'Star Trek: Discovery' will be the worst series.

[AdmiralBruno]

I was looking forward to this new series, but we can be almost certain it's another prequel. ENOUGH with the prequels. That's what Enterprise was for. It was wonderful, and it was murdered years before its time. It was nice as a one-off origin story idea. Star Trek is about pushing FORWARD. CBS should hire me. I'd set the show 15-30 years after 'Nemesis' so we could bring back the occasional guest stars(although I love the Captain Worf idea personally), but at the very least it should be set a bit after the most recent events we saw in ST. That ship is also SOOO ugly. Putting aside the awful, amateurish animation.... it's just a really bad ship design. I've never seen a Star Trek TV show that had a ship that I thought "wow, that's ugly".... until I saw that so-called teaser trailer.

Fuller also clearly has an agenda and has made it very clear he plans to go out of his way to cast characters based on race, or sexual preferences. Every Star Trek has been diverse when it comes to gender and race. This is not something new. We don't need someone to say "Oh, we need a black, female Captain". We already had a black Captain, and a female Captain. They were both wonderful. It's not going backwards to choose someone based on something other than trying to be super PC. You could always pick Captain Worf anyway.

I'll still watch the show(at least the premiere), but from what I know about the guy in charge of all this, and whatever information is available.... this will be inferior to the prior series, which were all great in their own way.

 

[LtChange]

Watch the series than decide if it will be the worst or not. But knowing who are the people at the helm of the series, I'm pretty confident it won't be the worst series.
As for Worf: as much fun as he was, I think 11 seasons of Worf and 4 movies are enough

 

[Dilandu]

Well... for me, the best idea was to push another 100 years forward from TNG and revive the "Star Trek: Federation". Show the crysis and decline era of Federation, as well as it's struggle for survival and eventual rebirth, as it was intended.

But the TOS era - or even pre-TOS, would suffice too. Let's recall that there are awful lot of time between 2160s and 2260s.

 

[AdmiralBruno]

Well... for me, the best idea was to push another 100 years forward from TNG and revive the "Star Trek: Federation". Show the crysis and decline era of Federation, as well as it's struggle for survival and eventual rebirth, as it was intended.

But the TOS era - or even pre-TOS, would suffice too. Let's recall that there are awful lot of time between 2160s and 2260s.

I think that idea was supposed to take place like in 3000 or something. Once again though, I'd really take in to consideration that certain characters, and certain actors who play them would LOVE to be guest stars, and the fans would appreciate it too, which is why I give the time-frame that I do.

We know the basic outlines of history though. Why do we need another prequel?

Watch the series than decide if it will be the worst or not. But knowing who are the people at the helm of the series, I'm pretty confident it won't be the worst series.
As for Worf: as much fun as he was, I think 11 seasons of Worf and 4 movies are enough

Take it back.... one can NEVER get enough Worf. He is the man!

 

[Tosk]

I'm definitely planning to make up my mind before seeing it. Just haven't gotten around to it yet.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

ENT wasn't shit because it was a prequel.

It was shit because it was shit.

It was run by Rick Berman and Brannon Braga, both of whom didn't want to be burdened by canon, and yet inexplicably set their show in a history-rich era. It was Rick Berman's 4th Star Trek show - he was paid god knows how much, and confessed he had never even watched TOS (talk about self-entitlement - I don't wanna judge someone who may be a nice gentleman, but if I was executive producer, I think I could have watched 3 seasons of TV ffs). And actually, ENT wasn't as bad as I first thought. You haven't even given Fuller a chance. A genuine Trek geek, a considerable talent renowned for Hannibal. A man who grew up with TOS and TNG, and who's earliest memory of the show is a Klingon battlecruiser toy.

Never mind this:

Star Trek's best ever writer/director has joined the crew of the new show

How Nichlas Meyer's literary love saved Star Trek

Something as superficial as the era a show is set in means less than nothing, as to whether it will be a good drama or not. And as for a good Star Trek drama? It still does not matter, because someone who loves the setting, will find the beauty in any era.

I thought the Enterprise D was ugly as fuck when I first saw it; its among my favorites now. But judging a show based on something as utterly meaningless as a subjective reaction to the ship's general shape? That is beyond the pale.

And what's with this stuff people keep posting about "amateurish animation"? Do people actually think that is footage from the show or something? They don't even have a visual effects company yet, in all likelihood - how do you think they are showing footage from a show that hasn't started filming yet?

 

[ItIsGreen]

I was looking forward to this new series, but we can be almost certain it's another prequel. ENOUGH with the prequels.

We don't know it's a prequel. We don't know ANYTHING. They specifically haven't said when it's set.

I'd set the show 15-30 years after 'Nemesis' so we could bring back the occasional guest stars(although I love the Captain Worf idea personally)

We've had enough Worf.

it's just a really bad ship design. I've never seen a Star Trek TV show that had a ship that I thought "wow, that's ugly".... until I saw that so-called teaser trailer.

