Poll If they admitted it wasn't PRIME?

[F. King Daniel]

The looks are different (ships, costumes, Klingons), the technology is post-TNG and contradicts VOY and DS9 (holograms), there's no mention of a Klingon war in canon prior to TOS. The spore drive will likely be technobabbled away before the season ends but breaks the premise of VOY and DS9.

Despite all this, the producers insist it's PRIME UNIVERSE. But what if they admitted it's their own unique spin on pre-TOS Trek, the same way Gotham isn't a prequel to Batman Begins?

Would it be ruined? Would you quit your CBS All Access (or Netflix) subscription? Or are you just enjoying Discovery for what it is?

 

[Agony_Boothb]

The looks are different (ships, costumes, Klingons), the technology is post-TNG and contradicts VOY and DS9 (holograms), there's no mention of a Klingon war in canon prior to TOS. The spore drive will likely be technobabbled away before the season ends but breaks the premise of VOY and DS9.

Despite all this, the producers insist it's PRIME UNIVERSE. But what if they admitted it's their own unique spin on pre-TOS Trek, the same way Gotham isn't a prequel to Batman Begins?

Would it be ruined? Would you quit your CBS All Access (or Netflix) subscription? Or are you just enjoying Discovery for what it is?

I voted I don't care. Saying that it was set in the prime time line was a mistake from the beginning. The worst decision that the JJ films made was to try and connect the new film franchise to the 'prime' universe. I don't see why Star Trek can't be like marvel or DC comics where they reboot their universes every so often. Star Trek as a franchise should change with the times. I think it's ok for the franchise to look back to the past for inspiration and be respectful to it but modern trek shouldn't be defined by what occurred, 12, 20 or 50 years ago.

 

[Gepard]

Give no shits. The Prime universe is justifiably dead.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

If they made clear it was a new timeline, I think that would allow the community to accept it as something distinct, and judge it on it's own terms.

It's not yet clear what it is, and the fence sitting is causing bad faith.

 

[Blamo]

I've been wanting a proper reboot of the universe for a while now, so to be honest I'd see this as a positive.

 

[guyute03]

Can't stand the JJ-verse so I would bail on it. Having said that, if they gave us the twist that they are all already in the Mirror Universe, and they always were.... I would actually be impressed if they could pull that off.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Can't stand the JJ-verse so I would bail on it. Having said that, if they gave us the twist that they are all already in the Mirror Universe, and they always were.... I would actually be impressed if they could pull that off.

What if it was a timeline distinct from either the prime or kelvin timelines?

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

I wouldn't mind an actual full reboot one day, like what Christopher once described - complete gender/race blind re-casting of Kirk, Spock, McCoy - complete attempt to incorporate modern science, nanotechnology, quantum field theory, information technology, genetic engineering, exoplanets - latest NASA research - contributions from sci-fi authors - nudge it up to the 25th century.

But until then, I'm fine with Prime Timeline shows.

Just establish one way or another if DSC is a reboot.

 

[marsh8472]

Klingon war was mentioned here in TNG "First Contact"

PICARD: It was my error, not hers. Chancellor, there is no starship mission more dangerous than that of first contact. We never know what we will face when we open the door on a new world, how we will be greeted, what exactly the dangers will be. Centuries ago, a disastrous contact with the Klingon Empire led to decades of war. It was decided then we would do surveillance before making contact. It was a controversial decision. I believe it prevented more problems than it created.

The show wouldn't be completely ruined but it would decrease my interest more. It was very stupid of them to make this a prequel. I suspect they did it for lazy writing reasons.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Can't stand the JJ-verse so I would bail on it.

Nobody's said it's the Kelvin timeline - in fact, it can't be. Into Darkness established the Klingons as a vague threat who had "fired on our ships half a dozen times" in 2259 whereas in DSC, they're in open warefare in 2256.

 

[C.E. Evans]

The producers saying it was set in the Prime Universe was either:

(A) Lip service to not alienate longtime fans.
(B) Meant to say that it "just wasn't Kelvin Timeline."
(C) That it maintains a basic (but not necessarily visual) continuity with previous Trek shows.
(D) All of the above.

