Damian, Thanks for giving us your first impression as many of us have already forgotten what it was like to first see STD. There never is an answer to the spore drive question. And IMO this series cannot be reconciled with the others ENT-VOY, as you will probably come to conclude STD is a re-imagining of the Trek universe in the TOS era. Visually, there are too many differences, Shenzhou looks more advanced that Voyager, larger bridge, faster engine, its not just forcefields, there's the holodeck, the audio computer interface, site-to-site transport-despite what the producers say, STD doesn't fit canon. Characters like Mudd, Sarek, Amanda are re-done, as Spock and Pike will soon be. That doesn't mean the show can't be enjoyed, but you might enjoy it less if you try to fit it in with prior Trek. Just forget prior Trek and accept it for what it is, a flawed, but noble effort to re-imagine Trek for an instant access, cable TV primed, Abramstrek nurtured audience.
Yeah, it's starting to look that way. I just watched the 4th episode and it's getting harder to see it as truly pre-original series. And yes, in a lot of ways it looks more like it belongs post-Voyager and Nemesis then pre-original series. It's one of the reasons I wish they had set Discovery 100 years or more post-Nemesis. They could have pretty much gone in any direction they wanted with minimal canon issues and production design issues. Making it 10 years pre-original series really put them in a box. It's clear they wanted to redo things in their own image, I'm starting to wonder why they tried to force fit the show in an era that it doesn't seem to belong in. Thus far, 4 episodes in, I'm not seeing any ways this leads us to the original series. Maybe I'll feel differently once I get through all 15 episodes, but so far, it feels out of place. Not to say it's not a good story taken by itself, it just feels like the odd man out or Star Trek shows so far. I guess another way to put it is other than the Starfleet ships having a saucer section and nacelles, it doesn't feel like Star Trek to me yet. And I'll be curious to see how the spore drive thing plays out. Right now it blows away even TNG technology. I imagine at some point, assuming they stick to this is prime universe canon, that they'll have to explain why the technology was abandoned for traditional warp drive.
A bit of perspective: Star Trek was never meant to be a 51 year integrated, ongoing story. There's some things that are going to get harder and harder to maintain perfect visual and story-line continuity with. The producers of DSC purposefully wanted to tell stories set in that TOS timeframe, with links to those original characters. So it wasn't going to be a post-Nemesis story. Don't worry about aesthetics, design elements, etc. It's easier to rationalize it away in a positive manner than get all wrapped up in how it doesn't look pre-TOS. Just go with it. You'll be a lot happier. Also, what I bolded above is actually the show's greatest asset. There's 750+ hours of stuff that "feels like Star Trek". I love Trek, but the late 90's / early 2000's wore that beloved formula painfully and absolutely into the ground. Consider DSC the much-needed redirect, much the same as DS9 was when it premiered.
They actually don't have to address it, but one idea is the immortality of torturing living beings for propulsion, the problem with regarding DSC as a prequel really goes beyond visual design, as the series is doing its own thing, not really trying to explain how we got here from there like ENT did, the series isn't trying to be a prequel.
I'll see how things progress. My feeling that Discovery doesn't feel like Star Trek is more fundamental then production design and even the prequel idea. I can get used to that over time. I admit when Enterprise first came out I had a hard time accepting it as a prequel but it grew on me and I started to see it differently. I'm sure if that is all it was I would get used to Discovery's design as well (though I doubt I will ever like the Klingon look....and do the subtitles really have to keep saying "in Klingon"....duh, I don't imagine Klingons would be speaking French). But 4 episodes in I feel in some ways I'm watching some other franchise show and not Star Trek. It just feels like it's missing something essential to Star Trek. I can't quite put my finger on it yet. I've watched all the Star Trek out there up to this point and there was always something about it that you knew, this was Star Trek at it's heart, from the original series to the movies, to TNG to Voyager, Enterprise to the Abramsverse movies. Something is missing. I'm hoping as I watch the show further I find it. I think every franchise has something essential about it that sets it apart, otherwise it's just some random sci-fi show.
I felt the same way about the Abramsverse movies. At least the first two. There was just something missing. An action space movie with Star Trek in the title. TNG & DS9 took a while to find their footing, I think DSC was, on balance, better. One thing you just have to let go of is the visual continuity, tech, and canon stuff. There is just no way to make a believable sci fi show fit visually with 60s TOS or even 90s TNG. Computer discs and laptops are obsolete now. We have 3D printers. Virtual reality.
It’s that common argument of seeing their future in reference to ours. To me, the Eugenics and WWIII caused technology to accelerate at a different pace than ours; with priorities being on different areas than ours.
Trek since 2009 has been minimalist, essentially reduced to Trek iconography; use of familiar Trek designs and symbols (names), maybe that's all that something being Trek is. DSC felt more Trek to me because they brought back technobabble, but the stories lack the morality play, social commentary, philosophical dimension of classic Trek storytelling as did earlier Abramsverse movies. There were a few exceptions however, "Lethe" written by TNG writer Joe Menosky, and "Magic to make the sanest man mad", which clearly drew inspiration from TNG's "Cause and effect."
