News coming 8/10?

[Mr Awe]

Those were things that I honestly never cared about. Besides, the novels should go on unaffected by Discovery.

And, I think this highlights a key reason for the differing opinions about a prequel, or actually a midquel. I can completely understand that, if you don't care about those larger aspects, a well executed sequel will not take anything away from you. However, if the world (galaxy) building aspects are important to you, then you do lose something with a sequel.

It's just a preference and one isn't inherently better than the other. You can certainly tell great stories in either a prequel or a continuation. I love the time frame. In fact, if it had to be a midquel and I got to choose the time, I'd probably choose this exact time.

That said, I'll miss the larger world building possibilities. While there can certainly be conflicts between the various big players, it's all got to be reset to what we know happens in TOS.

Mr Awe

 

[Visitor1982]

It could, but it won't.

I want Star Trek to move ahead with the times, not cling to a sixties vision of the future that looked dated even in the 70's.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

Something like this would be nice:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

That looks MUCH better

 

[BillJ]

it was because of the whole concept, the look, and the impossibility to imagine that Enterprise was actually a prequel to TOS.

Impossibility? Impossibility is at the core of Star Trek, they've been to the edge of the universe and the dawn of time. Yet some visual differences are somehow too much to swallow?

That said, I'll miss the larger world building possibilities. While there can certainly be conflicts between the various big players, it's all got to be reset to what we know happens in TOS.

Watching "Journey to Babel", we know that even within the Federation, there is plenty of conflict.

 

[jamestyler]

Is anyone expecting women to wear mini skirts and such?

Yes. If you use the TOS style (which I'm not sure of) a non-captain male has one primary outfit. A non-captain female has three - dress, shirt/trousers and the rarely seen loose shirt and trousers. Maybe more if you can mix that up a bit (shirt and skirt?).

Visually there's a lot more options, which - looking at how people dress in every day non televised life - can also more than just the visual.

Outwith the visual aspects..... I've too much of a headache to think about. But variety on screen (and in merchandising if they went that route - which hopefully they will as it's been pitiful through the last two movies) there's more to sell.

Note: I'm only commenting on just that as me and my wife had this discussion ten minutes ago

 

[shady12]

For me, the problem post-Nemesis is that the tech had reached almost magical quality.

I never saw it like that at all. It mostly had the same stuff Trek always had and no more magical. And some stuff that even seems behind 2016 tech.

 

[uniderth]

And you can never tell any good stories where magic is involved.

 

[Trek16]

concerning THR saying there will be a Klingon captain in the show. Could this allude to the teaser trailer about "new crews" we got awhile ago.

 

[Rahul]

I just watched the comic-con teaser again. And I have to admit, with a better knowledge about the era of when the show will take place, it works much better.

Still not a fan of prequels in general, but they seem to have a pretty coherent vision of what the show will be like. Fingers crossed.

 

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

I for one am quite excited about this. I like the prequel concept (but then again, I like ENT, especially seasons 3-4), and I've always had a fondness for this era, ever since I saw The Cage for the first time. The early days of the Federation and Starfleet are a great source for telling stories, and I don't even care if they're not of the end-of-the-world category.

I think that's one of the problems with many modern blockbusters, is that everything has to be on such a huge scale. Take Marvel for instance. Every film is massive. But one of the better outings they did was the small-scale TV show Jessica Jones.

Getting back to the early days, well early and early, just ten years prior to TOS, it's not that early, but still a lot of potential to tell both new stories and explore things and aliens we know - Vulcans, Tellarites, Andorians, Rigelians. Many years ago I did write down and posted somewhere (it might even have been here on TBBS) what my take would be for a new series, and I set it at the beginning of the 23rd century, so a bit earlier than DSC will be, but some of the things Fuller has said now rings eerily familiar. Another reason for me to be excited (or getting litigious ).

 

[tribbleorlfl]

The look of Star Trek (1966 - 1969) is dead. It has been for a long time. They didn't change it for nothing in 1979 and again in 1982 and 1987 and 1993 and 1996, and 2001, and 2009 and now in 2016.

Actually, mid-century design is really big right now, partially because of the success of "Mad Men." Certain elements of mid-century design never really left, especially in Euro modern. Sure, older audiences might look at TOS and say "My living room growing up looked just like that" and think it looks dated, but younger audiences might see it and say "What a bold design choice."

