One thing that turns me off regarding the "conventional wisdom" of how today's entertainment conglomerates treat their franchise lay in their constant re-exploitation of what has come before rather then any bold mining of it's potential. In this, I believe, Paramount pioneered this shortcoming in how it has historically mishandled the Star Trek franchise in the modern era (primarily through overexploitation and secondarily through a sad redefinition of what the "vision" of the franchise can or should be).
I was (and am) hoping CBS's Discovery line will disrupt that paradigm of recent history. Season 1 of Discovery is certainly debatable on many levels. Not the least of which is that eternal question of "what is Star Trek?" That is not to say it can't or shouldn't be open for redefinition as time goes by, but whether it is progressive or regressive. By my sensibilities, it has been more regressive by far. It's handling of the metaphysical/spiritual aspect of existence as but one example. Paramount's turning the cinematic branch into a droning single note action franchise as another example.
Now the big gimmick for season 2 (or phase 2 or whatever they're calling it) is to bring back the characters of Spock and Picard. I am always leery of "gimmicks" as often they are unnecessary and too often seen as a suitable substitute for quality. As a general rule TPTB only go backwards because they are too afraid to go forward (and make no mistake "revisiting" Spock and Picard at this point is regressive - not to mention "ironic").
Having said all that … I will now illustrate the irrational and sometimes contradictory appearance of human nature.
In my current re-examination of Deep Space 9 I have been really enjoying the Nog-Jake Sisko dynamic and feel they would be a much more artistically valid and bold set of protagonists for a future series (limited or otherwise). The stories of Spock and Picard have already been largely told and their potential tapped (going back to them at this stage is more "stunt" than substance). It is in secondary characters such as Nog and Sisko, whose potentials were barely touched upon and yet would give us a real organic (non-GMO) tie to the past. We could experience a friendship forged in the fire of adventure that would truly rival that of Kirk-Spock-McCoy because the span of time would be real and not just some narrative construct therefore the gravitas sincere.
So please, no more Picard or Spock or even Kirk as there are only downsides. I say that in part because (I know this will sound offensive too many) one of the reasons things went awry with the TNG movies was that certain actors had too much voice in the script. Those actors were Spiner and Stewart. A constant "selling" point on this new Picard adventure is that Patrick Stewart's fingerprints are going to be all over it. Based on those previous experiences I don't see how that bodes well. It doesn't. The only actor who ever added value to the franchise outside of their acting was Leonard Nimoy and he has passed on.
Anyway, as Stan Lee would say, "EXCEDRIN!"
I was (and am) hoping CBS's Discovery line will disrupt that paradigm of recent history. Season 1 of Discovery is certainly debatable on many levels. Not the least of which is that eternal question of "what is Star Trek?" That is not to say it can't or shouldn't be open for redefinition as time goes by, but whether it is progressive or regressive. By my sensibilities, it has been more regressive by far. It's handling of the metaphysical/spiritual aspect of existence as but one example. Paramount's turning the cinematic branch into a droning single note action franchise as another example.
Now the big gimmick for season 2 (or phase 2 or whatever they're calling it) is to bring back the characters of Spock and Picard. I am always leery of "gimmicks" as often they are unnecessary and too often seen as a suitable substitute for quality. As a general rule TPTB only go backwards because they are too afraid to go forward (and make no mistake "revisiting" Spock and Picard at this point is regressive - not to mention "ironic").
Having said all that … I will now illustrate the irrational and sometimes contradictory appearance of human nature.
In my current re-examination of Deep Space 9 I have been really enjoying the Nog-Jake Sisko dynamic and feel they would be a much more artistically valid and bold set of protagonists for a future series (limited or otherwise). The stories of Spock and Picard have already been largely told and their potential tapped (going back to them at this stage is more "stunt" than substance). It is in secondary characters such as Nog and Sisko, whose potentials were barely touched upon and yet would give us a real organic (non-GMO) tie to the past. We could experience a friendship forged in the fire of adventure that would truly rival that of Kirk-Spock-McCoy because the span of time would be real and not just some narrative construct therefore the gravitas sincere.
So please, no more Picard or Spock or even Kirk as there are only downsides. I say that in part because (I know this will sound offensive too many) one of the reasons things went awry with the TNG movies was that certain actors had too much voice in the script. Those actors were Spiner and Stewart. A constant "selling" point on this new Picard adventure is that Patrick Stewart's fingerprints are going to be all over it. Based on those previous experiences I don't see how that bodes well. It doesn't. The only actor who ever added value to the franchise outside of their acting was Leonard Nimoy and he has passed on.
Anyway, as Stan Lee would say, "EXCEDRIN!"
right back atcha! 
