News coming 8/10?

[Rahul]

Just like ENT, they'll start off with good intentions but they'll get boxed in and fuck up everything.

The inherent problem with prequels is that audiences already know the outcome of the broader saga. So with that in mind, prequels must be absolutely excellent with detailing and execution. When that doesn't happen, writers will just retcon pre-established lore and people just ignore it, at best.

With Trek, this problem is amplified by a factor of infinity.

Which is a lot.

Ding dind ding. We have a winner!

Everyone loves to fill in the blanks of a good story. How did Anakin Skywalker become Darth Vader? How did Michael Myers become a serial killer? What happened to the Potter-universe in the past?

But it is very rarely interesting to see how others imagined those blank spaces inbetween. Personally, I never was interested in neither Axanar or the Star Wars prequels.

Sure, this show still has potential. But nobody will be watching, wondering how the story unfolds in the grand scheme of things. But every single detail and reference to existing canon will be put under immense scrutinity by the fans, and compared in detail against how one self imagined these events.

Add to that that half of Trek lore is unavailable -no Romulans, no Borg, no holodecks, no replicators, no Ferengi, no tractor beams, no Cardassians, no Kirk/Spock references (other than obscure ones), no site-to-site beaming. No major timetravel events, no discoveries that would change the universe. Add to THAT that the writers aren't allowed to introduce new, game-changing technologies like all Trek series did previously. No drones, no robots, no wheeled vehicles. No augments, no artifial intelligence on a level as Data.

Basically the original series had "status quo is god" written at the end of every episode. This series will have written "status quo is god" RIGHT FROM THE BEGINING FOR THE WHOLE SERIES. Whatever any major themes any previous Trek series had focused on - they are forced to avoid that.

Man, Fuller&crew REALLY need to knock it out of the park, right from the beginning. No first season to "learn" or improve, no mistakes allowed, otherwise the series is as dead as Enterprise after the first season.

 

[Tosk]

The inherent problem with prequels is that audiences already know the outcome of the broader saga.

That only means something if they want to tie in with other events. A prequel series doesn't have to even deal with anything like that. You could do four years of them out in new space where they hardly even (if ever) bump into existing species. Tell stories that use the characters you have, don't bother with "universe shaking" events.

But nobody will be watching, wondering how the story unfolds in the grand scheme of things.

Grand scheme? No. They'll instead be watching the stories, not knowing the adventures or fate of this crew that we've never heard of before and have no knowledge about except what the show tells us.

 

[RAMA]

My preference in the prime timeline will always be post-Romulus destruction/Destiny era novel continuity. However, I'm willing to see where this show takes us.

I'd rather not see Klingons again, but I felt that way in STID and they were fresh, new and scary. I'm willing to see how this comes out too.

Unlike many people here, my greatest qualm now is that they might be making it too maze-like and complex...Klingon liaisons, section 31 agents, cryptic events from TOS past, admirals on the starbase as main charactes(?)..we were promised new worlds, exploration, and all of this so far points to some extremely complex, insular plots, with our lead character having divided loyalties(?).

Again, unlike many people here I will not knee-jerk and and make judgements without seeing it.

 

[Rahul]

That only means something if they want to tie in with other events. A prequel series doesn't have to even deal with anything like that. You could do four years of them out in new space where they hardly even (if ever) bump into existing species. Tell stories that use the characters you have, don't bother with "universe shaking" events.

Yes and no. We don't know the fate of the new characters in the show. But we do know all broader events will be largeley meaningless in the grander scope of things.

There will be tension "will this character survive?", "will the Discovery go down?". But we will never have for example "Will Earth get seriously attacked?" (tropey, but many of the better Star Trek stories use it). No "will we be at war with those new aliens or will be make peace?". And even if only a colony is threatened we know right from the beginning "either the colony will be saved, or, if not, it was never that important to history that it means anything if it won't survive".

So yeah, it's still possible to pull off (I thought Enterprise season 3&4 were pretty good outings). But it isn't exactly what I wished for....

 

[Rahul]

IMO they should have used basically the Next Next Generation as a revival of the franchise. And then produced a Tos-prequel series as the first spin-off. Would have been a great way to have two Trek series at the same time, without them interfering with each other. And there still being the possibility of cross-over events, like a time-travel story, or where the future crew has to finish a hundred-year long story arc the other crew began.

 

[Tosk]

"Will Earth get seriously attacked?" (tropey, but many of the better Star Trek stories use it).

Why not? Just because they never mentioned it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. (Although I'm hoping we stay away from Earth.)

No "will we be at war with those new aliens or will be make peace?".

Why not? If it's a new species, we're in the dark.

And even if only a colony is threatened we know right from the beginning "either the colony will be saved, or, if not, it was never that important to history that it means anything if it won't survive".

Importance to history means nothing to the drama of a situation.

 

[RAMA]

You do realize that TOS only explored one starship's adventures out of the whole part of the galaxy they were in..Enterprise an even smaller part...