Regarding the technology, where someone might see flashing lights snd buttons as hokey and outdated, I see it as a simplified UI that is the natural progression of Apple's industrial design philosophy.

I get that they'll have to be cautious with incorporating the look and feel of TOS into DSC, but I don't think it'll be that much of a stretch to modern audiences as you think.

 

[uniderth]

Regarding the technology, where someone might see flashing lights snd buttons as hokey and outdated, I see it as a simplified UI that is the natural progression of Apple's industrial design philosophy.

Not to mention the colored elements of the control panels are not buttons as such. They are touch interfaces. How do we know? Becasue they never depress when touched. They aren't like buttons where the surface you touch moves and armature that makes or breaks an electrical contact. The "buttons" on the NCC-1701 are more like miniature touch interfaces.

 

[jamestyler]

Sure, older audiences might look at TOS and say "My living room growing up looked just like that"

"Back in my day we all had a communications officer at a station behind us in our living rooms because we didn't have a remote! Thankfully the console on the far side of the living room had a Vulcan stationed there to explain the legal dramas to me. It was a simpler space age time."

 

[Visitor1982]

The 2017 U.S.S. Discovery will not look like the 1966 U.S.S. Enterprise. The costumes will be different, hell, even the known aliens will be different. Just like the 1966 Klingons don't look the same as the 1979 Klingons and the 1979 Klingons look different from the 1987 Klingons and those look different from the 2009 Klingons.

Things evolve, unlike some TOS fans.

 

[mos6507]

No,ENT failed because of its writing.

That's not mutually exclusive.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

That's not mutually exclusive.

In this case it it. The look had nothing to do with how bad the writing was

 

[cultcross]

The look was pretty decent really (catsuit aside). I was really excited for Enterprise, and then Broken Bow came along and it was just Voyager in different costumes. Not a shred of anything new, a waste of its premise. This time around, I'm wary of another prequel but I think/hope the creative team could make this work. So hopefully the opposite experience.

 

[mdtauk]

The look was pretty decent really (catsuit aside). I was really excited for Enterprise, and then Broken Bow came along and it was just Voyager in different costumes. Not a shred of anything new, a waste of its premise. This time around, I'm wary of another prequel but I think/hope the creative team could make this work. So hopefully the opposite experience.

I'd say it was a mix between a studio wanting "more of the same" and "familiarity", and a creative team who many had been working for 20 years on a series, and so may have been a bit burnt out creatively.

The original idea of a first season on Earth, struggling to get the ship launched, could have been very refreshing, but the studio wanted the ship in space, with action and sexy adventures.

 

[mos6507]

It could, but it won't.
I want Star Trek to move ahead with the times, not cling to a sixties vision of the future that looked dated even in the 70's.

Saying "it won't" sounds dangerously close to nuTrek fans insisting this show couldn't be in the prime timeline because prime was "your father's Star Trek".

Well, the show is already bucking those expectations. While the Discovery doesn't look like TOS, the ship looks about as "contemporary" as a steampunk 1970s Datsun 210 hatchback mixed with an analog CRT projector for bussards. I mean, I can practically smell the Naugahyde and the shag carpeting already. So I wouldn't be too quick to claim to know how modern (which presumes Kelviny and applestoreish) this show is going to look.

 

[Mr Awe]

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

There's a larger issue behind how people react to the news that it's a sequel. It comes down to the issue of which aspect of a story is more important to an individual.

The effects on the individual characters versus the effects on the larger timeline.

No one is probably all one way or the other. You can fall at various places on the spectrum. You can even care greatly about both ends of the spectrum

In general, those who care more about the individual characters and not the larger history, will be just fine with a prequel. The importance is the characters that we're following.

For those who care a lot about the larger historical context, we are probably a bit disappointed with it being a prequel. Being a prequel does limit the larger historical implications of the events. For example, neither Earth or Vulcan can be destroyed. There can't be a large-scale war with the Klingons or Romulans. Nor can they become allies. There are definitely other exciting tails to be told, but the larger context does impose limitations.

I fall more in the latter category, but I'm not opposed to a prequel, I just would have preferred a continuation at some point post-Nemesis. I'm mostly just looking forward to excitement to the new series with just a tinge of wishing it had been a continuation.

Mr Awe