 

[John Clark]

I really don't care if it's prime or not. As long as the show entertains me, I'm in.

 

[guyute03]

What if it was a timeline distinct from either the prime or kelvin timelines?

I don't know, but If they're only doing this so they can start over and erase Trek's history, then my answer is NO.

 

[Ithekro]

Being first a Star Wars fan (from birth practically) and later a Star Trek fan, I tends to think in terms of continuity. Star Trek has been going on for 50 years with more or less continuity relatively intact. It was never fully rebooted, much like Star Wars has not been rebooted (its EU was partly scrapped and is being repurposed, but its films are still all the same continuity). Doctor Who has been through just about everything, but just when you think it has been rebooted, they suddenly bring back something from the 1960s like it was just there always and forever.

So in my mind, Star Trek doesn't need a reboot. What it needs is good writing, directing, and acting. Which is sometimes gets. An art director worth his pay can make any 1960s era TV budget set look like multi-million dollar movie production set while keeping the general appearances and colors pallet while using modern lighting rigs, cameras, and have them ready for modern set direction styles of the modern director. Any 1960s era starship model can be updated using computer graphics and be made to look stunning even with basic shapes (and there are quite literally hundreds of fan made models of those ships on the Internet that can prove that). The audience will buy a lot if the story is good, the sets are functional, and the ships are ultra detailed, can make good beauty passes, or do spectacular weapons displays.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

The show wouldn't be completely ruined but it would decrease my interest more. It was very stupid of them to make this a prequel. I suspect they did it for lazy writing reasons.

Probably they wanted to leverage brand recognition of the Klingons, and go back to an era less established than TNG.

But I honestly do think when you make a prequel you are signing up to a lot of responsibilities, that Trek producers sometimes think they can ignore as it suits them, such as the responsibility that if you are choosing a historical era, you will be faithful to it in some respects - or else just set it elsewhere. You can be creative, but must make very smart decisions about what to keep faith with, and what to edge out slowly - or else just make a reboot. ENT and now DSC chose a prequel era - choosing the responsibility of a prequel, rather than a reboot, one should be prepared for meticulous comparison.

Some of DSC's decisions have been smart, others not so much. But establishing it was a reboot or not would set things in a new light. It would explain why everything about the Klingons is now suddenly baroque. Or else, the opposite, throwing in a few Klingon battlecruisers, would serve to anchor it as prime timeline.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

I don't know, but If they're only doing this so they can start over and erase Trek's history, then my answer is NO.

If they move the franchise to a distinct timeline I don't see how that would be erasing trek history unless they re-did TOS, which to be honest I doubt is on the cards. That is what Discovery would be if they really wanted to completely obiliterate everything that came before. I think the choice of using a new ship and a new crew was to avoid erasing what came before but still do stories in the 23rd century and have a visual reboot. The way I see it, if Discovery is set in a third timeline there is nothing stopping Kirk of this timeline from going on his 5 year mission in 2265 on an Enterprise that fits in with the visual reboot and having all the same adventures as the prime timeline, but we probably won't get a series depicting those things.

 

[SpocksOddSocks]

The show wouldn't be completely ruined but it would decrease my interest more.

Yeah, this. I can't really choose either option as such, but I much (and I mean much) prefer this being a Prime outing with a visual update.

I do wish the JJ verse had been more fa reboot... or at least not established the destruction of Romulus in the Prime timeline. I kind of hope that's ignored if post Nemesis is ever done.

 

[cultcross]

It was very stupid of them to make this a prequel. I suspect they did it for lazy writing reasons.

I'm not sure I follow. Why is it lazier to write a prequel than a sequel?

 

[Mudd]

Don 't care

 

[BillJ]

Don 't care

The writing would still be a weak link. But, I would actually be wondering what happens to Sarek and Mudd, and the war. There's no suspense when I know the Federation doesn't lose, and that two central pieces will not really be harmed in any way.

And I wouldn't much care that they redesigned everything, including the D-7.