I will never understand why people remain so fixated on this issue. It really doesn't matter.
It's funny how people read "it's a prequel" and mistranslate that as "it will be faithful to the continuity of the old Trek shows." We already know better.![]()
To me, the story and the setting of the story is more important than the precise look.
As indicated in the portion of my text that you deleted, I do care about the setting, which includes the timeline. The timeline clearly influences the setting. Pretty straightforward.Then why would you care whether it took place in the Kelvin timeline or the prime timeline (or any other timeline for that matter), or feel the need to berate the people who thought it would take place in the Kelvin timeline?
As indicated in the portion of my text that you deleted, I do care about the setting, which includes the timeline. The timeline clearly influences the setting. Pretty straightforward.
Everyone's MMV. But, for me, if it's Trek, it might as well fit in with the Universe that they've developed over decades. Great stories can still be told in this setting.
True, great stories can be told in other settings. For that, I just go to a different series altogether.
Everyone's preferences will different.
I think the quote looks even more ill-advised now.Yep. People working on these things say stuff like this and then when the end result doesn't fit exactly with their expectations fans accuse the staffers of "lying."
I didn't get a Kelvin vibe from it at all. A more modern use of SFx doesn't equal Kelvin vibe.So now that the trailer's out and there's a definite Kelvin-timeline vibe going on with DSC, what do you think about it now?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.