If the mission statement of a prequel series is to set the pieces on the board up for a series that aired 50 years ago, that's very introverted, un-expansive, and self-limiting in terms of audience growth. Connecting dots with continuity should be only of tertiary significance at most.
That means for best results "prequel series" should only be a nominal term. It's a hobbling term, though, like "spin-off." The best spin-offs are shows that stand on their own without leaning on the show that spawned them. How many people thought of Frasier only in terms of how it related to Cheers? Or of The Jeffersons and Good TImes only in terms of how they related to All in the Family? How many fans of Olivia Benson consider her only in relation to what's going on in homicide at the 27th? The answer I'm looking for here is "few or none." When a show stands on its own, its characters become the focus, and significant events are those that relate to those characters, not the characters of the parent show.
This is why involving TOS characters in the premise of DSC was such a risky move.
I would agree that in overall terms, "adherence to previous continuity" and "connecting the dots" should be third to good characters and good drama. However, addressing continuity should be the primary goal of the setting of the show - why choose to have a prequel, why choose to set it in a specific time frame if you don't intend to exploit the setting either to address specific historical events, include historical characters, or take advantage of the "mood" of that timeframe?
As for best results for a "prequel series", especially in the case of Enterprise where there are few to no previously established characters to "spin off" with, I agree that the plot and events should tie in with the new characters, but again that means that you have chosen to set the show in a time/place where certain events or "moods" do directly tie to your characters. It would be weird to have Enterprise have been set in the 22nd century, but take place in the unexplored (at that point) delta quadrant - what would be the point of that?
Consistency has the least to do with quality of any aspect of Star Trek. Who cares?
I think consistency has a lot to due with quality Star Trek. You need consistency within a series so that your characters behave in ways that are consistent for their character (see criticism for Janeway's uneven characterization). You need consistency in terms of technology and capabilities, so that you don't accidentally remove all drama by having random abilities and inconsistent results (see complaints about "teching the tech" for solutions to some TNG/VOY problems). You need consistency across seasons and series so that villains, political and social settings aren't simply bent to the needs of the plot. Consistency has tons to do with quality - and a lot of that consistency has to do with at least not significantly violating continuity.
Of course it isn't flawless, but its successes are so multitudinous that any minor flaws are rendered utterly insignificant.
I just cannot agree with any of this. I do not personally see how its successes are "multitudinous" nor at all how its flaws are minor and insignificant.
Some issues (warning - rant):
- Spock is willing to die while violating General order #1, provided they aren't seen by the natives, but is willing to rat out Kirk?
- Kirk doesn't learn a lesson: he mopes and is ready to quit and or die due to repeated failures, is saved by Spock, and even when he is contrite they they are all going to die, they don't, so everything is ok again in the end?
- Spock and Kirk have known each other for about 12-18 months, part of that time hating each other - but Spock reacts (and the audience is supposted to react) as though they have had a 15 year friendship?
- Chekhov gets bumped from ensign to chief engineer (perfectly fitting in the Kelvin Universe, apparently), and has about 2 scenes with any other cast members
- Uhura does nothing - she tries and utterly fails at talking to the Klingons.
- Magic blood.
- Suddenly a few torpedoes brought aboard are going to risk the ship, when fighting Borg-enhanced future Romulan vessels at the edge of a blackhole does nothing to the engines - and suddenly Scotty is going to resign over this? And Kirk lets him?
- Spock Prime says he vowed never to reveal future information - except transwarp beaming equation, and now NuKhan. Except NuKhan is not remotely the same Khan that threatened Kirk and crew in TWOK nor even in Space Seed. NuKhan may be inherently powerful, but doesn't care one bit about Kirk at this time.
- Section 31 is the most secretive organization in the quadrant, yet they have massive underground complexes and massive shipbuilding capabilities
- They litterally warp from near Klingon space to Earth orbit in 20 seconds
- There is a firefight in Earth orbit between the Flagship and a black supership and there is no one else around, no starbases, no other ships, no rescue shuttles? After the attack in Star Trek 2009, you think the Federation would guard Earth better. Where did all the crews of those starships conviened at Earth for the meeting with Marcus and Pike go to?
- Marcus's war plan makes no sense: he has just one new supership constructed, but no other upgrades distributed to the fleet, and his plan is to start a war by sacrificing the current Flagship (the Enterprise), attacking a wrecked and diserted section of Q'ronos?
- Why was the Enterprise disabled before it could complete its mission? wouldn't stranding the ship in Klingon space just after having attacked be better? No Klingon's even came to check the disabled Enterprise even after Sulu broadcast their mission and location.
- Why did Marcus send all 72 torpedoes? Did he expect Kirk to fire all 72 torpedoes at one time to kill one man in a deserted part of Q'ronos?
- If they can track Khan from multiple lightyears away, why not use the transwarp transporter to grab him?
- Khan has the access and time to swap out the innards of 72 torpedoes, but he doesn't just get his people awake and escape?
- Khan's whole mission in life was to kill Marcus, but he totally fails at it first try, and just runs away?
- Khan has no motivation after giving up to Kirk. No goal, no nothing, just tells his sob story and then sits around waiting for death or jail?
- The character of Carol Marcus does noting - she provides no useful information that Khan doens't also provide, and knows even less than Khan does; not to mention the gratuitous underwear scene.