Star Trek shouldn't be about continuity and minutia. It's about ideas and characters. There can be 1000 versions of Star Trek as long as the writers and actors get the ideas and characters right. They don't all have to fit perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle.
Star Trek shouldn't be about continuity and minutia. It's about ideas and characters. There can be 1000 versions of Star Trek as long as the writers and actors get the ideas and characters right. They don't all have to fit perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle.
Star Trek shouldn't be about continuity and minutia. It's about ideas and characters. There can be 1000 versions of Star Trek as long as the writers and actors get the ideas and characters right. They don't all have to fit perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle.
Very very much agreed, but if there's ever a day when production begins on "Crisis on Infinite Federations", I'll be the first in line!
It's being helmed by a successful up and coming director. What is the "GotG"demographic? People who spend money to go to movies? Yeah, I see why Paramount would want that.Based on what I'm hearing about the new Trek film, it being helmed by a Fast and the Furious guy, and Paramount's desire to get the Guardians of the Galaxy demographic, I'd say there won't be any prime continuity continuation in theaters.
.
NuTrek brings in any element of prime that it wants, Khan or Klingons etc...Use all that prime backstory as a resource instead of a constraint.
I can imagine this coming to pass, because why would the suits care? I suppose another time line could appear, for example, if the suits demanded a Trek more like the Guardians of the Galaxy.If Star Trek becomes a franchise of reboots like Spiderman or Batman, we could simply go from one alternate reality to the next
I'd love it if they returned to the Prime Universe. But, quite frankly, there's nothing to argue compellingly that it's needed, either.
I'd love it if they returned to the Prime Universe. But, quite frankly, there's nothing to argue compellingly that it's needed, either.
But if we never go back to the Prime Universe how are we ever going to see if Harry Kim and Ezri Dax are able to captain a Yaeger-class starship together!
And all this time I thought Star Trek was about looking to the future, not looking to the past.
If Star Trek becomes a franchise of reboots like Spiderman or Batman, we could simply go from one alternate reality to the next...
Yes, that's the way it will work.
Star Trek shouldn't be about continuity and minutia. It's about ideas and characters. There can be 1000 versions of Star Trek as long as the writers and actors get the ideas and characters right. They don't all have to fit perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle.
So what's all this "future versus past" stuff?
What lackluster reviews?!? I really wish these inaccurate statements would go away...
Critics rated it a 7.6/10 and audiences rated it a 4.2/5 on 307,000+ ratings.
Personally, I am hoping they never return to the Prime timeline. It had its day and that day is over (and I can watch that day anytime I like). Some folks don't like Star Trek Into Darkness and the Abrams films in general. Which is normal. Nothing is universally loved. But I don't really see how the numbers quantify it as anything other than a critical success.
So what's all this "future versus past" stuff?
I just find it hilarious that Star Trek fandom is so nostalgic and backwards looking.
"I hate the reboot that has given Star Trek a newer and younger audience. Reboot it back to something I like."
The TNG era is as dead as the Shatner/Nimoy TOS era was in the mid-nineties. It seems weird so many people want to revive a zombified corpse rather than witness an evolution.
Star Trek is dead. Long live Star Trek.
Wrath of Khan has a 7.7
The Motion Picture has a 6.4
The Voyage Home has a 7.3
Those are usually the top choices for TOS films.
Into Darkness is currently at 7.8.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.