and if the series takes off, I look forward to the star-trek-later-seasons-sexy-uniform-switcharoo!

Yes. I really don't get Hollywood's obsession with prequels. Why not continue a story? Why not write something new instead of cramming more and partially contradictory stuff in between existing stories? What is the appeal here?

I didn't like what I saw from Discovery so far and I think I'm just going to ignore it and wait until they do an actual sequel instead of all that prequel nonsense.

And there are plenty of challenges out there. Janeway alone made half a quadrant worth of enemies during her travels! Some of them might track her to her origin and find a way to come to Earth to tell them what they think of this 'emissary'. ;-)

I know, I know, but I do hope it will somehow manage to be good despite her.

It certainly makes sense in the Star Trek context. The problem with everything TNG and thereafter was that the narrative was too driven by technology and pseudo-science (DS9 being a notable exception). It felt like every conflict and problem was resolved by some computer analysis or contrived technology, and that interpersonal relationships and philosophy had only a limited role to play. I love TNG, but even so, I still acknowledge its flaws in this regard.

Dialling back the technological progression means that you're forced to narratively rely on the human factor to drive the plot forward instead of finding some computer-based deus ex machina to resolve a plot point. In a sense, that's what made First Contact the best of the TNG movies.

Really, that has nothing to do with when the action is set. It's just a matter of writing. Just before TOS or after Nemesis, in both cases the technology is quite advanced enough to suffice for the problem you describe to exist (not that I ever really noticed that as a major and/or common problem in any Trek).

Hollywood is terrified of anything that even hints at originality. Prequels means you can sell it based on previously known brand names. It's stupid, but like Michael Crichton said, "Hollywood is dumb. We're talking 2+2=5 dumb."

My favourite quote about Hollywood is Kevin Smith about how one makes career there - "In Hollywood you sort of fail upwards".

But a sequel would also be selling a previously known brand. I just don't get the preference for prequels over sequels. But of course being dumb is a good - and maybe the only possible - explanation.

For once it's the rest of the world that's lucky when it comes to this show since it's being carried by Netflix everywhere except the US. After GoT this might end up being the most pirated show due to CBS sticking it on its online service which no one would normally want.

And CBSAA will only release one episode per week, plus have a few weeks interruption in the middle of the first season. A clear move to bind people to the service for months. I do not use any streaming service (yet), but I had the impression that for most shows on these services they release the whole season at once, don't they?

So no day 1 binge-watching and then cancelling the service after one month. Wouldn't be surprised if CBSAA took old episodes offline a few days after initial release to prevent this. :-P

Netflix and Amazon typically have their series up all at once. Netflix is the one service (I haven't tried Amazon) that has mountains of content that is constantly updated week to week that justifies its monthly subscription. HBO by comparison which costs nearly twice as much as Netflix has substantially less content and maybe only 1 or 2 shows in a given period that I want to watch. For example if they posted the entire season of Ballers, and Insecure I would probably finish them in 2weeks and have to wait 3months until the new season of Vice Principles was released. So yeah I won't be buying CBS streaming but will be looking at other options.

I don't mind the FIRST Reboot. NOT the other two though. ST:ID was.... way too mehish and ST:B was even worse. Wow, more saving the ENTIRE universe against the bad people. They need WAY less action, WAY more darkness (How was Into Darkness even.. dark?) and WAY more Trekiness (EXPLORATION, NOT PURE ACTION).
Nope. If they want a massive audience, it needs to go GOT nudity/sex. SEX HAPPENS. You can't just.. hide sex or nudity like they used to in the older treks. I watch the older treks and cringe at how fearful they are of any sort of nudity/violence.

How does that even...

If you want porn, go watch porn. If you want nudity and violence, then what you want is defiantely not Star Trek.

No. Sex happens for the vast majority of us on a daily basis. Ignoring it like they do in trek detracts, and im talking mostly from a characterization/plot aspect. G Of T actually got nudity right. If you watch those scenes and don't focus on the titillating aspects you'll find that a LOT of plot was in those "filthy, DIRTY" scenes. Listen to what happens in the brothel in the FIRST SEASON of GOT and you'll have a grasp of how the whole show is shaping out as we speak.

Not everything has to be the fucking Game of Thrones. Star Trek has completely different kind of stories to tell. At least it always did. Some movies or TV shows do need sex and/or violence to tell their stories, but that's not some universal constant.