![]()
Is 403 Forbidden
1.) Concentrating on most the pertinent aspect, it is because different adaptations are not meant to be in continuity with each other.
Let's a perhaps more easily approachable example than Shakespeare. There are Sherlock Holmes books and then there are several adaptations of them. No one is wondering why things look different or why the events do not match up between Jeremy Brett and Benedict Cumberbatch Holmes shows, because everyone understands that they're not supposed to be in continuity with each other, nor is neither in continuity with the books (though Brett version is rather faithful to the source material.) They're both completely independent adaptations. Weirdness with what Discovery is doing is that they're trying to eat their cake and have it too; they're both changing things and still saying it is the same.
2.) Not canon but should be.
Yes, you certainly do your hardest to not get it.so cumberbatch taking sherlock into modern times and using a cellphone (i like it) is okay while the guys owning trek adapting some stuff to modern times is sacrilegious?
trek needs to stay alive but with 60s optics it'll die with dinosaurs like us.
trek needs to be ahead of what viewers can buy at walmart. when 007 (before the reboot) was updated with every movie nobody complained but trek 'toys' need to stay relevant forever.
i don't get it
Trek is still not relevant and I'm not sure if if will if it keeps looking to its past.so cumberbatch taking sherlock into modern times and using a cellphone (i like it) is okay while the guys owning trek adapting some stuff to modern times is sacrilegious?
trek needs to stay alive but with 60s optics it'll die with dinosaurs like us.
trek needs to be ahead of what viewers can buy at walmart. when 007 (before the reboot) was updated with every movie nobody complained but trek 'toys' need to stay relevant forever.
i don't get it
More relevant now than for a long time, and bringing back an actor and a character that retired from the franchise 18 years ago is responsible of it.Trek is still not relevant and I'm not sure if if will if it keeps looking to its past.
Possibly, but I'm skeptical that it matters outside of Trek circles.More relevant now than for a long time, and bringing back an actor and a character that retired from the franchise 18 years ago is responsible of it.
which means jean-luc is some part of their youth, trekkies or notI have more non-Trekkie friends on Facebook talking about Picard than was the case with any other Star Trek after the 2009 Film. Granted they're all in their late-30s/early-40s like myself. I couldn't tell you about 20-year-olds.
which means jean-luc is some part of their youth, trekkies or not
I'm less concerned with revisiting old characters than revisiting old designs. Elderly Picard yes. Elderly SFX, no.
Anyone watch Avenue 5 about a literal spaceship hotel? I couldn't help but think of the D.![]()
letting billions of innocent people die, even though it is totally possible to rescue them is NOT necessarily evil?Picard left Starfleet as a result of a wrong (but not necessarily evil) choice that Starfleet made.
letting billions of innocent people die, even though it is totally possible to rescue them is NOT necessarily evil?
Vulxit would be a long and tiring process. In the meantime millions of lives would be savedWell, a bunch of planets were threatening to pull out of the Federation if they helped the Romulans (like Vulcan). I don't agree with what Starfleet did but I can see why they did it.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.