Prequels (or reboots) are an immensely risk-averse way of storytelling... Oh, that's quite true! But that's on the writers. Not on the setting. The tech is going to be exactly as magical and unrelatable as the tech of TOS was. It's futuristic. How realistic is beaming? It all depends on how relatable the writers handle it. No, it's suuuper conservative, only allowed to fill in gaps, never paint it's own picture. Also they are limiting themselves by forcing themselves to avoid well-known properties, like the holodeck or major alien species. Their best hope is finding interesting nichés of the Trek verse. Yeah, how many people are actually watching that? I mean, I absolutely applaud them for doing those fan films. But they don't exactly sustain a big audience, they live from the passion of a relative small one. In general: It's always more fun to fill in the gaps of a story oneselve, then to see other people fill them with their ideas. That's why everyone wants to go back to the glory days, make a movie at the time of Kirk, or how the rebels stole the plans to the Death Star. And that's why many fans like the idea to go back to a time when Star Trek had a better quality. But that soon changes once you are confronted with how someone else fills the gaps. Because that often is quite different from what one self imagined. How many people really liked how Anakin became Darth Vader? Or how Gandalf fund out about Sauron during the Hobbit? Or were really interested in how Jyn Erso's got the Death Star plans? Or how Enterprise handeled early Starfleet? Yeah. There's a whole discussion to be had about prequels. I sure as hell don't like them (generally speaking - with a few exceptions here and there). And I don't seem to be alone, considering that prequel television shows generally have comparatively lower ratings and get cancelled early. I hope Discovery will be the exception to the rule and is of good quality. But even if it is, after Discovery we need to stop doing prequels and reboots.
They can be, but they don't have to be. The same could be said about ENT or TOS. But, as it advances, there will be a need to come up with more reasons for it to not be available to fix the problems. So, to me, it adds layers of technobabble upon the technobabble and that's unrelatable. I disagree. I am much more interested in the pre-TOS era in terms of what other alien races are out there, what other threats are out there, and it's development than I am post-Nemesis. I have always been fascinated with Pike and April's eras. Certainly, but we also don't see a post-Nemesis series in the same vein. "Renegades" being close, but even then, it's more dystopian in it's view. Two out of four for me. The other two were among my favorite sequences in those films. So, I don't know how many people liked it but myself, and my family, we all enjoyed Gandalf and Jyn's adventures. Gandalf's scenes in "The Hobbit" were probably among the best of that trilogy. By the way, I grew up playing "Dark Forces" and with Kyle Katarn. I thought Kyle was one of the best characters in the EU period. I'm not disappointed that Rogue One told a different story than his story. It was better than I imagined it to be. So, for me, it was a risk because I had already imagined it, played it, and it's still there. Two equally exciting adventures for different reasons. I have no idea. I generally like prequels but they come with their own sets of challenges and difficulties, as emulated by the examples you listed. But, as you said at the beginning, it's on the writers not on the setting to craft adventurous stories and engaging characters. That's where many prequels fail, and where DSC has the chance to succeed.
The one thing that always needs to be not available is the transporter. You have that in all Trek periods. What other technologies are a storytelling problem that's exclusively to the TNG era? Then be prepared to be massively disappointed. Discovery will be TNG-era Trek in new clothes. Most of the writers and producers started out there. With a little bit of TOS-movie era vibe included. But I can guarantee you, it's not going to feel anything like TOS or "the cage". Of course not! Fan films always only mirror the original. They never can come up with a completely new tone and vibe, because then they wouldn't be a homage to a well-known property anymore. I think I came across a bit too rigid here. I'm not against reboots or prequels on a principle. I was actually quite pleased when Enterprise was announced (that didn't quite turn out like I expecetd). The problem is doing ONLY reboots and prequels! That smells like a severe lack of confidence in creative competence and only ever retreating the same grounds, tell the same stories, have the same aesthaetics etc. The truth is: The last Star Trek series was a prequel. That was cancelled. The last movies were a prequel/reboot-mix. With diminishing returns (domestic) and probably ST4 being cancelled. The next Trek series is AGAIN a prequel... It's just not working out. Discovery will get a try. And the talent involved (well, that WAS involved) gives reason for optimism. But in the end, there comes a point where they have to stop to pander fans of the original, stop with all the rebooting/prequels, and continue the main story, try to find new fans and do some original stuff.
Replicators, organ replacement, and the transporters is a big one, since it can cure diseases as well. "The Cage" feel is impossible to replicate, nor is it what I'm expecting. I just like the era not how the show presented it. Even though TNG is supposedly well known as well? There is enough talent involved with DSC for me to be optimistic. Meyer alone is enough to inspire me on that front. So, I'm not worried about it. Prequels have limits, and its the writers job to work within those limits, not use them as a crutch to excuse bad story telling. I think both eras have their challenges and possibilities.
