Where is your confidence level now with ST:Dis?

[Rahul]

Yeah, I'm one of those guys that doesn't like prequels.

Now, that doesn't mean I'm writing off Discovery. Quite the contrary actually, I'm as excited for it as I was excited in 2009 for the new Trek movie. And by returning to the prime universe (aka "canon") it has already achieved much good-will with me without actually knowing literally anything about it.

BUT: prequels generally suck. The comparison to "real" history is completely wrong, there's a distinct difference between a historical movie (real history), and a fictional work retroactively preceeding another fictional work.

Now I know the most important thing in a story are the characters. But they aren't everything. The story itself has as much or even more importance for other people (like me). And a prequel severely limits the outcomes. Consider "Rogue One": I don't like that movie. It's well made and all, has spectacular effects, great action, continuity and all. But NOBODY CARES how it ends! We all KNEW what the outcome was. The ONLY thing we didn't knew were "how" they did it and "who" (the characters). Turns out: the "how" was "generic action movie", and the "who" was "boring ass characters that all die in the end". I cannont promise anything, but there's a distinct possibility I might have been more interested in it if I didn't knew they would succeed and the only question left was "how". But it DEFINITELY would have compelled the writers to create a more streamlined story and not divulge in nostalgia and references so much (What the fuck was Darth Vaders part in the story? Except looking cool and reference another already finished different story? And what the hell was Saw Guerrera doing in the movie? He could have been written completely out if he wasn't a protagonist from another story/tv-series.)

The example with DS9 and the Dominion War: We were pretty sure Earth wouldn't get conquered. But apart from that, every possibility was open. Would the Federation win? Will they have a stalemate? If so, how? Will there be a clear winner/loser? Or will they make peace with the Dominion? Will the Alpha quadrant combine forces or have a fall out? Will the lower races of the Dominion start a revolution? We just didn't know. In retrospect I think I would have preffered if the writers made a few different choices during the arc. But that (the "how") wasn't in the foreground, because I was interested in "what" the story had to offer next.

A prequel simply limits these possibilities. Hard.

 

[Mudd]

The only way that stories in a show "suffer" is if one thinks the fake history is important. It's not, to most viewers - they just want to see a good story with characters they care about.

 

[Mudd]

Some people like the history part of it, the big picture. I would have liked to see what happens next in the ST-universe instead of "smaller" stories set in the earlier times.

It's not "the big picture;" it's bits and pieces of pooh-bah designed to lend a little verisimilitude to the stoies.

 

[jamestyler]

I don't really agree with the prequel theory, in that 'knowing how it ends' is valid. Rogue One is a good example of a film where the outcome is pre-determined. It's filling a gap, how did we get to that point.

On the other hand, we have Better Call Saul type shows. We know Jimmy eventually becomes Saul Goodman, has his own practice and his own life in Breaking Bad. But outside of his antics in Breaking Bad - we knew nothing of Jimmy/Saul and his journey outwith that show.

Discovery has a larger scope in that regard. We know very little about the 23rd century outwith Kirk and crew. We know where major players lie in the future, but we don't know how they got there, who else was around and there are still a good chunk of established powers and events that we know nothing about.

I don't really see Discovery as a prequel. It's not leading into the original series. The outcome isn't pre-determined. We know that decades later the Klingons and the Federation will broker peace, but we don't know about the journey there, the people behind the scenes or anyone that wasn't connected to Kirk.

The time frame doesn't take away from the journey. There's no end point they have to hit like Rogue One. Whatever the mission, whatever the characters, they can create and contain a story fairly easily without the blip Enterprise had of no one ever mentioning this ship before.

 

[fireproof78]

Yeah, I'm one of those guys that doesn't like prequels.

Now, that doesn't mean I'm writing off Discovery. Quite the contrary actually, I'm as excited for it as I was excited in 2009 for the new Trek movie. And by returning to the prime universe (aka "canon") it has already achieved much good-will with me without actually knowing literally anything about it.

BUT: prequels generally suck. The comparison to "real" history is completely wrong, there's a distinct difference between a historical movie (real history), and a fictional work retroactively preceeding another fictional work.

