No.
New Star Trek Movie Directors Talk Darker Tone, “Sort Of Different” Timeline
John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein have more to say about their Trek movie.trekmovie.com
The future of the mirror universe, or at least a mirror universe?
Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley developing Star Trek reboot for Paramount
I think the only reason the Tawny thing lasted as long as it did (i.e. just her talking about how the concept changed over time, but nothing was greenlit) was because it was, well, Tawny Newsome. But I would guess that even her influence did little to persuade CBS/Paramount to pursue it.
That and Paramount couldn't agree on a premise (First, it was a workplace comedy set at an interstellar resort. Then it morphed into a comedy set on a world outside the Federation.)
That happens during development all the time.
oh ok
New Star Trek Movie Directors Talk Darker Tone, “Sort Of Different” Timeline
John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein have more to say about their Trek movie.
The future of the mirror universe, or at least a mirror universe?
TrekMovie's trying to get clarification on the wordage, fwiw. In terms of, like, just confirming that they were saying it isn't a separate timeline. They reached out via twitter. No reply yet.
My read on it is that they are, indeed, saying it's set within the same universe as the vast majority of existing content. It's simply farther off. 26th century, 27th, something like that. (Because the other question you've gotta ask is whether they're counting the far-future Discovery seasons when they're talking about time; my gut says no.)
"It's not a different timeline per se"
"sort of a different timeline"
"well not the Kelvin timeline"
So...they've barely wrote any of it and don't actually know what it is yet.
"sort of a different timeline"
"well not the Kelvin timeline"
So...they've barely wrote any of it and don't actually know what it is yet.
It sounds to me they are simply going to pretend any of the stuff that happened after the TNG movies didn't happen which means it's in a alternate timeline or the stuff from CBS Trek they might override will be seen as being in a alternate timeline.
I suppose that doesn't effect SNW's world though because it's a prequel. Not that much of this stuff I suspect will play a big role in the actual story of the movie. This will all be relegated to long enduring Nerd debates on the internet that never end.
I suppose that doesn't effect SNW's world though because it's a prequel. Not that much of this stuff I suspect will play a big role in the actual story of the movie. This will all be relegated to long enduring Nerd debates on the internet that never end.
The Trekverse is big enough there's absolutely no reason you have to reference things that happened in previous shows except in the broadest possible brush (the Federation, Starfleet, etc.).
I know, people want that fanservice. But Star Trek isn't about recurring characters and easter eggs. It's about an ethos and a vibe.
I know, people want that fanservice. But Star Trek isn't about recurring characters and easter eggs. It's about an ethos and a vibe.
Well, since TWOK it definitely loved the fan service more and more.
The stuff after the TNG movies is so far ahead in the future you don't have to address any of it because it hasn't happened yet if you're doing something within those 800 years.
Not sure how you're making the automatic leap to "they're striking it from the canon."
Wishful thinking?
Constantly.
They're making a new Brendan Frazier Mummy movie, and it's apparently going to ignore the 3rd movie.
Superman Returns ignored Superman III and IV.
Every Highlander movie has ignored every other sequel as well as the ending of the first movie.
The rumour was that this new Trek movie was set in the 25th century on a new USS Enterprise. So long as they do the most basic research and have it after G and before J, they're in the clear.
Discovery and Academy are set in the 32nd century, which is time for civilisations to fall and rise again in the interim if the plot of this movie demands it.
The issues are going to be if they're like, "transporters have never done [thing transporters have done several times]" or, "the Federation hasn't been at war since the Romulans where we used primitive atomic weapons!"
That said, Discovery started by saying almost nobody had seen a Klingon in 100 years and we (well, most of us) survived...
First I've heard of this. Do you have a source?
It was elsewhere on TBBS, the Rumours from Dubious Sources thread IIRC. I believe originally from that bastion of integrity, Facebook.
i can imagine the star trek universe doing bunch of crossovers with the looney tunes cartoon network dc comics and hanna barbara
Ah, gotcha. I’m gonna take that info with a grain of salt then. If I had to guess, I’d say that these two guys barely even have the concept of a plan, since the announcement that they’ve been put in charge was a year ago, and we haven’t heard jack squat since.
You need to lay off the imagination pills.
Similar threads
