Just because someone said something doesn't automatically make it true. People say dumb things all the time, even in movies.
Edit: …even in *gasp* public forums!
Last edited:
Kelvin Timeline all but confirmed
- Thread starter captainkirk
- Start date
Just because someone said something doesn't automatically make it true. People say dumb things all the time, even in movies.
Edit: …even in *gasp* public forums!
Yeah, they do.
Maybe they are just old and afraid of anything new?
Ironic for Trek fans, but it seems to be the case.
I am seeing this a lot. They think it should look like a 1960's TV show that the series creator himself moved away from as fast as he could. Just because the look changes, that does not mean the story or events have changed.
In my experience, this is always the case, regardless of property.
^These two sentences were in the same paragraph.
Because it's not true. There hasn't been Star Trek on TV since 2001. Slapping a brand name on a visual product isn't enough to make something Star Trek. You can't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
Yes I can.
Just becasue we didn't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. Maybe no DNA record of Kodos survived.
We've NEVER had more than a 4 year gap between some from of 'official' Paramount or CBS produced Star Trek (Film or TV show):
1969 - TOS ends
1973-75 - Star Trek Animated series (NBC Saturday mornings)
1979 - ST:TMP
1982 - STII:TWoK
1984 - STIII:TSFS
1986 - STIV:TVH
1987 - 1994 ST:TNG (TV Series)
1989 - STV: TFF
1991 - STVI:TUV
1993-1999 - STS9 (TV Series)
1995-2001 - ST:VOY (TV Series)
1994: ST:GEN (TNG Film)
1996: ST:FC (TNG Film)
1998: ST:INS (TNG Film)
2002: ST:NEM (TNG Film)
So yeah, given the above I always love it when someone says "There was a drought of 'Star Trek'" because honestly some other proplular shows have sen a one off revival and/or waited DECADES for actual new official material. And also, cling Star Trek was never effectively rebooted in a fashion prior to JJ Abrams?...Please.
No. It's been about 15 years since some form of Star Trek has been produced.
I know. Especially since we have the technology to reproduce such a production and even add extra details to bring it up to spec for modern audiences.
Amen and Amen.
With respect, that is unreasonable. No company would. Knowing that, it is simply unreasonable to expect that.
A
Amaris
Guest
2005.
Also, what you consider Star Trek doesn't matter when compared to what CBS/Paramount, the owners of the license, consider Star Trek. At best, you have a fan fiction idea of what it should be, and always will.
Yeah, me too. I'd like to imagine enjoying Trek means you are open-minded and welcoming diversity and change. But spending some time on the internet has made it pretty clear for me that a lot of people are enjoying it for wholly different reasons.
All right, let me take a stab at this.
I grew up watching TOS as it aired. Mind blowing stuff for a kid in the 1960's. It was familiar, yet futuristic. That's what made it work.
Then came the movies, TNG, DS9, and Voyager. Futuristic, yet familiar. Following the formula. Ignoring some really awful writing at times, it worked.
Along came Enterprise. It tried to follow the formula but kept stumbling over the outdated tech from TOS. Finally, it got fed up and tried to steamroller the incongruities and failed miserably. Temporal Cold War, Space Nazis, I'm looking at you. Horrifically banal stuff. Best written off as a lousy holonovel, as it ended up. Computer, end programme.
Now we have Discovery. From the trailer, a mishmash of Prime and Kelvin sensibilities. Supposedly Prime, yet undeniably Kelvin in look and feel. They really need to slam a stake in the ground and tell us where the hell we are and where they intend to take us. And if they really are playing in the Prime continuum, own it and make me believe all this fits in. Continuity callisthenics are easy. I've been a Doctor Who fan for ages.
If they can't accomplish that, I'm done. I bailed on Enterprise for being a meandering slop fest. The bar for Discovery is therefore fairly low. Three episodes. If they can't hook me in that space, bye Felicia.
I grew up watching TOS as it aired. Mind blowing stuff for a kid in the 1960's. It was familiar, yet futuristic. That's what made it work.
Then came the movies, TNG, DS9, and Voyager. Futuristic, yet familiar. Following the formula. Ignoring some really awful writing at times, it worked.
Along came Enterprise. It tried to follow the formula but kept stumbling over the outdated tech from TOS. Finally, it got fed up and tried to steamroller the incongruities and failed miserably. Temporal Cold War, Space Nazis, I'm looking at you. Horrifically banal stuff. Best written off as a lousy holonovel, as it ended up. Computer, end programme.
Now we have Discovery. From the trailer, a mishmash of Prime and Kelvin sensibilities. Supposedly Prime, yet undeniably Kelvin in look and feel. They really need to slam a stake in the ground and tell us where the hell we are and where they intend to take us. And if they really are playing in the Prime continuum, own it and make me believe all this fits in. Continuity callisthenics are easy. I've been a Doctor Who fan for ages.
If they can't accomplish that, I'm done. I bailed on Enterprise for being a meandering slop fest. The bar for Discovery is therefore fairly low. Three episodes. If they can't hook me in that space, bye Felicia.
Yep, I was in high school back in the late 60s. I remember someone saying they couldn't watch the show because their parents said there was a devil (Spock and his ears) in the show.
It isn't always about TOS.
Some fans get hysterical if something isn't the same as TNG. "A space station isn't Star Trek", etc.
Me as well. I don't give a damn if a crewman is white, black, yellow, red, blue, green, furry, scaly, bipedal, tripedal, multipedal, or noncorporeal. Get them in a position that lets them flourish and be a contributing part of the crew so their strengths shine through.
My Dad and I would watch the show together, and he'd ask me questions afterwards. Things like, "What do you think of the way Spock handled the situation?" or "Did you think Uhura/Sulu/Chekov/Scotty had the right idea?" or "Was the Romulan commander a good man or a bad man?"Yep, I was in high school back in the late 60s. I remember someone saying they couldn't watch the show because their parents said there was a devil (Spock and his ears) in the show.
To me, it never had anything to do with their colour or species or nationality. Just their judgement. They were all simply people. No one is superior or inferior, but we all have strengths and weaknesses. And that was the real lesson. Thanks, Dad.
And we all have different points of view of what makes Star Trek "Star Trek" or why we enjoy it.
I was sold on Abrams Trek when I went with my dad and he talked about similarities between it and the 60s Trek, and how much fun he had, and how his dad would have loved it.
I can only imagine the rumour mill and complaints for the original films had social media been around back then. Both TMP and TWOK had different uniforms and ship design. The great Roddenberry's role got reduced to a consultant status and Harve Bennett a "TV Guy" became the man in charge. And that's not taking into account Spock's death.
The internet would have been blown up.
Last edited:
That perhaps he already was enjoying the world?Don't see how wishing some well is odd?
Similar threads
