Finally Watching Discovery - Was I Supoosed to Hate This?

You are quite right on this point but as many are not confident in the current production team to handle Star Trek, I am not confident that going to episodic storytelling will not result in the above. I certainly think it is possible but Trek has demonstrated a reluctance to change and to fall back on familiar elements.

 

The was a CBS edict - I guess they felt if some fans didn't see "Star Trek" in the title on the TV listing - they may not realize it was in fact a Star Trek show (IE They stupidly thought it would improve ratings because OBVIOUSLY Star Trek fans needed Star Trerk in te title to tune to it. )

 

The Trek timeline/canon puts constraints on what sorts of stories you can tell. For example, sci-fi stories involving transhumanism or posthumanism just can't happen. You're not going to see super-intelligent AI gods (which aren't crazy), mind uploading into virtual worlds, or humans genetically modified for new environments. Also, we're not going to see power-hungry corporations, human religious extremists, dictators of the Federation, a federation civil war, etc - particularly in a prequel. Add to that the straitjackets of the "Berman era" - where (DS9 and later ENT excepted) there was supposed to be no continuing character development from episode to episode. Take all of this together, and you have a finite number of plots you can come up with before you begin just writing retreads.

 

Um, why not?

 

John Ford westerns and Sergio Leone westerns take place in the same place and during the same time period, yet their 'look and feel' are completely different.

Artistic license shouldn't be inhibited by the unnecessary franchise regulation of self-appointed custodial fans.

 

The last one would be because humanity outlawed genetic manipulation.

 

I think V'Ger would cover that.

"The Thaw" from Voyager. Also "The Search" from DS9.

 

Laws change. Bashier was genetically manipulated.

 

Didn't his dad go to prison?

Besides, I doubt it would be changed if it is illegal in both the 22nd and 24th centuries.

 

And they all (He and his parents) tried to hide that fact for decades...and succeeded until DS9 - "Dr. Bashir, I Presume".

 

In secret. His father agreed to go to jail over it after it came out.

 

the back to back Borg incursion and Dominion War should be a screaming alarm that the Federation must embrace augmentation at last. The next threat, Breen or whoever, will not be as reactionary about it. Bashir is the case for augmentation combined with holographic interspecies beings. It was centuries since Khan and the Eugenics wars, in that time, advancements and understanding could have improved, but Federation was naturally more occupied consolidating their member worlds into a single interstellar society. Having done that, they must move beyond.

I think post-Voy, the Federation has reached its "sleeper must awaken" point.

 

At least for prequels - and likely immediately post-VOY series - because it's already been established what the Trek world is. You couldn't all of the sudden introduce self-aware AI agents which were there all along. Or a Federation cybersphere in subspace with trillions of virtual entities. Or just explain that basically everyone is doing busy work, and the ships are actually running themselves. Or that there's hundreds of non-humanoid robots on Federation ships - we just have never saw them because they're off camera. Or that death has actually been conquered, and everyone is biologically immortal - cloning new bodies as needed and downloading into a fresh one from time to time. None of this squares with the Star Trek universe - at least for humans in the Federation. Obviously you could always use it for an "alien of the week."

A century further on though? Anything is possible.

 

Exactly. To my mind, there is little to preclude the Federation from embracing at least some genetic engineering, as well as many other points, like transhumanism, merging with a machine, etc.

Ok, the prequel clarification makes sense, which I realize I completely missed in your initial post making my response rather dumb.

 

You can do anything.

It's make-believe.

 

This is broadly true. However.

1. Certain things in any fictional work will break the immersion of the viewer. While this is completely normal for comedic works, dramatic ones rely upon your ability to suspend disbelief and just enjoy the spectacle.

2. For better or worse (I'd argue worse, honestly) Trek fandom has developed in such a way that people really care about things fitting into prior continuity. Trek might have started out as The Twilight Zone on a ship, but it's become like Lord of the Rings in the minds of fandom, with tons of people more into the corpus of knowledge than the stories themselves. I think this is asinine, and fandoms which have regular retcons are much healthier, but it is what it is.

 

Agreed. I prefer an anthology take on those kinds of stories and comics. This is star trek, its some stories, read the ones you like. The dots don't have to connect. It's all fiction.

 

I like continuity. I think in a macro story level it's important. But on a micro level, I think it's indeed asinine for fans to pick apart and judge a work based on whether a character is portrayed consistently down to uniforms and facial gestures.

 

Same. Events are important to me, and characters are important to me, but the minutia of how the tech works is bothersome, but less important to me for my personal enjoyment.

 

Everyone has different things that break their immersion level. If Spock started regularly eating barely cooked steaks, some folks would overlook it, for others it would break the immersion.

Reminds me, I want to rewatch "All Our Yesterdays" here soon.