You mean M'Benga(seriously they just change Cartwright's name to M'Benga in the movies and you have a complete character arc)
I can't say I ever thought about it that way, but wow.... you're absolutely right. Interesting mental exercise for sure.
You mean M'Benga(seriously they just change Cartwright's name to M'Benga in the movies and you have a complete character arc)
What qualifies as doing "TOS"? Using some of the characters?Then they should have just done a straight up TOS reboot. They are wasting the time period they are set in.
I know the more they do TOS, the less interested I become. It gets farther and farther away from where SNW started.
Yes, they should have.Then they should have just done a straight up TOS reboot. They are wasting the time period they are set in.
they are 3 characters away from the full cast just about..... when from prior understanding, none of them should be there yet. They are stretching canon to its absolute breaking point, when there were endless amounts of characters they could be exploring instead. To me, it just gives more credit to my "rewritten timeline" theory, but to everyone else, its just barely scraping by that line between fanon and canon.What qualifies as dong "TOS"? Using some of the characters?
We've no clue when any of the characters first served on the Enterprise, with the possible exceptions of Spock and Chekov. If I'm wrong cite the episode where any of line of dialog establishes when Kirk, McCoy, Scott, Uhura, Chapel or M'Benga first set foot on the Enterprise. There is no "canon" to stretch there because there is no canon for that.they are 3 characters away from the full cast just about..... when from prior understanding, none of them should be there yet. They are stretching canon to its absolute breaking point, when there were endless amounts of characters they could be exploring instead. To me, it just gives more credit to my "rewritten timeline" theory, but to everyone else, its just barely scraping by that line between fanon and canon.
I enjoy the show, but I can't take it seriously at the same time.
Of course there is a difference between doing a voice role and a live action role, amongst them the convenience of being able to do voice work in the comfort of one's own home vs pretty much needing to go to the studio to do a live action one.I used to think this was nigh-impossible. Yet, Jolene Blalock did return for Lower Decks. Now, I’d call it… very mildly possible, ha.
If punches are not pulled on what Sybok is - a dictatorial, but well-meaning fanatic – and the darker side of Sybok is shown, an appearance on SNW could be great. Would be a great way to make his mother canon too.Sybok. dude has potential
This presuming that the SNW episode T'Pol appears in, if she appears at all, is live action. When it could be a one-hour animated episode.Of course there is a difference between doing a voice role and a live action role, amongst them the convenience of being able to do voice work in the comfort of one's own home vs pretty much needing to go to the studio to do a live action one.
This presuming that the SNW episode T'Pol appears in, if she appears at all, is live action. When it could be a one-hour animated episode.
I think FederationHistorian was speaking hypothetically.What SNW episode that T’Pol is supposed to appear in? Source?
Probably true, but hope springs eternal.Ok. I get the feeling we will never see live-action T’Pol again.
Probably true, but hope springs eternal.
I'd be ecstatic seeing her or Phlox again.
Yeah, the further we get from thar episode, the more I'm annoyed by thar fact.I'm still a bit annoyed that when we finally did see her again, it was just an alternate universe version of her.
It's just not going to happen due to the cultural sensitivities going on. Heck, just in his SNW appearance Sybok is toned down and changed into having a relationship with a transgender person, someone the religious fanatic Sybok was originally envisioned as (as well as the real life fundamentalist Christian preachers he's based on) would be calling an abomination (basically, Sybok should be portrayed as an ultra-religious male version of JK Rowling, and I don't think Paramount has the courage to go there)If punches are not pulled on what Sybok is - a dictatorial, but well-meaning fanatic – and the darker side of Sybok is shown, an appearance on SNW could be great.
Why would Sybok's brand of fanaticism have to include anti-trans attitudes? Nothing in what we see in TFF indicates this. He doesn't have to mirror Christian Fundies exactly to be a comment on them. I don't think the original intent was to comment on their bigotry, but on their greed and manipulation. Mega-churches were the targets. Though Sybok seems to be rewritten as a hippy cult leader. More like the Maharishi than Robert Schuller.It's just not going to happen due to the cultural sensitivities going on. Heck, just in his SNW appearance Sybok is toned down and changed into having a relationship with a transgender person, someone the religious fanatic Sybok was originally envisioned as (as well as the real life fundamentalist Christian preachers he's based on) would be calling an abomination (basically, Sybok should be portrayed as an ultra-religious male version of JK Rowling, and I don't think Paramount has the courage to go there)
Writers these days are afraid to make even villains as bigoted, fearing that showing villains' bigotry would somehow be an endorsement of said bigotry, forgetting that by showing the villains as bigoted, it reinforces why these characters are villains to begin with.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.