I really don't know what is wrong with some people slating it just for being a 'prequel' (aka just a completely new story that happens to be set in the past). For that matter people slating any new Star Trek after 10 years of the worst drought of good scspace opera in modern TV history? Do you realise that this might only be the beginning of a wider foray into television, that might eventually expand forwards into the future eras? That this is just one possibility/one era being explored? Are you, supposed fans, seriously going to be so self-entitled, that you trash something before you know anything about it's actual themes or basically anything of consequence about the show? I have tried to remain calm and not specifically engage with this kind of comment, these past few weeks, but the levels of judgementalism and ignorance here have become ridiculous - this isn't Rick Berman and company returning for their 4th series - you don't even know the provenance or talent of Bryan Fuller's completely new team yet. "We wanted something new." - It IS NEW You havent even SEEN it yet. Is it even actually a direct prequel? - because a prequel (in book parlance, outside the modern Hollywood definition) generally means it's related to a previous novel directly - i.e. The School Adventures of Sherlock Holmes being a direct prequel to Sherlock Holmes, or some shit - this is probably a completely new and unseen story, which just happens to set in the past - not the young chonicles of teenage Kirk. That's like saying a story like "The Imitation Game" set during WW2 is a 'prequel' to all literature set after 1945. It's a new story people. Then there have been some really weird comments regarding continuity - and how it is supposedly limiting. Really really flat out weird, based on complete misunderstandings of either drama, or of Star Trek canon. I suppose a story set during WW2 is limiting, is it, because you can't have Cold War jets and moon landings yet? Someone for example suggesting that we can't have Cardassians in a prequel to TOS - as an example of how to show is supposedly in a straight jacket of continuity (despite nobody actually knowing when Cardassian first contact was, with "centuries ago" actually being completely possible, even likely - it's a million times less problematic than the pointless appearance of the Ferengi in ENT). I don't know how people can say "you can't tell a good story if you are limited in your ability to contradict TOS technology" - how does the non-existence existence of replicators, for example, limit drama in anything but a really inconsequential and superficial way? It's like arguing that Alien the movie, is somehow limited by having a setting in which there are no FTL drives, no teleportation, no replicators. All that setting Discovery prior to TOS does is limit very very superficial things, like holodecks - it does not limit the broadness of thematic vision or expanse of the dramaic canvas at all. The era is still full of what we would regard as technological wonders. --- ENT didn't fail because it was in a prequel-shaped straight jacket - it failed because the writers never understood how to use the era - made some really obvious and avoidable continuity errors that anyone could have pointed out in furtherance of crap episodes - whilst paradoxically not even using 1% of the actual possibilities of the era, which bore NO canonicity constraints whatsoever (even actually making the excuse that they were constrained by the era they had chosen)! Put it down to the showrunners not even watching TOS. Also it didn't actually suck - but it could have been the Babylon 5 of Star Trek, and wasn't even close.
I'm not a fan of another prequel, but how could I hate the show I haven't seen yet? It might be the best Trek as far as I'm concerned!
Because some fans simply make quick judgement calls, for no real reason. They didn't like Enterprise, that was a prequel. This is a prequel, so ergo, I must hate this now aswell. Without seeing anything yet, they will indeed actually hate. However, that is just a small, small few. Others are vey skeptic, but keep an open mind. They will, in detail, post what makes them skeptical. This is, to some, hating. Personally, I don't get that attitude either, because how can you be skeptical with so little info really? Me, I'm waiting for the first actual trailer. Not the little bad cgi thing they threw together. A real trailer. After that, we'll see.
Most of the comments I've seen on Facebook fall into two categories: It's not set after DS9! Waaaaaaaah! Gay agenda! Waaaaaaaah! That's humanity for you
My only complaint so far was about the design of the ship. I am used to liking the look of the main hero ship in each series. Now we know more, it may be interesting to see a modern take on the Original Series era. It was never really my Star Trek, as I grew up with the movies, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT. Also as someone who enjoys the continuity between series, I am intrigued about the visual style for the sets, craft, and costumes. The alien makeup, I will view that as a HD update, rather than sticking rigidly to the original designs. But if we get Red Androians, and Klingons with radically different looks - then I will be perturbed by this.
