A current or future series could bring up that while the 31st century thought they were involved in a deadly serious Temporal Cold War, it later turned out just to be some 42nd century kids pranking them. Case closed.
The Temporal Cold War in Enterprise and franchise continuity
- Thread starter Matthew Raymond
- Start date
That just means there was a possible timeline where Michael died, not that this was The Timeline that was supposed to happen.
Besides, ultimately Michael's mother was trying to prevent the timeline in which all humanity and all other sentient races in the galaxy were exterminated, so I don't see why we're getting hung up on whether or nor Michael was supposed to live in the "real timeline."
The Timeline Where Michael Survives is the same as the TOS timeline (barring odd quirks) because the rift between Sarek and Spock was indirectly caused by an adult Michael. If Michael had died, then there is no dilemma surrounding the Science Academy.
Then what caused the rift between Spock and Sarek in the TOS timeline?
Michael. It's the same timeline. If you believe (as many do) that the technology is incompatible, then maybe it was a different version of Michael.
Jokes on you. I'm already cross-eyed.
That would involve retcons and we all know how fans deal with that.
^ Egads, don’t give TPTB any ideas for a Kelvinverse 4th film... they could time travel back to the ‘90s to prevent the Eugenics Wars. Hilarity ensues, along with a direct homage to TVH, being the 4th film for the TOS cast.
Shudder...
Cheers,
-CM-
Shudder...
Cheers,
-CM-
Or for a different twist, try Clint Eastwood.
Infinite universes will change whatever it wants, no matter how tacky. Keeping continuity between so many disparate shows shoved into the same umbrella brand name is like feeding a bird nothing but different colors of rice. Use the urban legend instead of the reality, since so many people do for other things, so why not for this one too. Or giving an alcoholic too many flavors of booze and then he vomits.
But to think, the ultimate case of rebooting was subverted when an incredibly tacky "Flash Gordon" script became that little known franchise called "Star Wars". Oh wait, that's a reason why doesn't do reboots but makes their own universes instead.
For me, I’ve come to view Discovery and Picard as just another mirror universe. Same basic timeline (so they can still “prime timeline”) just tiny little differences. Nothing as drastic as the JJ Abrams movies.
For example, in the Kurtzman-verse the Klingons experimented with Augment DNA like they did in the Roddenberry-verse but they were successful.
but again, that’s just me.
For example, in the Kurtzman-verse the Klingons experimented with Augment DNA like they did in the Roddenberry-verse but they were successful.
but again, that’s just me.
I don't see anything in Discovery indicating this and in fact it seems to contradict T'Kuvma's whole "Remain Klingon" campaign he had going.
As the producer/director of the next Star Trek movie? Yes please.
Except, thanks to changes in the timeline, everybody everywhere says that Clint Eastwood was the biggest yellow belly in the west.
I think they did genetic engineering to remove it and/or enhance Klingon traits.
I guess that would beg the question as to what Archer does afterwards in that timeline.
Does he just wait around until a new NX-class ship is built?
Does the Enterprise XCV-330 get taken out of mothballs and refitted with Henry Archer’s engine so that he can go back out into space?
Does he work in another area of United Earth, like diplomacy?
^ Hopefully he became Head of Gazelle Research at the newly-renamed Federation Zoo, then invited to retire early after the gazelle lodge a complaint about him whining all the time. ;-)
Cheers,
-CM-
Cheers,
-CM-
Somewhere along the line, fans started treating Star Trek productions like a set of data points to be used in writing Wikipedia articles, rather than as works of art to be interpreted and enjoyed subjectively on an aesthetic level. Same thing with Star Wars. It's perverted fans' understanding of the purpose of art, and it's produced deeply toxic behavior.
While there are aspects of that, this sort of viciousness has seeped into other things like the vicious Ghostbusters reboot reaction. And it's not even just on the fans' side, we're hearing now a lot of horrible incidents from people on the productions, like Joss Whedon (more info has come out from others outside of Fisher's allegations, compiled at https://screenrant.com/joss-whedon-abuse-misconduct-allegations-accusations-explained/ ). Politicians around the world are saying and doing things that would have been unthinkable even 20 years ago.
To say that the modern rise of toxic behavior is only limited to niche sci-fi fandoms is a rather odd view to have, and not really supported by the evidence I think. The atmosphere of our entire world has simply gotten crueler. I'm not sure why. And that can't be explained by a few sci-fi fans taking artwork a little too literally (although admittedly that doesn't help either). It's bigger than that.
Similar threads
