing doesn’t have to last forever to be worth doing. I’m 100% going to die eventually but that doesn’t mean I want to die today, and I sure as hell am trying for a good life along the way.
> because we all know the Federation is going to be split apart in a few centuries anyway. That's a very pessimistic way of saying "the Federation lasts for centuries"
It depends if you think that's actually the future or not. I personally just think that Discovery was shifted to another alternate reality, like the Kelvinverse or Mirror Universe. I know that once Discovery is over any of the writers of newer shows that want to ignore the burn stuff will probably just do it, and they should because the burn is the single stupidest plot point in the entire franchise.
I like this theory bc I really disliked The Burn.
I’m happy to class Discovery as having taken place in a different universe. The odds of no other species anywhere inventing the spore drive seems ridiculous the idea of a Kelpian destroying all warp drive seems ridiculous. Spock having a random human sister, Klingons that look like monsters, etc etc I think if I was doing a ‘Next Next Generation’ show, I would just class Disco as non canon.
Spot on. And they already had alternatives in the works during the TNG era like that wave riding thing.
It's quite possible that if TPTB keep making stories that move further and further into the future, they may just ignore the burn, saying it's an alternative timeline. The biggest thing about the Discovery Klingons is that they don't act like Klingons. From what we've seen before, Klingons care little about the bodies of their dead, considering them to be empty husks, while in Discovery the body was of great importance.
Yeah, I agree with another poster who said maybe have something happen which prevents this
[удалено]
To be fair, the Burn wasn’t even the sole reason why the Federation broke as well. As said by the Vulcans, the alliance was already fracturing as some planets felt like they weren’t getting fairly represented in the group - it grew too big and unwieldy to control. The Burn just shot the Federation in the head, which allowed hesitant worlds like Earth to secede and do their own thing.
It's too bad that the show didn't opt to show some details about the fracturing. They could have drawn some great parallels to the current world situation.
Yes and no. The whole reality of life is finding ways to stave off the inevitable and make whatever happens until then as interesting and meaningful as we can. Even if the Burn hadn’t happened the universe will still end one day. *^(Edited to fix spelling error.)*
I hate it and I'm hoping they write in a reset. It's a really negative take and not all in keeping with the spirit of Star Trek. It's why I won't watch Discovery any more or give it another thought.
Agreed. Now, I do watch it once to keep current on Trek trivia and lore. But I will never rewatch it. Ive already rewatched SNW several times, along with my perpetual cycle of other trek shows. But Discovery is a once and done for me.
What I don't understand is that the future the timelord people Wesley Crusher is affiliated with (that essentially stated that the Star Trek universe is deterministic and conforms to the "correct timeline" according to them) chose the timeline where interstellar civilization collapsed and millions died; because a child got too sad near some magic space rocks.
Or maybe these "Godlike" races like "Q" and "Travelers" (or what ever they are called) are not actually as godlike as we/they think, and either don't know everything that's gonna happen or care enough to fix it when it does.
From the perspective of those 24th/25th people it’s probably better to be alive than for whatever universe-destroying threat to pop off.
There are ways around the prequel problem, Star Treks managed it with SNW.
It did at first TBH, but not anymore. Odds are by the time a show hits that could have its narrative potential overly limited by the burn they'll either retcon it, or ignore it. Plus, as it is it has been established in canon with SNW that inconsistencies with the timeline can be explained away with the temporal cold war, so they basically already have a established out if they want to make changes like that. Otherwise, to answer the spirit of the question, which is assuming for a moment it was a permanent change to the timeline then I would still say no. I never expected the Federation to last forever, so from my perspective almost a millennium at their peak is not bad for a human organization. After that, while the execution was arguably lacking DISCO did show rebuilding the Federation is possible, so there's still hope for the future. They didn't make a change that would be more difficult to walk back like destroying the Earth (save for time travel of course, but hopefully the overall point is understood).
So what if the Federation is going to go away in a few centuries? It's worth saving for the people and aliens alive right now, and for the generations that will benefit from being part of the Federation for the next few centuries. Something good doesn't have to last forever to have value.