Is it possible this conflict regarding Discovery may actually surpass the one regarding the size of the JJ-prise?...
There was literally no space opera on TV for five years, before Dark Matter and Killjoys and The Expanse. And in the five years preceding that, there was like 1-2 shows - compared with the late 90s and early 2000s, when we had Star Trek: TNG, Star Trek: DS9, Star Trek: VOY, Babylon 5, Stargate SG1, Farscape, Firefly, Space: Above and Beyond, etc. Maybe I should have specified space opera, because that is what I meant.
By no means do I hate Star Trek: Discovery. However, my interest in the show has plummeted with last night's reveal. Another prequel? "Graphic content?" No commercial-free tier on CBS All Access like Hulu? Those are three huge red flags to me. I'm sure that I'll eventually watch it, but it will not be day one. And no, being a prequel doesn't automatically mean the show will stink. However, I don't believe it's coincidence that the worst Star Trek show and the worst Star Wars movies are the prequels...
Yeah we have to do something now: Stop Star Trek Discovery - The Petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/stop-star-trek-discovery
I'm sure CBS, having spent millions of dollars on Discovery and already made tens of millions more just on preliminary licensing, will abandon it because a few angry Star Trek fans are upset that it's not set at the right time.
People can't help it if they like or dislike something. If they wanted something post-DS9/Voyager that is nothing to be ashamed of. I admit that would have been my preference but I've been surprised in the past when I have discovered I liked things that I didn't think I would simply because I gave it a chance. I'm willing to wait.
There could be some hope... http://www.trektoday.com/content/2016/08/fuller-provides-star-trek-discovery-tidbits/
"HATE"- why such a strong word? Are you trying to make people who vote "yes" look irrational? Anyhow- how about "Not Impressed So Far"?? Setting "STAR TREK DISCOVERY" 20 Years after "NEMESIS" probably demands too much creativity and thinking for today's Hollywood writers. You know- what will Communicators, Phasers, Transporters & Starships look like, way after Picard's Era? Isn't it easier to use other people's creativity-like Ralph McQuarries art, as opposed to sitting down and having to think how a 26th Century vessel works? Here's the problem: Hollywood people now take the Ideas, set pieces, props, designs and symbols of creative people of the past-- and glom them onto their remakes- "Ghostbusters 2016", "JJ Trek", Ron Moores "BSG", "Charlies Angels", "V", "The A Team", "Miami Vice"...and adding their own sensibilities and removing the intangible magic of the original Productions. "Discovery" seems like another Hollywood hack just attaching his agendas to someone else's old creative success. Bryan Fuller: progressive is doing Post-Janeway. Progressive isn't "swearing", "graphic sex", a "gay character". Some of that is just a reflection of Hollywood Morality. It's aspiring to better than what we are that inspired viewers, not a helmsman spitting out, "OH Shit!!" in his Bill Theiss-like outfit on a Ralph McQuarrie ship. Move forward, not backwards. Yawn.
While I don't hate Discovery (as of yet), I do hate the fact of it being a prequel.Why? Because it is a prequel in the Prime Universe. By firmly establishing it is in the Prime Universe, they are acknowledging the events that have come before that make up that Universe. A series set after the last known events of that Universe has a great deal of latitude, because the past is the past and anything is possible moving forward. A prequel, on the other hand, has to lead to a future that has already been established. Not only that, they are actually bridging a gap between two shows, so they have a past and a future that is already established. Yes, there is room for the new (new stories, crews, ships, etc.), but without contradicting everything in the Prime Universe, there is nothing groundbreaking that can really be done history wise. I'm fine with re-imagining Star Trek. I'm fine with rewriting history or forgetting canon all together. But if that is the case, then why firmly state that it is in an existing Universe? They would have been better off just saying it is a series set in the Star Trek universe. Anyway,just my thoughts. And I am still anxiously waiting for Discovery, even though I feel they have put themselves into a position of not really being able to expand the world as much as just adding stories to it.