Best Trek.* Laughs in "James R. Kirk" *
* Raises eyebrow in "Vulcanian"*
Plus breaking the time warp again..
"Star Trek Begins" - The 'Origins' Film Discussion
- Thread starter TerryTrek
- Start date
Plus breaking the time warp again..
Like Data graduating from Starfleet Academy a decade in the future?
Yes. And that in the event of a water landing he was designed as a floatation device.
Much be an optional feature given how he just sinks in Insurrection and references not being buoyant enough in Descent.
Sometimes they just forgot stuff. IIRC that's what happened to James R. Kirk. Or WNMHGB is a different universe.
You're telling me this isn't a historically accurate presentation about people in the future?Sometimes they just forgot stuff. IIRC that's what happened to James R. Kirk. Or WNMHGB is a different universe.
This changes everything!
It's just a blueprint.
It's just a jump to the left...
Wasn't it going to shoot in the UK? Although I don't know if it's had an official green light yet. Perhaps the merger has had an impact?
The report in November was that Kinberg was working on the script with production slated for the first half of 2025, not necessarily January.
The report in November was that Kinberg was working on the script with production slated for the first half of 2025, not necessarily January.
The fires do not play a role at all in this movie's production not having started.
For the love of Q's dick, NO! MORE! PREQUELS!
Unless it's about the Eugenics Wars.
Unless it's about the Eugenics Wars.
I'd rather have a million prequels than spend a single second imagining Q's dick.
Plus, everything in the 23rd, 24th or 25th century is technically a prequel now, anyway.
No one thinks of Picard as a prequel, just like how the Legion of Super-Heroes comic being set in the 31st century doesn't mean that Batman, Superman and everything else is a prequel.
You can choose to think of them that way or not to think of them way. But the exact the exact same thing is true of anything set in the 21st or 22nd centuries. All of them now share the same situation of the audience knowing what lies in their future, regardless.
It works to an extent, but The Original Series should be the baseline. It's the original work that all others have sprouted from, so how a prequel or sequel is determined should always take that into account.
Unless a show is explicitly stated to be a prequel to Starfleet Academy, then it should really be treated as a sequel to Star Trek. Unless its set before, ofc.
An example is Better Call Saul. Its a Breaking Bad prequel, not an El Camino prequel. You can get away with calling it an El Camino prequel, but you'd get a lot of funny looks
Unless a show is explicitly stated to be a prequel to Starfleet Academy, then it should really be treated as a sequel to Star Trek. Unless its set before, ofc.
An example is Better Call Saul. Its a Breaking Bad prequel, not an El Camino prequel. You can get away with calling it an El Camino prequel, but you'd get a lot of funny looks
I think it depends on what the project is following on from and if it's setting anything up. Like Star Trek 6, that's definitely a sequel, even if the events had been mentioned already in Unification. Lower Decks is a sequel, as it's entirely focused on what was established in previous shows. Prodigy is a sequel to Voyager. Strange New Worlds is a prequel, as it stars half the cast of TOS and features stories we already know the outcome to (Spock's relationships, Pike's injury etc).
If one's concern is about whether a new show has an actual narrative or symbolic relationship to an existing show, whether the term prequel is appropriate depends entirely on the individual series, not on arbitrary rules like the above.
If one's concern is purely about clearly communicating the relative timeline, such a rule is more defensible but still entirely abitrary. And with a franchise so spread out across time, actual clarity would be better served by just saying the date rather than calling anything a prequel or a sequel.
If one's concern is about defending the place of pride of one series as the keystone all others must be judged against, that's just dumb, especially in the context of trying to argue that prequels are inherently bad and sequels inherently better.
I agree with some of this, hence why a Picard SEQUEL is not going to be a Discovery PREQUEL, no matter what technicalties are brought into this. Picard is a sequel to TNG, which is a sequel to TOS.
Ok. I can't see it happening that way, but that's one way to do it.
Doesn't apply in this case, those arguments are for elsewhere.