Ok, I'm about halfway through the series now (I just watched the episode where Mudd trapped them in a time loop). As I get further I'm having a harder time seeing this as a show that truly takes place 10 years prior to the original series. It's not just the production design and the nu-Klingons. I would get used to that over time as I did Enterprise (though in that case I think they made a more genuine attempt to backdate it from the original series as much as feasible--I see no such attempt here). But the plotlines don't really match up with what I'd expect. It really feels much more like a reboot to me than a true prime-universe story. Now that doesn't mean I hate it, and in fact I've liked some of the storylines, but when I sit back and try to place it within the prime universe timeline it really doesn't seem to fit to me all that well. Does it feel like Star Trek despite that. I'm still keeping an open mind about that. As to specific stories. I was a bit jarred by Lorca being captured by the Klingons. We were on one scene, then suddenly he's on a shuttle being attacked and captured by Klingons. At first I thought it was a flashback scene. I don't recall how we got to that scene, it was just poof, in a shuttle being attacked. Also in general I liked the actor playing Mudd. He could perhaps do with a bit more flamboyance like he had in the original series, but perhaps that was something that came more with age. The one thing I didn't like about Mudd is I have a hard time seeing him as a cold blooded murderer. I can see him leaving people to die by his actions, but I have a hard time seeing him actually killing people himself. In a way I think with his personality in the original series I think it would gross him out . I'm still trying to figure Lorca out. There are certain things I like about him. But there is also something off. His little workspace for instance almost seems to be a chamber of horrors in some way. His reaction to the admiral when they were in bed, then him allowing her to rot in a Klingon prison when he suddenly decides to 'follow regulations'. Also his maverick nature makes it hard for me to believe he'd be given command of what is apparently Starfleet's most advanced ship. I know he has a history with his prior ship but I don't think that explains it all. I assume we'll see a resolution at some point to the admiral's capture and if what she said before leaving is true I figure she'll try to get to the bottom of things.
One thing about Mudd's time loop is I couldn't help but see comparisons to TNG Cause and Effect. I was surprised no one mentioned how much time had passed while they were trapped. I figure it had to be at least several days.
Damian, Have you tried watching The Orville? The Orville has more Trek-like story-telling than Discovery. That's something that's really hitting me this season. There are lots of problems with trying to fit Discovery into the Prime timeline/universe-much worse than with Enterprise. Like you noticed, even the Prime characters are not the same. And by same I don't mean different actors in the roles, but the characters themselves are different and don't match up with TOS versions. That's why I really see this series as a reboot.
I've seen a few episodes of the Orville. It's ok, and yes, it does remind me a lot of Star Trek, to the point I almost expect them to go to warp 5 and use a transporter. But it hasn't grabbed my attention like past Star Trek productions. In a way I find I can enjoy Discovery more if I think of it as a 'reboot'. The first Discovery novel by David Mack did an admirable job trying to place the series in the proper context. But when I watch the show the look, feel and plotlines scream reboot to me up to this point. Honestly if this is the road they wanted to go down why the showrunners tried to say otherwise. Just the spore drive alone, I mean, it appears to me that it's decades beyond even what the Enterprise-E in the films had for technology. If you can appear instantaneously anywhere why would we go back to traditional warp drive just a short 10 years later. I know on Discovery there are some issues and they can't use it all the time. But you'd think over time they would make further advances to the point that eventually they would be able to use it all the time. My only guess is there is some fatal flaw to it at some point. The intra-ship beaming is another thing that makes me think of this as a reboot. Scotty was pretty specific in the original series that intra-ship beaming was incredibly dangerous at that point in time. But on Discovery it seems pretty routine--I've seen it used a number of times in non-emergencies. The frequent use of force fields is another. Now that they did have in the original series so that's not as unprecedented, though it's usage appeared more confined to the Brig. At this point I really think they would have been better off calling it a hard reboot, or if they wanted to stick with the prime universe setting it in the 25th century or something. I know they wanted to reuse some original series characters, but I'm not sure that was really necessary. Sarek having an adoptive daughter doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Someone never mentioned later (though you could say the same about Sybok--I wonder how he fits into the family dynamic now incidentally--but in that case with his background I can understand a bit and he was ostracized permanently from the family, something not seen with Burnham). Now, I like Burnham, as a character so far there's a depth to her character. And I don't even mind the whole Vulcan angle. But trying to force feed her as some never before seen or heard of adoptive daughter of Sarek didn't make a lot of sense to me. I will say Tilley is starting to grow on me. At first I found her to be a bit eye rolling, but there's something I'm starting to find endearing about her character. We'll see how that progresses (I did order the Discovery book featuring Tilley so maybe that will help in my evolving opinion of her).
It's no more a 're-imagining of Star Trek then TNG was in 1987. Get over it. Star Trek HAS NEVER been 100% internally consistent. If you want to talk about a series who showed 'wacky tech' all the time and ye, years later (in the films) we never see it again, then hell ST: Voy can't be reconciled either. Does ST: D have issue and inconsistencies? Yep. Welcome to every Star Trerk series and film ever produced. I have issues with it here and there, but I'm happy it's more liek TOS than it is TNG. YMMV. (It's hilarious to me that TNG fans are finally experiencing what TOS fans felt when TNG premiered in 1987, and WE were asking - "Hey, when's the REAL Star Trek going to show up?")