*sigh* The problem with Bryan Fuller's departure isn't that he left, it's the circumstances under which he left that should really be creating cause for concern. Yes, the "official" reason given for his departure is that he had his hands in too many other shows and "stepped down," but multiple inside sources have come forward stating that the real reason he stepped down was the result of pressure from CBS to hurry up and get the show out "on schedule," which effectively meant meeting an unrealistic deadline so CBS could force DSC out the door a bit sooner while sacrificing the show's quality. Fuller wisely pushed back and was effectively given a "step down or be fired" scenario by the higher–ups. The "too many other projects" is cover, just like the Deadwood movie that was created solely as a public relations tactic to keep the fans of that series from going thermonuclear when it was cancelled, and at least a few people in CBS has the loose lips necessary to let people know that "too many projects" was cover, and that DSC was having production issues. The real problem here is that CBS set out with a completely unrealistic set of deadlines based on how things were moving and now they're trying to hit them by cutting corners and shoving the show out the door before it's ready, and Fuller wisely pushed back against that because it's exactly why Enterprise got off to such a rocky start and only to go down in flames after it recovered thanks to being stuck on a dying network and alienating most of its fanbase. Obviously Fuller wanted to avoid a repeat of that situation with DSC.
Also, Fuller was brought in specifically to appeal to the brainer portion of the Trek fanbase, he wrote numerous VGR episodes, (some more controversial than others, an even those have their followers,) but he also wrote the highly memorable DS9 episode Empok Nor in addition to one other, so this is someone whose initimately familiar with the series, hence why losing him is a big deal. While the people taking over are effectively Fuller's "guys," that doesn't always go so well. Matt Groenig left The Simpsons in the hands of Al Jean, and we've all seen how that's turned out. The show keeps getting renewed, but not with the level of quality it had before Al Jean took over. Another show I like was briefly subjected to four years of production by a pure hack before he was ousted as a result of his hackery, and he would have been out a lot sooner if he wasn't buddy buddy with the boss. (I can even forgive the first two years, it's the second two that make my blood boil because there was no excuse for them.)
Furthermore, I have enough production experience to know when a show is exhibiting behind the scenes chaos, and DSC has all of the telltale signs of said chaos coming out of its nacelles. For starters, there are really only three times when you would replace a showrunner on a series that's already in the middle of preproduction, and none of them are ordinary circumstances. The first is if the previous showrunner dies or is somehow incapacitated to the point that they can't work anymore, the second is if they completely torpedo the budget and either fall or are about to fall behind schedule, and the third is if they quit, and that usually causes legal complications since someone has to buy out their contract or their contract to be showrunner conflicts with a previous contract elsewhere. Fuller hit the "behind schedule" reasoning, but anyone with half of brain would realize his deadlines were unrealistic and give him a pass unless he was literally setting piles of CBS's money on fire. Second, the fact that DSC is being forced out the door before it's ready is cause for concern, as is the fact that it's been delayed since it was announced and promptly forgotten about instead of announced and immediately put into pre–production. Third, CBS seems to be tripping over their own feet with how to handle this show: they understand the need to go with the "prime universe," but this is the second prequel no one asked for, and now it's on a service no one wants, and if it fails, it'll be the result of it being on that service instead of on normal broadcast television or on Showtime, which CBS has ownership of. (Seriously, why is this going on All–Access and not Showtime, which people actually watch and subscribe too? You'd have all the benefits of All–Access including a paywall if you consider that a benefit without the flaws of a half–baked streaming service.) This doesn't mean that DSC will be terrible, but it doesn't bode well for the series either.
I've seen TNG cited, and yes, TNG was chaotic, but it worked because Paramount hired Rick Berman to reign in Roddenberry who was out of control, and the first two seasons had some pretty cringeworthy episodes as a result of that. The difference between TNG and ENT is that Paramount was willing to let TNG find its footing and to help mitigate the chaos. With ENT they were adding to the chaos by hiring showrunners who wanted to tell a different story than their fanbase wanted and they in turn wanted to produce. Whether DSC will turn out like TNG or ENT remains to be seen, but being on All–Access doesn't do them any favors, and already puts the show behind the eight ball the way that UPN did with ENT. (VGR was fine because it was an established crew that had the full support of the network to tell their story without any sort of conflict.)
My real concern with DSC though is why it's set in the 23rd century, which is that someone wanted "villainous Klingons" in the series. The reason this is mind–numbingly stupid is that TNG effectively proved Roddenberry partially right in that we didn't need villainous Klingons even if we needed Klingons, but if we really wanted them, a treaty wouldn't stop us from having them as DS9 briefly pointed out, along with GEN I might add. Hell, go to the 25th century like the majority of fans were clammoring for the show to do after the hobus supernova, and Romulan refugees could be part of what pushes the Klingon Empire to show a more hostile side than we were familiar with in TNG. This doesn't mean that DSC will be bad, it just means that its priorities aren't where they should be, and its setting is built around some questionable ideas.
I will still watch DSC, I still intend to support it, but lately it feels like CBS is doing everything in their power to make me want to not like this show beyond the fact that it's set in the prime universe, which is one step forward surrounded by 100 backwards. The talk of reinventing the look of Klingon's and other aliens for DSC had me cringing. Flashier FX don't help Trek when they look out of place with the era it's set in. I'd rather something primitive and aesthetically like New Voyages that feels like it fits in the timeline than something modern that doens't. If CBS wants to produce Trek with modern aesthetics, they should move further into the future, not into the past.
Finally, there's life after 2379! I "get" wanting to do a 23rd century series as a nod to TOS, but Trek is at its best when its moving forward and not backwards in the timeline, and 25th century Trek would do that. A show set a few decades after TNG would still allow for cameos from characters we know and love without too much baggage, and without contrived designs that look out of place. DSC might not be able to pull that off, but I'm hopeful that the next Trek can, and that CBS seriously considered something on broadcast again if All–Access is DSC's undoing. I really think CBS missed the boat on this one, but admit that I hope I'm wrong.
I want to be clear, I'm still looking forward to DSC, I just have a lot of concerns about it given how it seems it's being handled and how CBS seems to be trying to rush it instead of letting the people working on it get it right so we don't have another ENT fiasco.
