Aye. Maybe the "main-character" thing in DIS is a tad blown out of proportion anyway. As you said, lets see. Hope for the best and expect the worst ("Brace for impact!" ;) ).

I'm confused as well, I guess we have to see the whole thing in action before we know what's going on. Worst case scenario, "not centered on the captain" means "centered on Number One". So that would mean that they retroactively interpret a focus into the series that was never there in order to justify a new focus that I'd find pretty disappointing. Yeah, female black first officer, it's true, I love the shit out of that, but Star Trek was always best when it tried to show character development for a wide variety of characters.

There are other possible scenarios for this convoluted "focus" theory though, and I can see some of them work. "The Captain" is, after all, the usual decision maker. He/she often has final say and judgement even when the episode itself is about another characters' woes and decisions. That makes sense and that DOES put the captain in a very central spot.

What if, for example, the captain has some tragic flaw, illness or is otherwise incapacitated in a way that more responsibility naturally would fall to the first officer? What if we are not dealing with the usual Star Trek scenario that the captain is a mostly flawless personality? What if he's an antagonist, what if he's a Captain Edward Jellico type?

Which would be a waste though. Jason Isaacs looks so nice. :) :)

Wouldn't he simply be relieved of duty then?

Something I always very much liked about Jelico, is that he wasn't a bad captain. He was something of a jerk, but he was competent and not a "bad guy". It would be interesting if the captain and the first officer were to have a more antagonistic relationship, provided they wouldn't make the captain incompetent or evil for the sake of it.

Anyway, I can easily think of examples of series where the "boss" character is not the main focus, like Miami Vice for example. Lt. Castillo may be Crockett's and Tubb's superior, but they are the main characters and it works perfectly well (although the few episodes that do focus on Castillo are among my favourites, cause he's awesome). So it's not like I think it can't be done, like the focus can't be shifted away from the captain, I just can't help but think it's weird for a Star Trek show to be by design chiefly focused on one character, whoever he or she may be.

Well, they all love him very much and cover for him because they know only he can appease the Romulans and oh my god I would be such a bad Star Trek author it's not even funny any more.

I just saw an 11 minute youtube defense video for the guy. And I don't much disagree. Maybe he reminded me too much that Starfleet is, effectively, still a military organisation.

Full agreement with the rest... :)

Because it's been a while since the creators of Discovery did something painfully stupid, today we learned fan favourite character Harry Mudd will appear on the show. This, next to Sarek's already confirmed presence, makes me fear the show will suffer from the same issues as Gotham or Star Wars Rebels, namely shoehorning characters from later installments into a prequel who really don't need/ should not be there. At least Gotham has the excuse of being not being really tied to any continuity, but Discovery is walking on some thin ice.

But that's not the stupid part. No, that would be the fact that they cast Rainn Wilson, who is 51, to play the younger version of Mudd, originaly portryed by Roger Carmel WHO WAS 35 AT THE TIME. I don't even.

Well, the first trailer for Discovery is here.

Yeah...

How do I put this...

It does not look good. What the hell is up with the Klingons? What is up with the uniforms? This is the same timeframe as The Cage, and the new movies proved the classic uniforms can be easily adapted to still look good (hell, for me they don't even need adapting), so what gives? Why is the actual captain of the Discover nowhere to be seen? Why is the suppsed lead so bland I already forget what she looks, sounds and what her name is? Why is everything so NOT STAR TREK AT ALL? I mean, this is all so dark and intense... where's the adventure? The discovery? The sense of wonder? I'm willing to cut the movies more slack, because the movies were always kind of a different beast, but the TV show? I'm not going to go easy on this one.

Could this be set on one of the Trek's alternate universes (like the one where there was an evil Kirk and an evil Spock)?
And maybe the characters jump to the official Trek dimension later on? :/

From what I've read it's very definately supposed to be the original timeline. "Supposed" being the key word.

I hope those klingons are some kind of weird offshoot of the klingon race, but this still does not give me the greatest confidence...


it looks like abrams trek. :S

I don't have a good feeling about discovery, but I will still give Season 1 a chance.

This trailer shows all reasons why it should not be a "prequel" timeline.

Well, that looked rather generic. Hm.

Looks like they are so proud of their work they pulled the trailer :D
It's still here (at least now)

Meh. That was a disappointing trailer. Not a good feeling about the series....