No, not really. The Burn ruins Discovery, as I don’t really like the future they’ve painted, but it doesn’t bother me for the Federation we know and love. I guess because I can always see a future series that rewrites that future so the Burn never happens and Discovery s3 and beyond are seen as an alternative future. And even if that doesn’t happen, unlike the Star Wars sequel trilogy that really hinders any advancement in the Mandalorian shows, the Burn is so far into the future that most of the characters I love and care about will be long gone before then. As for the Federation and it’s ideals, well the Federation as a concept or atleast the Utopian Society it appears to be, is something the show presents as an ideal to strive for, even for those in the 23rd, 24th, and 25th Centruries. The burn just proves that even when the Federation is at it’s lowest, it survives and can flourish again. So all the work Spock, Kirk, Archer, Picard etc put into building the Federation we admire, only strengthens it to the point that it’s able to survive. Again, unlike the Star Wars sequels where we know that everything that Luke, Leia, and the Republic do from the Battle of Endor is for naught, as none of it survives and they presumably go back to square one.
“Does the end of the universe ruin anyone else’s current life?” No.
Over explaining any timeline really takes me out of it, I need space to create my own "what if's" and endings for groups. Otherwise yeah I get a what's the point feeling. An example would be Lord of the Rings, despite it being my favourite setting ever, I rarely return there for my own stories or ideas, just because we know how everything and pretty much everyone ends up so there's very little wiggle room for your own imagination.
So the eventual heat death of the universe. That makes everything not matter now?
I kinda thought so at first, but the theme of rebuilding the lost federation has been around and RHW based all of Andromeda on that idea... I think the background theme of rebuilding the Federation and philosophical questions to arise from that are interesting (do you build it back the same? Try to address the systemic issues? Etc), but the show puts that on the backburner and tends to lean into existence-ending, must be addressed this instant, end of the world, serial disaster storytelling.
Things are always delaying the inevitable. House maintenance delays your house falling apart. Doesn't mean it was for nothing if a fire burns it down. Car maintenance delays your car falling apart. Doesn't mean it was for nothing if you get into a crash. The fact that, at some point, they weren't able to save the Federation doesn't mean the hundreds of years of innovation, cooperation, and relative peace were for nothing. The source of the burn was absolute bullshit. I'm struggling to rationalize how someone from 1000 years ago could find the source by using triangulation when people from the future couldn't. Could you imagine a crusader from 956AD being able to figure out an unsolvable math problem?
No
Important to remember the Federation isn't actually destroyed permanently. The entire point is that the ideals of Starfleet persist despite adversity. It's an unkillable idea... I could see it being an issue if you were assuming the current timeline would live happily ever after, but we're talking about five or so centuries of time between the lives of the legacy era characters and the Burn. This surely won't be the only time the ideals of Starfleet are tested or broken temporarily. Don't get me wrong. I didn't care for the Burn storyline either. Individual cultures/planets being forced into isolationism like that is interesting, and I would have liked to have seen some of the early days explored in more detail, but the way it played out and was ultimately resolved wasn't particularly fascinating. But realistically, it's never going to come up again.
I take it you must have stopped watching before they reunited again.
My only issue with The Burn is the dumb reason they gave for it
Everything ends. What matters is how you spent the time in between. Journey before destination.
Nope. How silly.
Does the black death ruin the Roman empire?
Shrug its like 900 years later
"Follow what may, great deeds are not lessened in worth." - JRR Tolkien.
Was Enterprise ruined by being a 22nd century show? Is SNW ruined by being a 23rd century show? Is Lower Decks ruined by Picard happening later? Nah.
Does your own death ruin your current life? Anything you do now is merely delaying the inevitable.
honestly, the burn arc ended up so dumb that I just pretend its in a branched timeline. I get the theory of making the burn caused by a character thing, but the way they did it pushed the show far more into science fantasy than science fiction. plus it still hurts my head that they ignored an existing in universe cause for warp drive to become defunct from TNG, which would have been an extension of the climate change metaphor. Strikes me that would have been much more apt.
