I've been following this, but have only just heard that it would be set 10 years before TOS.

This place in the timeline makes me cringe.  I really don't understand why writers are so fascinated with the idea that everything new should be awkwardly squeezed into an already well-established scenario.  This was one of the many things that I so disliked about Enterprise (and admittedly they had far more to work with in that time-frame than they do in this).  I suppose the fact that this is (at least initially) a 13 episode run with only an overall story-arch (and not episodic plots) means there is some chance that they will actually think of a place for the series in which it doesn't ineptly erase established ideas while desperately trying to capitalize on past success, but the current TV environment leaves me extremely skeptical.  Hollywood needs to lose their fascination with prequels, origin stories and reboots.  It's probably not the time to do something as radical as the TOS -> TNG transition, but I wish they would keep in mind the model.

Also, one of my major pet-peeves with science fiction is ridiculously compressed timelines.  The vast majority of science fiction timelines should be like Dune, Culture or EVE (or my favorite example, The Book of the New Sun) and stretched out over thousands (or millions) of years.  The fact that there was an exponential explosion of technological sophistication in the 20th century is by no means an indication that this will be a permanent and continuous feature of human society.  The 20th century had the unique advantage of coming off of revolutionary developments in the understanding of electrodynamics and quantum mechanics which are very unlikely to have counterparts in the 21st century (of course I always hope I'm wrong about that sort of thing).  Obviously you can't do Star Trek without a lot of miraculous technologies, but putting a microscope on its timeline always makes me uncomfortable.  For really interesting timelines I encourage everyone to check out Alastair Reynolds' books.

First time I have come across it, I may have been getting it mixed up with that fan film which is being made and thinking they were one and the same.

 

Hollywood needs to lose their fascination with prequels, origin stories and reboots.  It's probably not the time to do something as radical as the TOS -> TNG transition, but I wish they would keep in mind the model.

Holy words! Holy words!

Anyway this new series is beetween Enterprise and TOS right?

It's to be set 10 years before the 5 year mission.

There is some good news about the personnel.  One of the co-creators is Bryan Fuller who wrote episodes of Deep Space 9 and Voyager, as well as writing and producing episodes on a number of other well-liked TV series (you can take a look at his wikipedia page if you're curious).  Nicholas Meyer who co-wrote and produced Wrath of Khan, the Voyage Home and Undiscovered Country (the best Star Trek movies, in my opinion) is named as a consulting co-producer, whether that's a meaningful position I have no idea, but it seems he wrote at least one of the episodes.  Also Rod Roddenberry is one of the producers, which I find encouraging because for me it is very important that if the series is to truly be Star Trek it should adhere to certain themes that Gene was very insistent on, and I suspect his son will have a huge amount of respect for that.  The other co-creator co-wrote the first two JJ Abrams movies (I happened to think that the quality of each one was a significant step down from the previous one, and I rather liked the 2009 movie... it's good to see that this guy wasn't involved with Beyond).  On the other hand he does have some truly awful credits including the hilariously bad Ender's Game and Cowboys & Aliens (I have never seen Transformers, but I can only imagine that it is unflinchingly, grotesquely terrible, like everything else that even distantly resembles a super-hero movie).  More amusingly he was also an executive producer on Hercules and Xena the Warrior Princess (it's amazing how such bad shows can produce such fond childhood memories).  Anyway, overall the staff gives me some hope.

I can't help but feel rather anxious that there seems to be every indication that they are diving head-first into the formula that every single contemporary drama has taken since about 2005: ULTRA SERIOUS, HIGH DRAMA a strong story arch, but almost non-existent episode plots.  Since this hasn't actually been attempted with Star Trek yet, it doesn't necessarily seem like a terrible choice on its surface, but there are a few aspects of this which seem badly out of phase with what makes Star Trek Star Trek.  For one, one of the things that makes Star Trek so enduring is that it's funny.  It often has a peculiar sense of humor which isn't found too many other places, and is quirky enough that it probably isn't even apparent to newcomers to the franchise quite how humorous it is intended to be.  The other, bigger problem, is that the post 2005 television show formula seems to invariably include one other thing: contrived, unnatural, overly dramatic and intense conflict between every single pair of characters in the show.  This sort of thing is of course contrary to the whole idea of Star Trek, but to me also makes for unwatchable shows about 95% of the time.

 

I can't help but feel rather anxious that there seems to be every indication that they are diving head-first into the formula that every single contemporary drama has taken since about 2005: ULTRA SERIOUS, HIGH DRAMA a strong story arch, but almost non-existent episode plots.  Since this hasn't actually been attempted with Star Trek yet, it doesn't necessarily seem like a terrible choice on its surface, but there are a few aspects of this which seem badly out of phase with what makes Star Trek Star Trek.  For one, one of the things that makes Star Trek so enduring is that it's funny.  It often has a peculiar sense of humor which isn't found too many other places, and is quirky enough that it probably isn't even apparent to newcomers to the franchise quite how humorous it is intended to be.  The other, bigger problem, is that the post 2005 television show formula seems to invariably include one other thing: contrived, unnatural, overly dramatic and intense conflict between every single pair of characters in the show.  This sort of thing is of course contrary to the whole idea of Star Trek, but to me also makes for unwatchable shows about 95% of the time.

Ok i understand you, this is true. Anyway in my opinion star trek needs a bit more action and drama. Star trek's idea is about an evolved universe where human and alien races are able to cooperate or at least they are not so violent like in battlestar galactica or stargate sg1. In star trek the main characters are very etichal, in battlestar galacticathe characters are very "human".

Even if i appreciate star trek philosophy (i think it's the future) in the entertainment point of view i prefer far more high drama and intense action like in galacticastargate.

I think they should only introduce a bit more of drama without exceeding respecting the basic Rodenberry's idea.

I like a lot enterprise, it's also more modern and intense...on the contrary i don't like Deep Space 9....too much booring.

Picked the third series on DVD and it's absolute garbage, unbelievable that they got renewed. 

I watched the 1st season on a plane a few years back, it was okay it didn't excite me much. Star Trek Enterprise was a way better show that they shouldn't have cancelled btw... that is better that Discovery and probably Picard (but I haven't watched any episodes of this yet either). But as of right now it hasn't been officially announced if there will be a season 5 of Discovery

Unbelievable that they are making more of that rubbish, if anyone wants a master class on how not to make an action adventure series, then watch the 3rd season of Discovery.

Not looking good for Star trek new worlds if it's the same writing team as in Discovery, at least Voyage is no longer the worst trek.