But Enterprise was the “before Kirk” series. We didn’t need another.
We don't need any Star Trek at all.
Personally I'd rather see Pike Trek with Spock and that bunch than anything in the 24th or 25th centuries. Then Kirk 2.0.
But Enterprise was the “before Kirk” series. We didn’t need another.
Nope.
NopePrequel. A story about the same characters that takes place before said tv series/movie.
Just bring on the Pike series already. I'm more excited about Pike, Spock, Number One and the Enterprise than I am about anything Discovery. Although I hate prequels I always wondered what happened on the Enterprise prior to Kirk. It was in service for 20 years by the time he took command.
In truth, we don't really know all that much about the back stories of most of the TOS cast. We never found out how Kirk and McCoy met and became such good friends, anything about Uhura, Scotty or Sulu prior to their first appearances or even how Spock and Kirk became so close. If a prequel had to be made I sure as hell would've preferred to see that instead of Discovery.
Bring on Pike's Enterprise and we can have all that. End the series with Kirk taking command and sync it all up with TOS. That's what a real prequel is supposed to be. Not Discovery with its tenuous links to TOS.
Yes, but did it have to be you ?
Also :
Twelve O'Spock High, Spockenna's Gold and Moby Spock...
Prequel. A story about the same characters that takes place before said tv series/movie.
Nope
Yes, "discuss", not post hysterical emoji overreactions to simple casting announcements. Use your big boy words and don't spam.![]()
Lol, it's only a stupid TV show. And this is a forum where we discuss the said tv show. They can do whatever they want with it. I am not going to come here and claim this was greatest casting ever. No it wasn't. I am also not going to claim I am done with STD and will stop watching it. But I will come here and say I am going to believe all their marketing bullshit just a little bit less now (not that it was a lot before anyway).
Nope. All a prequel has to do it take place prior to the original. It can take place a day before or a millennium before. It can involve all the characters in the original, one of the characters or none of them.Yep.
Yes, sir!Yes, "discuss", not post hysterical emoji overreactions to simple casting announcements. Use your big boy words and don't spam.
Google defines prequel as: 'a story or movie containing events that precede those of an existing work.'.
Merriam-Webster Defines prequel as: 'a work (such as a novel or a play) whose story precedes that of an earlier work'
Nothing about it requiring any of the same characters.
Nope. All a prequel has to do it take place prior to the original. It can take place a day before or a millennium before. It can involve all the characters in the original, one of the characters or none of them.
Being set in the Star Trek universe in a time prior to TOS makes it a prequel. That's pretty much the only requirement. The Spock's sister thing is irrelevant to it being a prequel.Discovery is just another series set in the Star Trek universe. It's no more a prequel to TOS than DS9 and Voyager are sequels to TNG. The only thing tying Discovery to TOS is Burnham's never before mentioned link to Spock.
Nope. It's connections are quite obvious. That you may dislike the show doesn't negate the fact it is a prequel.Finally. An actual reply. Good work
I'll agree to disagree. I see no benefit to a prequel that has nothing to do with the original work. It might as well not be a prequel at all and just be its own unconnected story. Which Discovery is.
Being set in the Star Trek universe in a time prior to TOS makes it a prequel. That's pretty much the only requirement. The Spock's sister thing is irrelevant to it being a prequel.
It's both.If anything it's a sequel to Enterprise.
It's both.
It's in sequence between ENT and TOS. A between-quel would take place between TOS Season 1 and Season 2A between-quel?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.