Daystrom Institute
Welcome to Daystrom Institute!
Serious, in-depth discussion about Star Trek from both in-universe and real world perspectives.
Read more about how to comment at Daystrom.
Rules
1. Explain your reasoning
All threads and comments submitted to the Daystrom Institute must contain an explanation of the reasoning put forth.
2. No whinging, jokes, memes, and other shallow content.
This entire community has a “serious tag” on it. Shitposts are encouraged in Risa.
3. Be diplomatic.
Participate in a courteous, objective, and open-minded fashion. Be nice to other posters and the people who make Star Trek. Disagree respectfully and don’t gatekeep.
4. Assume good faith.
Assume good faith. Give other posters the benefit of the doubt, but report them if you genuinely believe they are trolling. Don’t whine about “politics.”
5. Tag spoilers.
Historically Daystrom has not had a spoiler policy, so you may encounter untagged spoilers here. Ultimately, avoiding online discussion until you are caught up is the only certain way to avoid spoilers.
6. Stay on-topic.
Threads must discuss Star Trek. Comments must discuss the topic raised in the original post.
Episode Guides
The /r/DaystromInstitute wiki held a number of popular Star Trek watch guides. We have rehosted them here:
- Kraetos’ guide to Star Trek (the original series)
- Algernon_Asimov’s guide to Star Trek: The Animated Series
- Algernon_Asimov’s guide to Star Trek: The Next Generation
- Algernon_Asimov’s guide to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
- Darth_Rasputin32898’s guide to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
- OpticalData’s guide to Star Trek: Voyager
- petrus4’s guide to Star Trek: Voyager
view the rest of the comments
I take your point about wanting a more cohesive narrative, but I think there is a more important function served by the idea of shifting timelines. By allowing for the same essential historical events to occur just in different years, Star Trek can preserve what I think is one of its essential conceits: that it depicts our future.
I think the world of Star Trek was and is meant to be understood as a view into how we could develop, as a goal that we could achieve. Certainly, as a kid, that was why I found it so compelling. It showed me the great things that humanity could achieve if we decided to listen to and trust one another. It showed (admittedly not always very well!) that everyone has a place in the future, even people who are might currently feel hopeless, left out, or oppressed. While I can only speak for myself, I never felt that sense of purpose from other major sci-fi or fantasy stories. I may enjoy Star Wars or LotR, for example, but they don't mean as much to me because I don't feel like I or the humanity I know have a place in those worlds. They depict the dead past of a distant place rather than a living future that we could all have a hand in shaping.
I say that knowing that Star Trek is essentially fantasy, of course. My point is that, my maintaining the illusion that we are living in Star Trek's actual past, it makes us feel connected and invested in a way that is different from how we might connect with other stories. I don't know if that's the reason for introducing the concept of shifting timelines, but I think it still makes it worthwhile just the same.
I agree that ideally they would maintain that kind of fuzzy timeline to maintain our connection to their future. In fact, many years ago on the old Daystrom I tried to argue that we shouldn't take dates on the show literally other than as an indication of the general order in which things happened -- leading to massive pushback from almost everybody! It seems like Picard season 2 went pretty far out of its way to endorse the fan-favored theory that the Trek timeline forked sometime prior to the 90s, though, and I worry about the slipshod continuity management that is emerging as the streaming era matures. Of course, the Picard finale also abruptly undid the whole climax of season 2, so maybe the official position is that we're going to pretend season 2 never happened.
I absolutely am fine with this take now, especially. Ultimately, what we are talking about is the narrative importance of the events. If we want to have episodes where the characters go to "today" today must continue to exist within the narrative. If the narrative says that the world was noticeably different in 1996 - move it to 2036. If we're still going strong move it to 2056.
These changes don't make as much difference in the narrative that was being told to begin with.