I've heard a rumour that Enterprise 2001 will be re-named either STAR TREK: FAITH OF THE HEART or STAR TREK: WE'RE LIKE GAZELLES OR SOMETHING.
STAR TREK: THE WRATH OF PORTHOS.I've heard a rumour that Enterprise 2001 will be re-named either STAR TREK: FAITH OF THE HEART or STAR TREK: WE'RE LIKE GAZELLES OR SOMETHING.
STAR TREK: THE WRATH OF PORTHOS.
I've heard a rumour that Enterprise 2001 will be re-named either STAR TREK: FAITH OF THE HEART or STAR TREK: WE'RE LIKE GAZELLES OR SOMETHING.
STAR TREK AFTER DARK: DECON EDITIONSTAR TREK: THE WRATH OF PORTHOS.
I had a thought. Maybe the DSC Untitled Project covers ground that we didn't see in the first two seasons.
1. Captain Killy (biggest missed opportunity!)
2. Prime Lorca
3. How Lorca got command of Discovery
4. What ultimately became of L'Rell's Chancellorship
5. The Adventures of Po! (who should've gone with them)
6. A follow-up to The Kelpians vs. The Ba'ul
7. A prequel on the Shenzhou
The “Discovery” in the listing isn’t referring to the show but the production crew.Maybe the DSC Untitled Project covers ground
You only share links with moderators. Well, I was a moderator on this board for six years.The “Discovery” in the listing isn’t referring to the show but the production crew.
“Untitled Project Involving Canadian Crew Members From Star Trek Discovery As They Consult On The Next Film And Need To Have Their Work Put On Public File” would have been a better title.
This is the Noah Hawley film.
You only share links with moderators. Well, I was a moderator on this board for six years.
If that's not good enough, then send a link to one of the moderators, so I can confirm with them. I have several friends on staff and I've known the board manager for 20 years. We used to be co-mods.
Share your link with someone, even if it's not me, and prove this is legitimate one way or another... Or stop constantly saying this so definitively.
Thank you.
Okay. You're someone who I feel like I can trust at their word.He has shown me some proof regarding Starfleet Academy being in active development and probably set in the 32nd century with Discovery on New Earth. So I wouldn't rule his posts out if I were you...
Okay. You're someone who I feel like I can trust at their word.
You only share links with moderators. Well, I was a moderator on this board for six years.
If that's not good enough, then send a link to one of the moderators, so I can confirm with them. I have several friends on staff and I've known the board manager for 20 years. We used to be co-mods.
Share your link with someone, even if it's not me, and prove this is legitimate one way or another... Or stop constantly saying this so definitively.
Thank you.
He has shown me some proof regarding Starfleet Academy being in active development and probably set in the 32nd century with Discovery on New Earth. So I wouldn't rule his posts out if I were you...
It's always difficult to believe someone who claims to have inside information, when you don't know that person at all, only through the internet. My profession is being a journalist (local news, nothing big) and I try to find as many sources as possible when someone claims to have inside information, to see if I can find any other source or connection to that source/information that can confirm the likelyhood of these 'scoops'.
Personally, if I state something as fact, I don't do it unless I'm willing to provide proof. If I can't prove that what I'm saying is a fact, I won't say it. When I'm posting something, I do it in such a way so that I provide a source so it's possible for someone to come to the same conclusion I did.See, this is what I find annoying and condescending. Said person posts 'inside info' but when pressed for proof, said person states they'll only share proof with mods. Which is bs, because said person then goes and shows another poster said proof privately. So, what, @Visitor1982 gets the benefit of what only mods get, even though he's no different of a TrekBBS member than I am?
(EDIT: This is not a rant against Visitor1982; this is a rant about hypocrisy.)
Just because somebody has privately showed someone else something they claim is proof of vague statements they have made publicly does not automatically gain them credibility, at least in my mind, because there is no way to verify the veracity of what they're providing as proof.
The only thing I can say is that I have seen unmistakable proof that a show called Starfleet Academy is in 'active production' and that it is set on New Earth and called a Discovery spin-off.
Then show us the proof, since you’re not under any obligation to keep quiet about it.
There’s a reason why the press don’t reveal inside sources, so they don’t get in trouble.
I was asked not to. And even if I wanted to, which I don't, Captain Xavi deleted the document he send to me through PM. What I read was official, no doubt about it.
@Visitor1982 is not a member of the press, as far as I know.
I might not have been clear in my previous post. I didn't mean to imply that I wanted to know what your or Xavi's sources were; I just wanted to know what the information that you were given was. As you mentioned before, it's not your problem whether I believe you or not, which wasn't even my point. If someone is going to blab that that they've seen something, IMHO at least they should have the courtesy of sharing that info instead of being all coy about it like that other guy was.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.