Voyager, it looks like a lavatory.

Fuller also clearly has an agenda...

That's not news, every person in charge of a TV show has an agenda they want to push, stories they want to tell. TOS was entirely Roddenberry's agenda.

...and has made it very clear he plans to go out of his way to cast characters based on race, or sexual preferences. Every Star Trek has been diverse when it comes to gender and race.

Yes, because they went out of their way to get a diverse cast.

You could always pick Captain Worf anyway.

NO MORE WORF

I'll still watch the show(at least the premiere), but from what I know about the guy in charge of all this, and whatever information is available.... this will be inferior to the prior series, which were all great in their own way.

This too will be great in its own way. It's Trek, made by a Trek fan. It's your prerogative not to like it, but at least give it a fair shake.

 

[AdmiralBruno]

ENT wasn't shit because it was a prequel.

It was shit because it was shit.

It was run by Rick Berman and Brannon Braga, both of whom didn't want to be burdened by canon, and yet inexplicably set their show in a history-rich era. It was Rick Berman's 4th Star Trek show - he was paid god knows how much, and confessed he had never even watched TOS (talk about self-entitlement). And actually, ENT wasn't as bad as I remember. You haven't even given Fuller a chance. A genuine Trek geek, a considerable talent renowned for Hannibal. A man who grew up with TOS and TNG, and who's earliest memory of the show is a Klingon battlecruiser toy.

Never mind this:

Star Trek's best ever writer/director has joined the crew of the new show

How Nichlas Meyer's literary love saved Star Trek

Something as superficial as the era a show is set in means less than nothing, as to whether it will be a good drama or not. And as for a good Star Trek drama? It still does not matter, because someone who loves the setting, will find the joy in any era.

The holodeck episodes were always fun diversions, and no holodeck in such an early era.
I'm a Trek geek too. Pay me what you're paying Fuller. I'll come up with a better idea.

ENT wasn't perfect, but by Season 4 it was PHENOMENAL... it started off shaky and just got better as it went along.

 

[AdmiralBruno]

We don't know it's a prequel. We don't know ANYTHING. They specifically haven't said when it's set.


We've had enough Worf.


Voyager, it looks like a lavatory.


That's not news, every person in charge of a TV show has an agenda they want to push, stories they want to tell. TOS was entirely Roddenberry's agenda.


Yes, because they went out of their way to get a diverse cast.


NO MORE WORF


This too will be great in its own way. It's Trek, made by a Trek fan. It's your prerogative not to like it, but at least give it a fair shake.

Star Trek should of course have some diversity. It should NOT feel like it is forced and over-done. Look at Voyager.... a female Captain and a Native American First Officer, and it worked....

But I get the distinct feeling he's going to push the cast balance to a point where it just doesn't make any sense compared to the other series. It's important to maintain a balance.

And once again... do we KNOW for sure it's a prequel? No. IF you told me I have to bet everything one way or the other I'd bet that it is though... and that alone is annoying. It shouldn't be a prequel IMO, and I think most ST fans would agree they don't want that if given the choice.

'Captain Worf' was a great idea. It's unfortunate the big wigs didn't have the foresight to listen to Michael Dorn.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

@AdmiralBruno - Are you trolling us (maybe to parody fan reactions to the show), or do you genuinely think you can come up with a better idea, than an idea that is right now only known to about 6 people, not including anyone on these forums?

 

[shady12]

Excuse me, but there's no such thing as too much Worf.

 

[AdmiralBruno]

@AdmiralBruno - Are you trolling us (maybe to parody fan reactions to the show), or do you genuinely think you can come up with a better idea, than an idea that is right now only known to about 6 people, not including anyone on these forums?

I obviously have not been paid to come up with an extremely elaborate concept, but yes, of course. Like I said, the timeline issue is paramount. I'd set it in the "near future" compared to the most recent chronological Trek. I am certain if my proposal were weighed against BF's that more people would like mine should I come up with one.

 

[Jinn]

I was looking forward to this new series, but we can be almost certain it's another prequel.

To my knowledge all we currently know is the ships registry number. It could easily be a post-Nemesis series with a ship that has just been pulled out of the museum for.. reasons. Or maybe our whole understanding of who registry numbers work is wrong.

I'd set the show 15-30 years after 'Nemesis' so we could bring back the occasional guest stars(although I love the Captain Worf idea personally),

They could bring in President Archer or other Enterprise stars... Or 24th century character through the exessive use of time travel. Ok that's be stupid.

but at the very least it should be set a bit after the most recent events we saw in ST.

Weeeell the most recent events we saw in a ST tv show was Star Trek Enterprise, so the show would be doing that.

