Star Trek: Discovery, the first new Star Trek television series in 12 years, debuted last week. As with a number of recent Star Trek efforts, this is a prequel to the Original Series, occurring roughly one decade prior chronologically.
The Original Series, the Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager occur in a chronological sequence that, generally speaking, moves forward (although TNG, DS9, and Voyager overlap to various degrees). The linear trajectory of Star Trek productions took a sudden shift with the television series Enterprise, which was set just over 100 years before TOS. This was followed by J.J. Abrams' 2009 film Star Trek, which created a new timeline and which followed the characters from TOS, but at a time that is also chronologically one decade before TOS.
Given that the last few interpretations of Star Trek were prequels in one sense or another, I was disappointed that Discovery was yet another prequel. I'd like to know why the showrunners decided to take this direction. I haven't been able to find any statements about the rationale.
That being said, I find it interesting that Star Trek (2009) was set in 2255-2258 and Discovery is currently set in 2256, even though they are ostensibly in different timelines — the former in the reboot timeline and the latter supposedly in the original timeline. Also, one of the showrunners for Discovery, Alex Kurtzman, was one of the principal members of the creative team behind the Abrams films.
Why did the creative staff behind Discovery decide to make another prequel? Does it have anything to do with the fact that Star Trek (2009) and Discovery are set in roughly the same years?