Also, no show by any creative team--as much as they respect previous creators--has any need whatsoever to be faithful to "canon" to limit creativity. They may use large parts of it, but like Enterprise, they'll change what they want to for stories. I wouldn't expect any less. The Okudas wrote the Chronology and Encyclopedia as a guide, not a straitjacket for writers.

Ding dind ding. We have a winner!

Everyone loves to fill in the blanks of a good story. How did Anakin Skywalker become Darth Vader? How did Michael Myers become a serial killer? What happened to the Potter-universe in the past?

But it is very rarely interesting to see how others imagined those blank spaces inbetween. Personally, I never was interested in neither Axanar or the Star Wars prequels.

Sure, this show still has potential. But nobody will be watching, wondering how the story unfolds in the grand scheme of things. But every single detail and reference to existing canon will be put under immense scrutinity by the fans, and compared in detail against how one self imagined these events.

Add to that that half of Trek lore is unavailable -no Romulans, no Borg, no holodecks, no replicators, no Ferengi, no tractor beams, no Cardassians, no Kirk/Spock references (other than obscure ones), no site-to-site beaming. No major timetravel events, no discoveries that would change the universe. Add to THAT that the writers aren't allowed to introduce new, game-changing technologies like all Trek series did previously. No drones, no robots, no wheeled vehicles. No augments, no artifial intelligence on a level as Data.

Basically the original series had "status quo is god" written at the end of every episode. This series will have written "status quo is god" RIGHT FROM THE BEGINING FOR THE WHOLE SERIES. Whatever any major themes any previous Trek series had focused on - they are forced to avoid that.

Man, Fuller&crew REALLY need to knock it out of the park, right from the beginning. No first season to "learn" or improve, no mistakes allowed, otherwise the series is as dead as Enterprise after the first season.

 

[Rahul]

Yeah. That doesn't solve ANY of the problems that prequels bring with them.

Again, this is not a critical deal-breaker. Again, I liked Enterprise season 3 and 4. But it will be much harder for the writers to create drama and surprise audiences. Basically, I whished for something completely new and original.

Instead it seems we will get "The Enterprise prequel series - Bryan Fullers take on it".

 

[Tosk]

Basically, I whished for something completely new and original.

No matter the time period, you were never going to get something completely new and original. You're getting new Trek.

 

[Rahul]

I'm a bit more ptimistic since already Fullers last successfull series - Hannibal - was a prequel, and he seems to be well enough versed in the universe to be able to tell both interesting stories and tie them up with pre-existing continuity (at least in broader strokes - and that's basically all I care for).

Still, it seems like tying up your own foot before a race. Especially if the alternative was so obvious, and would have allowed to sho traditional Trek samples like the holodeck, Borg etc.

 

[Tosk]

Especially if the alternative was so obvious, and would have allowed to sho traditional Trek samples like the holodeck, Borg etc.

The holodeck and Borg are completely new and original?

 

[Rahul]

No matter the time period, you were never going to get something completely new and original. You're getting new Trek.

Was this supposed to be stupid on an ironic level?

Because, you know Trek means a whole lot different things for a whole lot different people? What you thnik "Trek" is might not be what I mostly associate with Trek, and maybe (probably) not even what the majority associates with "Trek". There's a reason we have 5 (soon 6) different series. And all of them are new and original on different levels...

Edit:
Yeah, I would have liked new and original stories involving the holodeck or the Borg after we last saw them... At least not exclude the possibility right from the start,

PS: there's a reason I wrote "would have allowed" to be featured, not "must be" featured. Read first, ask later

 

[OpenMaw]

Importance to history means nothing to the drama of a situation.

Bingo. I'm going to take this opportunity to reference crew again, because it's basically a direct prequel to The Cage.

Storywise? Doesn't do anything that trifles anything with canon, and is in no way limited for it. What engages the reader is the drama and mystery of the immediate events. Compelling stories have almost nothing to do with some adherence to a broader history. Sometimes, they do, but not all the time, or even most of the time.

That's why you can make TV shows about hospitals and cops. They aren't saving the universe every week, they're just trying to live their lives and do their jobs, and sometimes some really incredible stuff happens. Even then, it's not "EARTH SHATTERING" beyond the scope of their own lives. That's drama.

Here's an idea, let's not have any big galactic conflict shenanigans. That'd be nice. Ya know, I look back on early TNG, and yeah, it had a lot of flaws, but you know what TNG has that later seasons don't? One sentiment. "We are far out here in space exploring things." It became "We're in space patrolling already charted stuff and doing psuedo political boring tech crap."

Put em way out there in space. Wayyyy out on the frontier. Just like in TOS, we never see the series contemporary Earth, or at least not for a good long while. There's too much exploring to do out and stuff to deal with.

