Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I know it may seem like I'm stressing about continuity.  It really doesn't bother me as much as it may seem.  I can watch Strange New Worlds and not get bogged down by TOS continuity, particularly since I don't remember much of TOS continuity.  What I'm talking about here is more issues with overall continuity.  If Vulcan is okay in 3190, it is in no danger in 2410 or 2500 or any year in between.  If there's some sort of Federation Civil War in 2600, we know it eventually works out because the Federation survived (in some sense) in the 32nd century.

From a certain point of view, Discovery is now the official Trek "present" and everything else is prequel territory.  Just like TOS became prequel when TNG started.

Now ireactions is right that the future is fluid.  So maybe something will happen that will wipe out Discovery's version of the future.  We've already seen the TOS version of the future (and the past) altered.  Again, not a huge deal.  Just an annoyance.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I've always disliked the idea that timelines get wiped out. I don't like it when the audience reacts to a story with a sense of, as comic book writer Brian Michael Bendis put it, "You're breaking all the toys!" I feel that destroying timelines is like breaking all the toys and throwing out the sandbox. I would prefer that the 33rd century just exist as one of many possible futures for STAR TREK rather than destroy it. However, that may be a minority view.

The post-NEMESIS novels for TNG, DS9 and VOY had a very clean slate and did a lot of ongoing story arcs, only for PICARD to outright contradict them. The publishers elected to end their novel continuity in the CODA trilogy where the novel versions of the TNG, DS9 and VOY casts discover: all timelines are under attack by the Devidians, a race that feeds on energy from destroyed timelines. The heroes realize: the Devidians first began their campaign of destruction when the Borg altered history in FIRST CONTACT, splitting the timelines into disparate paths.

The novel timeline has been what the characters call the Splinter Timeline (media tie-ins), apart from the Prime Timeline (PICARD). The CODA trilogy ends with the novel characters sacrificing their own timeline so that the Prime Timeline and all the other timelines will be preserved while the Splinter Timeline is destroyed.

This is exactly the kind of story I dislike and disagree with. The CODA writers explained that they felt that saying the novel universe continues without ongoing publication would leave things unresolved, and they felt killing everyone off to save the Prime characters was conclusive and final. That may be, but all it did was, as Bendis would put it, "break the toys" and throw out the sandbox. I think that if a writer doesn't enjoy a a toy, they should just leave it alone rather than actively destroy it. Someone else might find a use for it someday.

I think this is just something to address in a throwaway line. "Mirror Georgiou? Again? I thought we were rid of her." "No, she's back from that possible future timeline." Or even a more involved exchange:

LUCSLY: "Hello. I'm Agent Lucsly from the Department of Temporal Investigations. I'm very familiar with you, 'Emperor.'"

MIRROR GEORIGOU: "You think you know me from reading my file, as though my data footprint is all I am and nothing compared to all you represent and all you claim to be. Department of Temporal Investigations. A portentous term bound in administrative pretense, as though time can be curtailed by a flowchart and a briefing. I have seen the end of your civilization, the conclusion of all you exist within, the downfall of all that keeps you upright. I know what is coming for you, what will consume you, what will -- "

LUCSLY: "Uh. No. Sorry. What you saw was one potential future. 38B. The Burn one, right? Yeah, that's not even the worst one. There are like four thousand apocalyptic timelines out of the 20 billion we track every day. But thanks for letting me know that it left you psychologically scarred and that it bolstered your existing narcisissm."