RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,536
Posts: 5,513,013
Members: 25,140
Currently online: 445
Newest member: themagicman

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 2 2010, 04:26 AM   #1
Lord Garth
Guest
 
The year is 2000

It's 2000 and you're being asked where you think Star Trek will be 10 years from now. What do you say and what did you think?

At the time, it was a few more years before the possibility of rebooting even entered my mind.

I thought the TNG movies might continue for a little while longer than they actually did, then that would be it for a while. I didn't really think too much beyond TNG. I certainly didn't see Star Trek (2009) coming.

For a series, right up until they announced ENT, I didn't believe it was going to take place in the 22nd Century. I thought we'd either see more of the 24th Century or go into the 25th... if ratings permitted, and I didn't think they would. No matter what it was, I didn't expect a fifth series to go the full seven seasons.

The only thing I got right was that second-generation Star Trek wouldn't last much longer. Outside of that, I was way off.
  Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2010, 06:23 AM   #2
Shatinator
Commander
 
Shatinator's Avatar
 
Location: Virginia
Re: The year is 2000

Intresting idea for a thread, I was always hopeful, however I had a freind that doubted Enterprses quality, b/c of Scott Bakula's involvment; reason being he was well known and the other leads were unknowns (shacky logical...but still). I had hoped the TNG movies could of been more in devolpment & numbers.

Oh well...

-The Shatinator
Shatinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2010, 10:20 AM   #3
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: The year is 2000

Back in 2000, I imagined (or rather wished):

-Series V (debuting in 2001) would be another 24th-Century series about a rundown civilian starship operating in a distant forgotten corner of the Federation, where things weren't quite so comfy (or civilized) and people still had to work for a living and Starfleet wasn't always looked at so favorably (this was long before Firefly).

-TNG movies would continue until 2012...

-2008 would bring us a new series about a 25th-Century Enterprise and her crew.

Not even close...
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2010, 11:12 AM   #4
tau136
Lieutenant Commander
 
tau136's Avatar
 
Location: The middle of the middle of Ireland
Re: The year is 2000

Given the drift to dark, gritty material something that out-nined DS9 would have been my guess. Some series with a Defiant type ship in a contentious role.
tau136 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2010, 12:14 PM   #5
Orcus
Captain
 
Orcus's Avatar
 
Location: New Zealand
Re: The year is 2000

I would have said they'd make another movie, it'd suck and that's all folks - nighty-night...
Orcus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3 2010, 06:08 PM   #6
RandyS
Vice Admiral
 
RandyS's Avatar
 
Location: Randyland
View RandyS's Twitter Profile
Re: The year is 2000

I was open to anything, but didn't really give it much thought beyond the end of VOYAGER the next year.
RandyS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 5 2010, 09:38 PM   #7
Captain Zog
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Re: The year is 2000

Back in 2000, DS9 was only coming to an end in my corner of the world; Voyager was still running and the TNG era movies had not yet closed shop. I guess I would have envisaged a new TV series after Voyager ended, and maybe some more TNG-based movies. Reboot? Nah. Reboots hadn't really caught on yet back then. Sometimes I wish things had remained that way
Captain Zog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 6 2010, 04:44 AM   #8
Tulin
Vice Admiral
 
Location: With the most wonderful man in the world!
Re: The year is 2000

I got on the net in about May of 2000. It was ALL about SW for me back then. VOY had vanished, for me, after B5 eclipsed EVEYRTHING in terms of TV SF.

INS had come out two years previous and was a complete snooze fest. In fact, I remember the day I went with two friends to see it. "The Goonies" was on tv that afternoon and one of the guys was a MASSIVE Goonies fan like me. When we came out of the cinema he said to me, "We would have been more entertained if we'd stayed home and watched "The Goonies".

I really didn't give ST much thought, to be honest!
Tulin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 6 2010, 04:28 PM   #9
Alex1939
Captain
 
Alex1939's Avatar
 
Re: The year is 2000

Hard to remember, but I'm pretty sure I thought that there would be no series for a long time, but that TNG would have more films although spread further apart in years.
Alex1939 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 6 2010, 09:52 PM   #10
Pemmer Harge
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Between the candle and the star
Re: The year is 2000

I pretty much lost interest in Trek at some point in the late '90s-2000 or so. Other things seemed more interesting. I guess maybe I'd have thought "they might do OK if they can hang onto some of those DS9 guys." Alas they couldn't and, for the most part, didn't. Till Trek 2009. I like Trek 2009 a lot.
__________________
"I hate purity, I hate goodness! I don't want any virtue to exist anywhere. I want everyone to be corrupt to the bones." - Winston Smith
Pemmer Harge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 7 2010, 06:23 AM   #11
-Brett-
Rear Admiral
 
Re: The year is 2000

I'd predicted that Star Trek would be in trouble if the next series didn't get out of that rut Voyager was digging. I was right about that one. I thought that if the fifth series couldn't get things back on track that would be it for Star Trek for about ten years or so. It didn't take as long as I expected.
-Brett- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2010, 03:04 AM   #12
nx1701g
Admiral
 
nx1701g's Avatar
 
Location: Aboard the Executor...
Re: The year is 2000

Surprisingly - about the time I joined Trek BBS actually - we had the same thread where we were supposed to predict what we thought would happen in ten years. I was partially right with what I said and here it is:

1.) Series Five will come around after Voyager. (HAPPENED)
2.) When Series Five hits four years a new series will come before the other Treks (prequels were big - pseudo happened).
3.) Eventually Trek would be entirely rebooted from the beginning (Pseudo happened).
__________________
Not Dead Yet.
nx1701g is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.