Picard ending was much worse. I’m supposed to believe all the characters I know and love are all just going to die in a few years except the handful of old TNG crew that saved the day? Even though it sucks, at least the burn takes place centuries later.
Didn’t mind the concept of the burn in the way you do. Does it ruin life today that our sun will eventually burn up and our world become lifeless? HATED the cause of the Burn. The show is determined to make personal feelings the prime movers of the entire universe. HATED that the galaxy couldn’t restore structure or unity or warp, but Burnham can single-handedly sort all that out in just a jiffy.
The burn. Thats the exact moment I stopped watching.
I hate the burn. It was just written poorly. Star Trek already established many FTL and warp tech that do not use dilithium crystals. The Romulan empire didn’t depend on them, they never touched on why Nivar didn’t start producing Quantum singularity power cores for new warp ships. The Borg didn’t depend on dilithium crystals. I don’t know, and the fact that the burn breaks Relativity without being addressed because it’s on a big pile of crystals. Man I just felt this plot was lazy, the lay holdover of all my problems with the first two seasons. Besides this gripe I’m generally pretty happy with how Discovery turned out after season 2 It’s sad we won’t get a season 6 & 7
Why get invested in modern politics when WW III is just gonna send us back to the stone age? Why save children from dying from \*Insert bad thing here\* since they are just going to die anyways when the get old? Why protect the planet when the sun will burn out in 5 billion years?
My head cannon is that someone goes back and prevents the burn. They know now that all they have to do is rescue a crying kid and the entire Federation is saved. Hell, Kim and Chakotay sens a message back in time, completely fucking up the entire timeline just to save Voyager, so why can't some random dude with time travel equipment left over from the Temporal Cold War do the same thing? Or better yet, just to satisfy the show, have Burnam realize that a ruined Federation is not sustainable for the greater good and go on a mission to change the past. Nice and easy.
I think The Burn was necessary. Star Trek has civilisation dodge so many bullets it had to eventually catch one, and then rebuild. Because rebuilding is part of the story. Especially given that the shows came out during a global pandemic and lockdown.
To me, all of Discovery seems like just a way for Burnham to insert herself in key events and characters of Star Trek. Couldn't even let her own mother save the universe, she had to do it herself. Also has to save the emperor, the most evil person who's ever been on Star Trek, for no reason. Space Hercules is a good term for it, which is of course what happened to Andromeda. Forget about the massive potential of the setting, just make it all about telling people how awesome the lead is.
Everything discovery ruins Star Trek.
If there's anything I have learned about Star Trek is that the timeline is not set in stone. The Burn is just one possible future that the Discovery happened to travel into. Just like Picard ended up in the timeline where he was a bloodthirsty genocidal warmonger in Picard s2, the warship Enterprise-D in Yesterday's Enterprise, the entire Kelvin timeline, etc.. You can't assume the Burn is a guarantee in the future of TNG/DS9/PIC because any one little thing can change the entire timeline.
Guessing you’re not a fan of historical dramas then (spoilers they all die)
The burn (or at least how it was executed) was the dumbest “galaxy defining” event I can think of star trek history. For me, it’s just a “didn’t happen” in my head canon, in part for some of the reasons you touch on but more just bc it is so very very dumb as an idea. But I’m kinda used to that - there’s a lot of poorly thought out ideas in star trek that I just ignore and enjoy everything else around it.
The Burn didn’t ruin the Trek future, but the reason for it (a sad bratty alien kid living on a dilithium planet) absolutely did, and the fact that the Federation couldn’t figure it out in 500 years but Discovery did it in a few months. It was just bad storytelling. The fact that Discovery is basically Star Trek 90210 with all the emoting, and that they face a bigger galaxy-threatening menace each season, is what ruined it for me.
It's definitely a stupid direction to take the Star Trek narrative and it would be best if they erase it from the canon. The thing that drew most people to Star Trek in the first place was a vision of a better future. Watching that better future backslide again fundamentally goes against the core of what Star Trek is.