He's not really dead. As long as we remember him.
I appreciated that, too. The idea that all this was cutting edge technology that someone like McCoy would have every reason to be wary of.
Is ST:ID Not Canon Anymore According to the New Continuity?
- Thread starter VulcanMindBlown
- Start date
He's not really dead. As long as we remember him.
I appreciated that, too. The idea that all this was cutting edge technology that someone like McCoy would have every reason to be wary of.
Well actually we do see Khan go to a bathroom or at least you do if you watch the scenes they cut out of him in the shower, which thank goodness because that would've just been weird.
I hear this a lot and I'm curious, would you actually watch a movie that had the full warp trip that was not cut for time?
Did the Khan/Genesis/Whales trilogy make any references to V'GER?
Did The Undiscovered Country allude to the events of The Final Frontier?
Was Nemesis a direct sequel to Generations, First Contact, or Insurrection?
For that matter, how many TV episodes were in any way connected to previous TV episodes?
Did The Undiscovered Country allude to the events of The Final Frontier?
Was Nemesis a direct sequel to Generations, First Contact, or Insurrection?
For that matter, how many TV episodes were in any way connected to previous TV episodes?
Yeah, the point stands. Most movies have a hard enough time to be good themselves, incorporating stuff from previous movies is an unneeded burden.
This exactly is the reason why most Trek movies (and episodes) have self-contained stories though. And that's a problem with the two new movies, as they try too hard to change the status quo (09) or have universe-altering technology (transwarp beaming, curing death, traveling to Kronos in no time ...).
For me, ST:Beyond looks like they are trying to do a major re-tooling of the new movie franchise, to get it more streamlined into the direction of the classic Trek universe. We'll see how well that plays out...
This exactly is the reason why most Trek movies (and episodes) have self-contained stories though. And that's a problem with the two new movies, as they try too hard to change the status quo (09) or have universe-altering technology (transwarp beaming, curing death, traveling to Kronos in no time ...).
For me, ST:Beyond looks like they are trying to do a major re-tooling of the new movie franchise, to get it more streamlined into the direction of the classic Trek universe. We'll see how well that plays out...
Well, unfortunately, Leonard Nimoy isn't around for that "little meeting between Spock Prime and Daniels about repairing the timeline" I postulated a few years ago. 
It sounds to me like they're going to be suggesting a little 'wiggle room' for the fans. If John Bloggs from Wisconsin decides that he likes the 2009 movie, but dislikes Into Darkness so much that he won't have it in his house, then Beyond is going to open ambiguously enough that it could, conceivably, be watched immediately after the 2009 movie without missing a beat. That said, ambiguity goes both ways, so those of us who don't mind STID can still watch all three movies as a unity ticket.
As others have said, there's a big difference between the new movie not following on directly from the events of ID and/or referencing them, and it deciding to ignore ID altogether. Nothing I've read here suggests that Lin is attempting to do the latter at all.
As others have said, there's a big difference between the new movie not following on directly from the events of ID and/or referencing them, and it deciding to ignore ID altogether. Nothing I've read here suggests that Lin is attempting to do the latter at all.
None of the Mission Impossible movies really follow directly from the ones that came before (except 4 after 3 in a couple little details). Does that mean that only the latest one really happened? And then the next one comes along, and that's the only one that really happened?
Kor
Kor
Similar threads