Who needs the Borg and Holodecks anyway? The Borg were so played out by the end of Voyager. They had no teeth, lost all of their mystery, and were forming a huge glass jaw. They're like The Daleks on Doctor Who now. A sight gag, a goof. Not really imposing or interesting... And holodecks? While the technology, early on, was used fairly creatively and it was a nice way to explore some character stuff... Again, played out. There's nothing really there of interest that I see. Not enough that we must do a series in the 26th Century.

For the record? If they were to do a series in the 26th Century "after the events of Nemesis." They would still so whole-cloth redesign the look and feel of Trek that it would still basically look like a reboot. I'm on record as having said in the past that I thought that was the ideal way to go, but not because of any of these arbitrary things people are listing off thus far. Holodecks and Borg don't matter. They can create new threats, or explore in more detail old threats that didn't get a lot of air time. There's a lot of room with Andorians, Tellarites, and Vulcans. Plus all the guys from TMP that we only got a couple glimpses of. Plus... New things! TOS was all about doing funky and weird stuff, and it's nice to hear Fuller say he wants to emphasis the differences of alien species in contrast with the human characters. More aliens. Yes.

 

[Tosk]

There's a reason we have 5 (soon 6) different series. And all of them are new and original on different levels...

You said completely new and original. And that you would like the Borg to show up. I'm just responding to what you said.

 

[BillJ]

I disagree. Lots of people I know didn't give it a chance because they thougt it was silly to believe that Enterprise is supposed to be pre TOS. They didn't even get as far as to judge the story or the writing.

Enterprise was heavily advertised and opened with 13 million viewers here in the US. People were interested, but bad writing drove them away. Other dramas were taking chances, while Star Trek was doing more of the same.

The fictional time period won't make or break this show, the writing will.

 

[Rahul]

Yeah, I think a post-Nemesis should definetely have a feeling of almost being a reboot.

The "out there, in undiscovered space"-angle is probably the only one a sequel series can really succeed, and they seem to take that route, so I'm fine with that.

It's still a bit depressing considering the worst possibly thing the crew can encounter STILL needs to be a lot more harmless than the Borg. Again, I would simply have preferred the possibility of encountering something we have never heard of before, and of which we can not imagine the outcome of right from the beginning.

 

[Ghislaine H. B. BRAEME]

Firstly, a big THANK YOU for the summary, @Trek16!!!

MORE INFO!!!
"Fuller on stage now: “There’s an incident and and event in Star Trekhistory, that’s been talked about but never been explored. To do this series, we’re telling a much more serialized story, to dig deep into a very tantalizing [storyline. And we have a character who’s on a journey, and in order to understand something that is alien she first has to understand herself.”

Between what I have already read on TVLine and here, we have the confirmation that ST: Discovery will be "led" by a female human being. Kate Mulgrew will finally get a successor. Let's hope that she will be as talented as her predecessor!

"The star won’t be the captain but rather be a lieutenant commander, “with caveats,” he said. “We’ve seen six series from the captain’s point of view, to see a character from a different perspective on the starship, one who has a diff dynamic relationships with a captain with subordinates, it gave us richer context.”

A First Commander, who would inherit from captain's seat without having the rank, further to the death of the latter in an accident?! She would become capitain later in the series, like Sisko in DS9 : at the beginning, he was Commander then later Capitain in DS9, if I remember well..

"On including familiar characters from the original series: “There’s so much about the history that once we get through this first season and establish our own Star Trek universe with the crew that going to be reimagining a lot of Star Trek elements, we’ll be looking in the second season to open up to more familiar characters and how they can feed into the [show]. First and foremost, I think we really want to convince you and establish the greatness of the [new] characters that are going to be introduced.”

What an ambition!

 

[Rahul]

You said completely new and original. And that you would like the Borg to show up. I'm just responding to what you said.

Man, sometimes I wish for a downvote button on this forum, or simply any other means of showing someone that what was just written was not the best outing of someones intelligence.

The appereance of well known characters or species does not exclude the possibility of new and original angles or stories. And it is only a possibility. Otherwise you pretty much couln't have serial storytelling at all.

 

[Tosk]

Man, sometimes I wish for a downvote button on this forum, or simply any other means of showing someone that what was just written was not the best outing of someones intelligence.

That's the second time you've implied that I am stupid. I would prefer you didn't do it a third time.

 

[eyeresist]

Why would anyone ever bother making a movie about World War 2? We all know how that ended - the whole thing would just feel painfully predictable.


Can we please do away with "If it wasn't mentioned in a 'later' show it didn't happen"? I mean, judging from the content of this thread, I'm pretty sure there was never a Roman Empire or a Black Plague. If there was, why hasn't someone here mentioned it?

Another interesting about having the audience one step behind the Captain's POV - means that any secret orders from Admirals or higher ups, will be a surprise for us, and the lead character. This is an interesting dramatic device.

We don't know that this lieut. com. won't have her own command, but yes, it would be interesting to observe the bridge from another viewpoint that the standard captain-centre-stage layout. A captain observed that way could be quite an interesting character portrayal.