As well as variety. Something for everyone, rather than straight jacketed as one thing.Again, why? Currently it stands for inclusion diversity, optimism and some pretty good story telling. Which is a key part of the Trek legacy.
As well as variety. Something for everyone, rather than straight jacketed as one thing.Again, why? Currently it stands for inclusion diversity, optimism and some pretty good story telling. Which is a key part of the Trek legacy.
How many comedic series are they going to squeeze out of this sorry excuse of a franchise?
I said it before and i will say it again: fire Alex Kurtzman, he is poison!
Cancel Starfleet Academy, there is still time.
Hire a new creative lead. Think about what Star Trek can stand for from 2024 to 2034. Then reboot this franchise.
We hate new things. Then we love them. Sometimes it takes a season. Sometimes a decade.Why is Trek Fandom so damn negative?
Easier to be negative.Why is Trek Fandom so damn negative?
Negativity works as clickbait.Why is Trek Fandom so damn negative?
What? You think we have too many "good captain" shows, but you want Legacy which will be a "good captain" show?
You don't want TTNS* which isn't a "good captain" show? My heads spinning!!!!![]()
Still gonna be a good captain show. Which was my point.We've been over this (Repeatedly) ...
Seven is flawed. She's good (-ish) now because she has a LONG history of doing some VERY bad things.
To me, she's much more relatable than Pike or Picard. She's not a paragon of virtue.
That’s an odd interpretation of “half hour sitcom”. It very well may cost as much as the other shows when it comes to VFX, sets and costumes. I doubt it will be a three camera comedy filmed in front of a live studio audience.I don't like shows that scream, "We don't have the budget to do anything better."
Still gonna be a good captain show. Which was my point.
That’s an odd interpretation of “half hour sitcom”. It very well may cost as much as the other shows when it comes to VFX, sets and costumes.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was also Trek on an extremely thin budget, what's your point?This may be Alex Kurtzman throwing Paramount a bone ("You want Trek on a budget? I can give you Trek on a budget!")
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was also Trek on an extremely thin budget, what's your point?
Again, you've no idea what this show will cost.There's thin budgets ... and then there's MICROSCOPIC budgets.
Again, you've no idea what this show will cost.
I assume less than an hour long, but probably more than the average sitcom. Neither of which will be “microscopic “.No. But the running theme of Paramount+ is two live action shows, coupled with cheaper to make animated shows. I have a hard time believing they are going to ante up for a third high budget show. Especially, given the finances of Paramount.
Neither of which will be “microscopic “.
It is all relative. No, Mississippi, you can't kiss it...
Y'all is plural.Shouldn't it be "Y'all can't kiss it?"![]()
![]()
Nah, I got the joke. But as a son of the South I had to correct you.
Nah, I got the joke. But as a son of the South I had to correct you.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.