Kirk already had all of them as well. The transporter is a given, McCoy was pretty much able to cure anything, and the Enterprise was capable of manufacturing any goods it needed (e.g. diamonds). The challenges simply came from the writers coming up with good reasons for when they are available or not. That was what my main argument was during tha last few pages: Besides different clothing and aesthetics, the "eras" are pretty much exactly the same, it entirely depends on the writers. I would argue that DS9 and TNG were very different, evn though they were supposed to take place in the same era. Wheras Voyager and Enterprise were extremely similar, despite there being 200 years between them. The technologies at hand where pretty much always the same, only with different names ("activate hull plating", "photonic torpedoes", "Reed alert"). It depended entirely on the writer crew how each series came across. That's what I'm warning you: Discovery will probably have more in common with TNG era Trek than with TOS era Trek. If you are into this era, that may lead to disappointment. And while I would like for Trek to return to the adventureous tone, the colours, the monsters, the fistfighting etc. from TOS, I see no reasons why that can't be possible in the post-Nemesis era as well. Given reasonably talented writers and producers. This is where I agree with you, and am reasonably confident Discovery will be -at least creatively- successfull. It still doesn't change the fact that I'm less enthusiased about it then I would be if it weren't a prequel. (I'm still more than happy that it isn't a reboot, or set in the Kelvin timeline tho). My entire point is: There are no good reasons not to return to the post-Nemesis era for Trek. The usual arguments - too advanced technology, all stories already told etc. - apply to prequels or reboots as well, and are solely depended on the capabilities of the creators. Contrary to that, there are many good reasons to return to the post-NEM era in the long run, not being a prequel/reboot being among them, as well as the capability for integrating long-standing Trek staples like holodecks and be able to use the whole Trek universe for stories, instead of selectively needing to avoid major ingridients to avoid continuity errors.
I just worry about the tech disconnect, but beyond that, I generally agree. I have written and researched enough post-NEM fan fiction that there is possibilities. I will just disagree that a prequel is inherently limited simply because we know how it ends, supposedly. By that argument, historical fiction (i.e. "The Titanic") would not be popular either.
I can see where you come from, Voyager showed a lot of "impossible" tech. But most of that was future tech anyway. A post-NEM series would probably have the same tech-level as Insurrection and Nemesis had, and I would be completely fine with that! A "prequel" and a "historical" are two completely different concepts. One (the historical) works within the larger context of real history (e.g. Titanic). The other one is a fictional story directly preceding another, older fictional story (e.g. "The adventures of Jack in Paris before he met Rose on the Titanic"). The two are not comparable.
Certainly there are some comparisons, as many comments against prequels are in the vein of "the outcome is already known" or "there are limits to what stories can be told." The same can be said of historical fiction, in which the outcome is already known (U.S. wins WW2, Titanic sinks) and yet they continue on. Why? Because of characters and story, not setting. That's why I don't see a difference. There are always limits in storytelling and art. The writers are to craft a story and characters that are enjoyable within those limits. "Star Trek" is already one limitation from other science fiction. The era is another limit. On and on it goes. Perhaps post-NEM would be more interesting because the future is an unknown quantity, which is part of what made Star Trek so appealing in the first place. That rationale I will grant, and would certainly like to see it explored. But, that doesn't automatically mean I prefer it over the other. I want good characters and stories, regardless of setting.
Why not? In Discovery entire planets could be wiped clean if the plot required it and the Federation would sail on. We know this because it's happen before and rarely was anything ever said about it again. Major wars, as long as they don't involve the Romulans or the Klingons, could have raged along one of the Federation's borders for years. We've never seen most of the Federation's member species, each is a new story (story arc) possibility. Vast areas of the Federation again unseen. The major of viewer aren't going to be fans who are knowledgeable about Trek's long history and likely won't be aware that Discovery is a prequel. Especially since Discovery isn't a direct prequel to TOS in that it's isn't (hopefully) going to depict the earlier adventures of the Enterprise, and Kirk and Spock. The tiny number of people who don't like prequels as a concept won't be a problem.
I've been writing my fan fiction in 2399, and within the events of Star Trek Online, with the goal of making fan episodes. Perhaps not the best Trek game ever released, but useful nonetheless. I'd love to use some of these taglines in my writing, unless theres some objection.
Agree with this. I think a lot of people forget the fact that there is a significant difference between a prequel and something that just happens to be set before something else.
You forgot a pivotal plot point that make the series really NEW (and where no Star trek series has gone before): Namely, they attempt to create Intelligent Life and shepard it through various trial and tribulations.
I would love a post nemesis show. I know I'm probably alone in this opinion but I would love another show along the lines of TNG and Voyager where they're in a ship just flying around exploring stuff and stuff happens.
I'm fine with the novelverse though that isn't canon. There are some things I don't like necessarily about it but I do like its general direction.
Didn't the novel-verse essentially have the Borg all but destroy the Federation a few years ago, leaving the Federation in ruins? And on top of that the novels named the super-nova star in ST'09 "Hobart" of all names. Really ... Hobart?
I think it was Hobert. And the Federation recovered it brought a fitting end to the Borg arc and threat.
Hobus. And it was Orci and Kurtzman who named it in the Countdown comic book prequel to the 2009 movie, and the name was adopted in Star Trek Online . The supernova hasn't yet been covered in the books (the event occurs in 2387, the novelverse hasn't gone beyond '86 yet) The Borg did massive damage to the Federation in Destiny, but they mostly rebuilt within the decade.
Agreed. While we can assume that certain "big picture" things won't happen (ala Destruction of Vulcan from Star Trek) we don't know anything about the adventures of the USS Discovery from prior canon so everything will be new and if written well fun and interesting and be successfill. In fact, if done right, this is still true of actual prequels. In 1997 (and for many years after), the most critically and commerically successful film was a prequel, specifically James Cameron's Titanic, focusing on a love story set onboard the Spoiler doomed RMS Titanic, which was tremendously popular because despite the audience how the Titanic's story was going to end Spoiler it sank they didn't know how Jack and Rose's story was going to pan out. For clarity, vis a vis the above comparision, the Federation and Starfleet are the Titanic, Rose and Jack are the crew of Discovery and Shenzhou.