Now I know the most important thing in a story are the characters. But they aren't everything. The story itself has as much or even more importance for other people (like me). And a prequel severely limits the outcomes. Consider "Rogue One": I don't like that movie. It's well made and all, has spectacular effects, great action, continuity and all. But NOBODY CARES how it ends! We all KNEW what the outcome was. The ONLY thing we didn't knew were "how" they did it and "who" (the characters). Turns out: the "how" was "generic action movie", and the "who" was "boring ass characters that all die in the end". I cannont promise anything, but there's a distinct possibility I might have been more interested in it if I didn't knew they would succeed and the only question left was "how". But it DEFINITELY would have compelled the writers to create a more streamlined story and not divulge in nostalgia and references so much (What the fuck was Darth Vaders part in the story? Except looking cool and reference another already finished different story? And what the hell was Saw Guerrera doing in the movie? He could have been written completely out if he wasn't a protagonist from another story/tv-series.)

The example with DS9 and the Dominion War: We were pretty sure Earth wouldn't get conquered. But apart from that, every possibility was open. Would the Federation win? Will they have a stalemate? If so, how? Will there be a clear winner/loser? Or will they make peace with the Dominion? Will the Alpha quadrant combine forces or have a fall out? Will the lower races of the Dominion start a revolution? We just didn't know. In retrospect I think I would have preffered if the writers made a few different choices during the arc. But that (the "how") wasn't in the foreground, because I was interested in "what" the story had to offer next.

A prequel simply limits these possibilities. Hard.

I actually thought RO did a good job with the characters, so agree to disagree there. But, I do agree about Darth Vader's part in the story. Unnecessary, in my view.

But, the "what" of the story in RO, and in prequels, is that I don't know the events. What happens and what the characters do are interesting questions that me, personally, want answered. I know the characters are going to die (probably) but that doesn't stop my investment in them because there is some measure of sympathy for them.

A friend of mine once stated that a prequel should make you rethink some part of an existing story-I had no idea that's how that happened in the story. I didn't realize how much the Rebels lost in order to get those plans, etc.

Prequels limit possibilities, but that's part of the challenge for a writer. Limits are not bad things.

I guess, for me, it's like knowing the score of a sporting event. I'm not one of those who gets hung up on not knowing the score before watching the game. The "what" of the score as important as the "who" and the "how" that team won.

 

[Rahul]

Oh, there are of course good prequels! Better call Saul is great. There are always exceptions to the rule.

But the rule is: Prequels generally suck. I honestly hope Discovery will be one of these "exceptions" to the rule. And out of the many prequels lately it certainly has the best chances, A show about "exploration" can get away much further with introducing new stuff we never see later in the timeframe. I never really had a problem with the Xindi-arc on Enterprise.

The real test will be wether or not it stays a seperate entity on it's own, or if it feels like an "amendmend" to TOS, referencing TOS so much and being dependant on plot developments that it is devoid of all meaning without the connection.

 

[Tenacity]

Yeah, I'm one of those guys that doesn't like prequels.

How did you feel about the movie Saving Private Ryan? Given you knew the Allies win and all.

 

[Sakonna]

Yeah, I'm one of those guys that doesn't like prequels.

How did you feel about the movie Saving Private Ryan? Given you knew the Allies win and all.

Saving Private Ryan is not a prequel. A movie does not become a prequel simply by virtue of being set in the past.

The post you're responding to nailed it with this:

The comparison to "real" history is completely wrong, there's a distinct difference between a historical movie (real history), and a fictional work retroactively preceding another fictional work.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Saving Private Ryan is not a prequel. A movie does not become a prequel simply by virtue of being set in the past.

The post you're responding to nailed it with this:

It's not THAT different. It's a story set in a period of time in which we know the events of the future. "How things turn out," etc.

 

[Rahul]

How did you feel about the movie Saving Private Ryan? Given you knew the Allies win and all.

Is that some sort of meta-irony, or was that meant i genuine?

Saving Private Ryan is not a prequel. A movie does not become a prequel simply by virtue of being set in the past.

That's pretty much it.
A prequel would be: "the story of Tom Hanks' character from private Ryan BEFORE he set out so save private Ryan!"
And yes, I would be extremely sceptical about something like this.

