One of the problems with sci-fi prequels is that visual technology improves, and that ends up making the technology of the movie or show seem more advanced.
Which is why I didn't understand their choice in setting.
On another note:
It has been reported that CBS hired Nicholas Meyer to do something Star Trek. I am wondering if he is developing a new series just in case/when it fails.
I saw that they have "first reactions" but don't see well known Trekkies like Dan Murrell or Scott Collura, or a well known TV critic like Alan Sepinwall.
I am going to watch at least the first episode. I subscribe to All Access anyway since getting rid of cable for the few shows my wife and I watch.
I just get the feeling that CBS at this point are taking the money and running. I just wonder if Netflix will file a law suit.
What would Netflix sue for?
Even when it's not a prequel, if movies or shows take place in the same timeline but are made many years apart, they often look like they are from different times. Watch the first Star Trek movie, then watch The Undiscovered Country. Improvements in visual effects might lead you to believe they are from very different time periods. And of course, the Star Trek reboot looks much more advanced in a lot of ways.
I don't know why Fuller wanted to make a show from close to, but before, TOS timeline. I agree that it seems like a bit of an odd decision, just as I think Enterprise was an odd choice. Star Trek can always do more stories either in the same time or in the future. Going to the past is limiting.