Uh-Oh. Bones is not left-handed instead of right-handed.
Must be a reboot!
Must be a reboot!
Poll on the nature of "Star Trek"
- Thread starter Matt
- Start date
canonical prequel. I'd rather it would be a reimagining/reboot but I'm happy with what we're getting.
I voted for Jar Jar in the first poll and remake in the second poll. That more or less fits what I think this is: A prequel which is also a remake.
Like Superman Returns, which was a sequel which was also a remake. Films are entering watery canonical grounds these days...
Like Superman Returns, which was a sequel which was also a remake. Films are entering watery canonical grounds these days...
A
Amaris
Guest
Seriously. Now it's gone from being a total reboot while keeping a few details, to being any type redesign. That's a sure way to be right. Seriously, let's apply that to math:
Poster: "1+1=3"
Me: "No it doesn't, 1+1=2"
Poster: "We'll find out by starting a poll!"
Me: "See? Many people also say that 1+1=2"
Poster: "Well, as you well know, logically, 1+1 can mean a lot of things, 2 included. PLUS, 1+1+1=3. So even just a small addon shows how right I am, and have been the whole time."
J.
A Preboot. Showing what went before TOS but with a 21st Century sense of futurism. A prequel story with reimagined production designs... characters stay the same but "the look" moves with the times. As far as canon goes, I wouldn't be surprised if you see set dressing like a statue of James Cromwell's Cochrane, an NX model and Enterprise versions of Andorians strolling around. You can bet they'll even be in-jokes about the TNG era. I trust it'll all be in there for those with sharp eyes. Star Trek was built on minutiae and making something from tantalizingly sparse detail...
In your head, maybe. But not anywhere else.
Why are you trying so hard to set this up as a "everyone against me" scenario for yourself?
I once posted a thread in this forum about something inane like what kind of copier paper was Abrams going to use, and would it match the same stuff Roddenberry used?
That's how inane this conversation is.
Err... the rumors places it only PARTIALLY in a alternate-time line.
So who's desperate?
So who's desperate?
This is why Trekkies are viewed as oddballs.
I never would approve of something that would change the events of DS9 in any major way, even if it took place 100+ years before.I do look forward to small changes however.I''m not dead set against SMALL changes being made if and when they could somehow improve on how things were done in TOS.
Indeed. What's your logic? You literally know as much as we do, and thus far, it points absolutely no where... besides, one could make an arguement that all the time travel to pre-Star Trek times could have really messed everything up. The TOS you think is getting rebooted may not even exist any more. Thus, JJ could very well be making a movie that is 100% cannon thanks to the actions of every series and movie occuring after TOS
A
Amaris
Guest
Yes. A reboot would mean a drastic change. Something you would do by not including a Kirk, Spock, or any classic character without heavy, heavy modification (Spock being a girl or something like that).
Humbled by whom? I most certainly do not consider you any kind of authority on anything. You expand the definition of "reboot" to include anything that deviates from established canon (this ensures that somehow you'll be "right"), and then you make statements as if you have seen clips and scripts and all manner of inside information, which I wouldn't believe if you showed me a picture with you personally kissing J.J. Abrams behind. What you are, is annoying, not because of your theories, but because you post like a mad scientist from a bad Ed Wood movie.
J.
Nero laughs at you.
No, based upon your personal belief that your internal fantasy life inherently defines reality, this is a reboot of the franchise.
Based upon what we've seen, this is a prequel to TOS that also involves some post-TNG elements and is rumored to do so through time-travel.
I keep asking, and you keep ignoring... what basis, other than hallucination, do you have for claiming such absolute certainty.
There ARE people on this board who are friendly with the people making this film. And the folks making the film actually do read the board from time to time (not slavishly, mind you, but it's definitely part of how you track "the buzz" you're getting). Several people on this board who are regular posters have been involved in past, or in at least a couple of cases, future, Trek productions.
None of those people are making conclusive statements. Even those who tend, historically, to make "statements from on-high."
So, once again... explain to all of us why we should listen to YOU. Who do you know? What do you know? Do you have information that the average person here doesn't have, and that (for that matter) the folks who DO know things don't have?
C'mon... come clean. Let's hear it!
Similar threads
- Poll
