Canon and keeping things familiar are two far different things. I like the character of Pike. It doesn’t mean that I need every single aspect to line up exactly with what we’ve seen or what we know. They can set it in a third (or fourth, depending on your view) weird universe for all I care where there actually are dangers. Why? Because time and time again, canon has been broken and Star rek hasn’t died. The wonderous Prime™️ universe has survived and all is well, despite the addition to the Kelvin-verse. So, I’m sorry but it really doesn’t matter to me. The idea of the multiverse where people can actually do stuff (like destroy Vulcan or flat out kill Captain Pike) is a good storytelling way to get around it and keep it familiar. The people who are so obsessed with one continuity just don’t make any sense to me.
A Pike series could be interesting, and I would watch it, but they really need to expand their universe and show times, ships, and crews they haven't shown before. While I like further exploration of what I'm familiar with, there is so much of the Federation we haven't seen that would be fun to discover. That would sidestep the canon issues for the most part, especially if they went post Voyager/Nemisis. They need to stop re-imagining and/or boxing their creativity in favor of doing what the shows mission statement is and boldly go where no one has gone before.
Oh, yeah. I make fun of the canon-purists by telling them that they are just like the people who freaked out over Klingon head ridges and bald French captains, and I can say that because I was one of them! Knowing what we know now about the spore drive, I now have to wonder if Fuller was going to show each Trek era from the perspective of the Discovery crew or if they would have re-set each season. I wouldn't want to see a show about the fall of the Federation, but a show about a Federation recovering from a fall and trying to regain its past greatness might be interesting.
Way to many people would nitpick every detail of the enterprise if a show was based on it in Pike era. And the only Enterprise centered show we need is one on the Enterprise F. Plus - hey CBS declined to pickup the Pike era pilot .... that's a 50 year old dead horse.
It's what I suspect was the case. In fact, I'm still not ruling it out. This might -- might -- actually happen down the line. Wonder Woman, the TV Series, started off taking place in the '40s, then jumped to the '70s. From Alien to Aliens they jumped 57 years. So it's not unheard of.
i've heard similar things, but the funny thing about that is the explicit statements by the producers that they won't recast spock: "[W]e realize how incredible Leonard Nimoy and Zachary Quinto's performances were and what [Star Trek movie director] J.J. Abrams and the original series were able to pull off with that character," Harberts says. "Finding another actor that could even come close to what Leonard Nimoy did with the original portrayal, we'd never want to go down that road." as much as a pike show appeals to me personally, it seems like an enterprise-centered series would steal discovery's thunder. they need to do something radically different, a la deep space nine.
Yep. Sherlock, the Flash, Gotham, Supergirl, Smallville, DCEU, James Bond, endless Batmen and the Kelvin Star Trek movies... all make for entertaining shows and none of them are diminished by them not being in-continuity with the other versions of the worlds and characters out there. Discovery's "it's the same except it looks entirely different, we've shoehorned in a bunch of new stuff that doesn't really fit into the lore and we're applying technology in a way that makes chronologically later shows look stupid" approach is ridiculous.
Adaptations. Even the KT went borderline adaptation with ID (nsofar as it’s borrowed stuff went). But all of those are adaptations except the KT, which is in continuity with what came before, via Spock Prime. I must say this ten times a month now. And Elementary is better than Sherlock in terms of actually doing something new with the characters.
Might have been better if they wanted a Enterprise setting to do Captain April instead. We know even less about that setting than we even do with Pike. You could still have a Burnham character and perspective as well. Maybe have Pike as the first officer. Number One as a bridge officer. Jason
As soon as I saw the Enterprise, I said "I now want to see stories on THAT ship" I suspect that a Like Enterprise show has been discussed between the producers and CBS. Though I can see a 2-3 year wait.
The way DSC came together is completely messed up... but, then again, some of the best things that have happened to me in real life, and some of the best material I've written for stories of my own, came out of situations that were messed up. Chaos is the best inspiration for creativity. I'm also a firm believer of "art thrives on limitation".
I kinda hope they do it. Why they didn't start with Pike era? They wanted to test the waters, do a Trek show on it's own merits, see how people react to the reinvention and new style of Star Trek. Reinventing a show with an Enterprise we have already encountered brings a lot of baggage with it. Introducing it in Discovery is a good way to gage interest.
I have no interest in seeing another show on the enterprise. They have plenty of room and many other ships and crews they can explore in this era
Way back when DC comic books were 10 or 12 cents, they would sometimes feature a "What If?" story on the cover of a Superman comic. The writers apparently were simply bored with sticking to continuity, which was only some 30 years old at that point (i.e., a lot less than Star Trek's current 51.5 years). Perhaps a similar phenomenon explains, more than anything else, the decisions of both the Discovery writers and the Kelvin timeline writers (yes, I know there's some overlap there). Likewise, there have been many movies and TV series that had all the right elements but simply fizzled; for one reason or another, they turned out to be less than the sum of their parts. Of course (at least for me) this describes some real-life events as well. Note: This doesn't mean I like Discovery, despite its messed-up origins.
Superman is one character. Star Trek is literally as big as the universe, and spans any time period in the future. If you can’t find a story to tell in that, the writing for Trek is not the writing career you are looking for. If you want to tell entirely your own kind of thing, then it shouldn’t need the brand name to prop it up. (This is a generic ‘you’) I wouldn’t get a job writing Say Game Of Thrones if I really wanted to be writing about spaceships, then spend an age coming up with implausible ways to find ancient draconic spaceships frozen in the wall so that next year Sansa can boldly go. When you write for a franchise, you agree to play with those toys by the established rules. Simple as that. Michael Piller went about proving that working within the rules is doable, if you work at it. Lazy writers shouldn’t touch established franchises.
This right here. Trek is a big setting, you can tells hundreds of stories nd never touch on any ship or crew seen on the TV show. You can make aliens, you can make worlds, its a huge rolling settings with endless room to expand and explore in every single era. If you are unable to do so, you simply lack the creativity.
It’s not even a problem of running into similar stories. Even the most similar of stories shouldn’t tread on toes as long as the characters are strong enough. You can redo City on the Edge of forever with Janeway if you like...she’s not Kirk, her love interest won’t be Edith, and you don’t have to use the thirties.