That ship is also SOOO ugly. Putting aside the awful, amateurish animation.... it's just a really bad ship design. I've never seen a Star Trek TV show that had a ship that I thought "wow, that's ugly".... until I saw that so-called teaser trailer.

From what I have understood it was only test footage. Looking like crap is basically the job description of test footage.

Fuller also clearly has an agenda and has made it very clear he plans to go out of his way to cast characters based on race, or sexual preferences. Every Star Trek has been diverse when it comes to gender and race. This is not something new. We don't need someone to say "Oh, we need a black, female Captain". We already had a black Captain, and a female Captain. They were both wonderful. It's not going backwards to choose someone based on something other than trying to be super PC.

We also had four male and four white captains. Why go back there? But all sarcasm aside, are you saying that becasue out of 5 captains one was a woman and one was black that's enough to count as diverse?

 

[KirkusOveractus]

I would think that we should wait until the series has been filmed first before we offer opinions based on an insignia trailer and a very rough cut of a ship leaving an asteroid.

Beyond that, Star Trek was never intended to keep going ahead in timeframe or setting. Forward in storytelling, forward in ideas, things like that, but where was it written in it's concept that every series or movie had to keep going forward in time?

 

[Tim Walker]

I adamantly agree with those who place characters and stories above all other considerations.

The aesthetics of the ship are, at most, a secondary consideration.

As for the over all quality of the series...we have very little information to go on at this point.

I say, give the new series a chance. Let it prove itself.

 

[ItIsGreen]

Star Trek should of course have some diversity. It should NOT feel like it is forced and over-done. Look at Voyager.... a female Captain and a Native American First Officer, and it worked....
But I get the distinct feeling he's going to push the cast balance to a point where it just doesn't make any sense compared to the other series. It's important to maintain a balance.

Define forced and/or overdone?
A balance of what? Caucasian straight males vs EVERYTHING ELSE?

And once again... do we KNOW for sure it's a prequel? No. IF you told me I have to bet everything one way or the other I'd bet that it is though... and that alone is annoying. It shouldn't be a prequel IMO, and I think most ST fans would agree they don't want that if given the choice.

Again, we know nothing.
Also I'm of the opinion that a show could be set in an earlier time frame without being a 'prequel'... Enterprise positioned itself as a prequel and proceeded to shit all over the established canon. I'd be open for example to a series set in those wilderness years between the TOS movie-era and TNG. There's some fertile ground to cover there - the Federation finally achieves lasting peace with the Klingons, the Romulans re-enter their self-imposed isolation, there's a war with the Cardassians. Something that tells its own stories about the era of Trek history we know least about, that respects what went before and after and doesn't purport to be a direct prequel to TNG is quite interesting to me.

Excuse me, but there's no such thing as too much Worf.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. I just felt Worf-ed out by the end of DS9 and the TNG movies (which he felt extraneous in anyway). No disrespect to Michael Dorn, who I adore.

 

[AdmiralBruno]

I would think that we should wait until the series has been filmed first before we offer opinions based on an insignia trailer and a very rough cut of a ship leaving an asteroid.

Beyond that, Star Trek was never intended to keep going ahead in timeframe or setting. Forward in storytelling, forward in ideas, things like that, but where was it written in it's concept that every series or movie had to keep going forward in time?

Roddenberry jumped ahead to the next century for TNG. I think he would likely agree that moving forward is sort of the point of ST....

To my knoledge all we currently know is the ships regestry number. It could easily be a post-Nemesis series with a ship that has just been pulled out of the museum for.. reasons. Or maybe our whole understanding of who regestry numbers work is wrong.


They could bring in President Archer or other Enterprise stars... Or 24th century character through the exessive use of time travel. Ok that's be stupid. Weeeel the most recent events we saw in a ST tv show was Star Trek Enterprise, so the show would be doing that. I agree with you on Captain Worf.


From what I have understood it was only test footage. Looking like crap is basically the job description of test footage.


We also had four male and four white captains. Why go back there? But all sarcasm aside, are you saying that becasue out of 5 captains one was a woman and one was black that's enough to count as diverse?

You could be right, but I think the existing evidence proves this is unlikely. If you're right I'll eat my words.... but I don't think that is the case.

Oh, sure. I'd love to see Archer again, but doubt we'd see him once again... and then I'd remember the TRIP MURDERERS!!!!

Men are much more likely to be sailors than women.... even astronauts most are men despite the more inclusive nature of spaceflight today. I think it's a fair thing to say that men are more adventurous and this would be the case in the future.

 

[Kelso]

Of course it will be. They all are.

But if we can survive Justin Lin destroying Star Trek and Ben Affleck ruining Batman, we can endure yet another worst Star Trek series ever.

 

[jamestyler]

Star Trek fan hates TV show before the script is even written.

This is why we don't get good things.

 

[Galileo7]

The starship Discovery does not give me confidence in the series. Although, I will wait to see the cast and then finally the series episodes before I decide.