 

[Mudd]

Stagecoach doesn't suck despite being set earlier than My Darling Clementine.

We know how the Old West came out, after all.

I'll be perfectly happy if Trek stays in the 23rd century from now on, which looks like it's what the studio's fixing to do.

 

[Chronos]

My expectations are fairly low, but that's a good thing. If they make a good show then I will be pleasantly surprised. For everyone who expected the epic revival of Trek and the greatest Trek the world has ever seen, there will likely only be disappointment.

 

[fireproof78]

Oh, there are of course good prequels! Better call Saul is great. There are always exceptions to the rule.

But the rule is: Prequels generally suck. I honestly hope Discovery will be one of these "exceptions" to the rule. And out of the many prequels lately it certainly has the best chances, A show about "exploration" can get away much further with introducing new stuff we never see later in the timeframe. I never really had a problem with the Xindi-arc on Enterprise.

The real test will be wether or not it stays a seperate entity on it's own, or if it feels like an "amendmend" to TOS, referencing TOS so much and being dependant on plot developments that it is devoid of all meaning without the connection.

It comes back to characters for me which is why I am in wait and see mode. It could be a prequel or a sequel and suck just as equally bad if the characters are poorly constructed, thought out or presented.

The Xindi Arc, to take your example, was never my issue with ENT. I struggled with the characters and their presentation. They felt inconsistent or incompetent, which was frustrating to me.

I do agree that it needs to feel like a separate entity on its own. Kind of like Halo: Reach in relationship to the original Halo game.

 

[Tenacity]

Saving Private Ryan is not a prequel.

No it wasn't.

My intended point was you knew ahead of time the future of events to be depicted in the movie. You knew for example that the beach landing depicted in the beginning of the movie would be successful.

 

[Infern0]

Hey everyone, I havent been on the site for a LONG time

But on topic.

I am actually quite sceptical about this series, although I am hoping for the best.

I'm one that is in the camp that we don't need another prequel, we had Enterprise, we had the rebooted movies. If they HAD to do a prequel I would have preferred an era such as AFTER TUC, before TNG, I think that's an era that could do with being fleshed out.

Also, some of the things I have read, (although granted some of this may not have been true) but that the captain is going to be a minor character? One of the main characters is a guy who studies space fungus?

Excuse me?

I get trying to be different, but there's good different and then there is different for the sake of it. For all i know this sort of thing could end up working out great, but I don't know.

I think one of the advantages of the streaming platform is that you can actually maximise revenue from die hard fans, which I don't know if they are going to achieve taking this sort of route. I for one WON'T be paying for all access for this show as it stands. If I see some trailers that grab me and show me that this is going to be a great show, then I will pay, but until then, I won't bother with a subscription.

Sad for me to say as i've been waiting for a trek return to "tv" for years and years, but what i've heard doesn't excite me.

 

[StarMan]

^ I would agree I'm far from excited. Curious? Yes.

I think once a teaser trailer drops expectations will be affected.

 

[slappy]

I really think there's far too much hand-wringing and doomsday prophecies from fans right now. Tv shows are complex enterprises (no pun intended) and there's a lot of moving pieces. Different aspects start and stop at different times. If anyone thinks producing a show should be free of any and all controversy or change, you're kidding yourself. This is nothing. Everyone needs to chill.

I didn't say anything about a doomsday prophecy. The question was what is my confidence level. The answer: low. I've seen nothing to inspire my confidence. I like that it's set in the prime universe. I liked that Fuller was so passionate. He's gone. That's about it. I don't find inspiration in the time period, the design, or the developments. Could it turn out well? Sure. I'd love to be surprised. I didn't have a ton of hope For Beyond and that turned out decent.

 

[Noname Given]

It's not a fucking prequel.

Set 10 years prior to TOS... <--- It most certainly is.

 

[BillJ]

Set 10 years prior to TOS... <--- It most certainly is.

It may technically be a prequel, but if it deals with nothing that comes later, it wouldn't feel like one.

 

[jamestyler]

Set 10 years prior to TOS... <--- It most certainly is.

A prequel is a work that forms part of a back-story to the preceding work. This is it's own story, not a lead in.