PokerPacker Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Renegade7 said: I'll give it a chance, but I agree it should not of been a prequel. More artistic leeway coming after the timeline and more to play with. Like I have zero expectation of seeing the Borg, though that's something I've wanted to see again since First Contact. If they're going to do a prequel, can they please just do something on the Eugenics War? You want a Star Trek show set in the 1990s? Edit: Thinking about it now... that may have been a missed opportunity for Star Trek IV when they travel back into the 1980s. They could have set that time period up as paving the way for the rise of Kahn in the next decade. Edited July 29, 2017 by PokerPacker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 48 minutes ago, PokerPacker said: You want a Star Trek show set in the 1990s? Edit: Thinking about it now... that may have been a missed opportunity for Star Trek IV when they travel back into the 1980s. They could have set that time period up as paving the way for the rise of Kahn in the next decade. Ya, Star Trek timeline is kinda fuzzy because at the time of the show, 1990 was figured a whole lot different then it was if we kept up our space program at the same pace as the 60s. I'd like to see how they resolved the Khan situation, what were the sides in that battle, and how did we really come out of that united enough to even think about star fleet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 6 hours ago, Renegade7 said: I'll give it a chance, but I agree it should not of been a prequel. More artistic leeway coming after the timeline and more to play with. Like I have zero expectation of seeing the Borg, though that's something I've wanted to see again since First Contact. If they're going to do a prequel, can they please just do something on the Eugenics War? Agreed. I wanted a series after TNG that was darker with story arcs that cover a whole season. We're getting darker. But prequel. Meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mournblade Posted July 30, 2017 Share Posted July 30, 2017 Saw Star Trek 3: Search For Spock over the weekend. Hugely underrated movie. Christopher LLoyd (Doc from Back to the Future) is pretty boss as the Kinglon Captain. If they could have just edited out a few of the truly awful special effects (for example the Klingon pet doberman or whatever it was) it would have been a truly memorable Star Trek movie, right up there with 2 and 4. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 30, 2017 Share Posted July 30, 2017 8 hours ago, Renegade7 said: Ya, Star Trek timeline is kinda fuzzy because at the time of the show, 1990 was figured a whole lot different then it was if we kept up our space program at the same pace as the 60s. I'd like to see how they resolved the Khan situation, what were the sides in that battle, and how did we really come out of that united enough to even think about star fleet. Well WW3 still happened sometime after that. It was out of that where Cochrane designed the Warp Drive that brought first contact with alien life (Vulcans) and then eventually from there Starfleet was formed. 23 minutes ago, Keith Huddleston said: Saw Star Trek 3: Search For Spock over the weekend. Hugely underrated movie. Christopher LLoyd (Doc from Back to the Future) is pretty boss as the Kinglon Captain. If they could have just edited out a few of the truly awful special effects (for example the Klingon pet doberman or whatever it was) it would have been a truly memorable Star Trek movie, right up there with 2 and 4. I think Star Trek 3 would have been much better if they retained Kirsty Alley as Savaak. What's-her-face bore no resemblance to Savaak and it was really jarring for me when I was younger. I never realized they were supposed to be the same Character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted July 31, 2017 Author Share Posted July 31, 2017 On 7/29/2017 at 4:11 PM, Renegade7 said: Ya, Star Trek timeline is kinda fuzzy because at the time of the show, 1990 was figured a whole lot different then it was if we kept up our space program at the same pace as the 60s. I'd like to see how they resolved the Khan situation, what were the sides in that battle, and how did we really come out of that united enough to even think about star fleet. Ask and you shall recieve?? Nicholas Meyer developing limited Khan Series. http://www.geekexchange.com/news/breaking-nicholas-meyer-working-on-khan-limited-series/ That maybe far better than Discovery. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 1 hour ago, Rdskns2000 said: Ask and you shall recieve?? Nicholas Meyer developing limited Khan Series. http://www.geekexchange.com/news/breaking-nicholas-meyer-working-on-khan-limited-series/ That maybe far better than Discovery. I guess that explains the rumor I'd just read about Nicholas Meyer working on another Star Trek series. Of course that series isn't quite what Renegade was asking for, as he was talking about the Eugenics Wars rather than Survivor: Ceti Alpha V. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrFan Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Editorial: Spock Having A Sister In ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Is Not That Big Of A Deal 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mournblade Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Khan series sounds awesome (so long as it doesnt involve Benedict Cumberbatch, who was a pretty unconvincing Khan in "Into Darkness".) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 3 hours ago, Keith Huddleston said: Khan series sounds awesome (so long as it doesnt involve Benedict Cumberbatch, who was a pretty unconvincing Khan in "Into Darkness".) I count myself as cautiously optimistic for that one. Nicholas Meyer gave us Wrath of Kahn and The Undiscovered Country. Easily my two favorite Star Trek movies, not to mention the obvious Kahn connection. Furthermore, because it is a spin-off rather than proper Star Trek, I do not feel it is really bound to Gene Roddenberry's principles (not that being bound to them is a bad thing, so much as ignoring the principles on something that should be bound by Gene's vision). It also does not have all that much in the way of canon that it is bound by, so there are fewer opportunities for something to screw it up. If I find out Alex Kurtzman is involved in any way, my cautious optimism will probably give way to just caution. Also it should go without saying, but casting of Kahn will be key. Need someone in really good shape, a big stage presence, and preferably looks either similar to Montalban or I'd be willing to accept someone of Indian descent as that was the original intent for the character as he was original described in Space Seed (before revived) as most likely resembling an Indian Sikh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 5 hours ago, FrFan said: Editorial: Spock Having A Sister In ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Is Not That Big Of A Deal The problem for me is it's just unnecessary character connection that we see all the time these days. Like in the Turtles reboot they have April O'Neal feeding Pizza to the turtles before their mutations because reasons. I'm not even a fan of how Vulcans keep being forced in in general. They saw that everyone liked Spock, so now Vulcans need to be everywhere. Spock being in Starfleet was kind of a big deal. He was the first Vulcan to turn down the science academy in favor of Starfleet, a decision that resulted in a rift between him and Sarek causing them not to speak for 18 years until the events of Journey To Babel. Putting Tuvok and T'Pol in Voyager and Enterprise respectively was just fan-service giving them their favorite alien race. And on the topic of Spock and Sarek being estranged over the decision to join Starfleet, giving him an older sister who joined Starfleet before him really changes the dynamic of that. Now Spock is essentially following in her footsteps rather than being a pioneer. And I suspect the new series is gonna have plenty of Sarek around to interact with who's-her-face. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted August 2, 2017 Author Share Posted August 2, 2017 http://comicbook.com/startrek/2017/08/02/which-timeline-is-star-trek-discovery-in/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted August 23, 2017 Author Share Posted August 23, 2017 The story of how Star Trek returned to TV after 12 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted August 27, 2017 Author Share Posted August 27, 2017 Is The New 'Star Trek: Discovery' Promo Hinting At Connection To Previous Series? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron78 Posted August 27, 2017 Share Posted August 27, 2017 1 hour ago, Rdskns2000 said: Is The New 'Star Trek: Discovery' Promo Hinting At Connection To Previous Series? No hint. It is supposed to take place 10 years prior to the original series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted August 27, 2017 Share Posted August 27, 2017 31 minutes ago, Ron78 said: No hint. It is supposed to take place 10 years prior to the original series. Its hinting at two episodes of Enterprise that focused on the Klingon augment virus that explained why they looked different from series to series. Enterprise took place 100 years before TOS, so it's possible. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted August 28, 2017 Author Share Posted August 28, 2017 This article summarizes why think the new series should've been set in the future; beyond TNG. Opinion: Star Trek needs to look forward again, not keep revisiting the past Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 37 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said: This article summarizes why think the new series should've been set in the future; beyond TNG. Opinion: Star Trek needs to look forward again, not keep revisiting the past I agree with this. Doesn't need to be 100 years later. 20-50 would be enough. I wouldn't mind a little reference to the TNG era as the recent past. Also, don't want it to be TNG Kidz with the children or grandkids of those characters. we'll see. I like the current format for some TV these days. 8-12 episodes seasons that follow a story arc. Maybe Discovery is a hit and they feel like they can do something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted September 7, 2017 Author Share Posted September 7, 2017 They already gave Discovery a second season. ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Renewed For Season 2 By CBS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 (edited) I'm torn. I always liked the whole unknown factor of exploration in TOS. However, I think it might be cool to have a series somehow related to the 31st century and the time travel aspect with that character Daniels from Enterprise. Edited September 9, 2017 by Zguy28 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted September 17, 2017 Author Share Posted September 17, 2017 Here’s the Title of Star Trek: DISCOVERY’s Premiere Episode Quentin Tarantino Prefers ‘Star Trek’ Over ‘Star Wars,’ Discusses How He’d Direct It Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 On 8/22/2017 at 9:05 PM, Rdskns2000 said: The story of how Star Trek returned to TV after 12 years Quote And while the scene with Lorca might sound like classic, old-school Trek, the show will evolve the franchise in ways never before attempted. Discovery (set to premiere Sept. 24) is serialized, for starters, with a greater focus on characters’ personal lives, and with fatally realistic life-and-death stakes. "serialized...with a greater focus on characters' personal lives" is what I don't like about these new versions. They've just turned it into a soap opera set in space. They seem to forget the Science part of Science Fiction. There are no innovative stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted September 20, 2017 Author Share Posted September 20, 2017 “Star Trek: Discovery” Poised for Success – Or It Would Be, If … Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted September 20, 2017 Share Posted September 20, 2017 (edited) So I posted a while back that I was going to watch all the series and movies in order of when they took place on the timeline. Well I finished up Enterprise a while back, actually I loved it. Started the original series and remembered some of the episodes (from watching re-runs as a kid), got through the first season and decided I'd skip on to TNG. I'd already seen all the movies that took place after the OS prior to TNG. Also skipping the animated series. Decided to just watch in the order of the shows, movies at release now. Currently in season 6 of TNG and am really enjoying it. Not sure why I never gave it a chance when it first aired. I watched some episodes of it and Deep Space 9 only because my roommate watched it in college. Can't wait to finish it up and watch TNG movies. Noticing that DS9 starts right where I'm at in TNG (Season 6) and overlaps for two seasons and Voyager starting during season 3 of DS9 and TNG movies being spread out overlapping both DS9 and Voyager, what order should I watch them in? Or does that really matter? Should I just finish TNG and those movies. Then start DS9, finish it. Then Voyager and finish it. Edited September 20, 2017 by Dont Taze Me Bro 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 20, 2017 Share Posted September 20, 2017 Me, I'd stick with each series in its entirety. They actually tried to keep barriers between the concurrent series, so that one series wouldn't constrain the other. So while there might be some overlap in timelines, it's not important to the plot. Analogy:. Just because two movies might have both happened during WW2, doesn't mean you have to switch back and forth between the movies. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now