posted
Any ideas on when the next movie is going to take place. I myself, are hoping for something after Voyager, keep Star Trek moving. What I heard, (Incase you consider this a spoiler)
$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$
At a recent convention i went to, a TNG star said that they were'nt going to be able to appear in the next Series, because of the time in which it takes place, leading me to think its going the be pre-TNG. What are your thoughts.
------------------ "You left spacedock without a tractor beam?"
posted
Maybe but rumors say that it could be a Pre-TOS, Movie era, Post-TNG or a Section 31 show. I will watch all of them however I have to admit Voyager sort of made me less interested in Trek then I was before.
------------------ Predict the unpredictable, but how do you unpredict the unpredictable?
posted
I think he was talking about the next movie, not the next series.
Who was the star that said that?
------------------ "You don't tug on Superman's cape. You don't spit into the wind. You don't pull the mask off the ole' Lone Ranger And you don't mess around with Jim." Aban's Illustration www.alanfore.com
posted
Actually, he was talking about the next movie, then switched to the next series. I'm confused.
------------------ "...I know this board in secret, intimate ways which are beyond your comprehension.... Let's just say that people should *not* be telling me what to do; it should always be the other way around." -"Red Quacker", conspiracy theorist and contemporary lunatic
posted
Does anybody else think that a post TNG show featuring a new Enterprise would be extremely difficult to pull off? You would have to deal with the current movies which would feature an "older" Enterprise-E, which up to this point has been cutting edge. TPTB would have to make the movie goers interested enough to watch a crew who are already outdated by a TV show crew and ship. I find this inherently flawed for some reason.
I just think that two timelines at the same time in the frachise would be a bad idea.
1986: Star Trek IV is released to rave reviews and healthy box office.
1987: Star Trek: The Next Generation hits TV screens. Very little is revealed about the fate of the crew of the Enterprise-A or the intervening 80 years of history.
1989: Star Trek V is released, to damning reviews and - well, let's be honest here, considering it came out the same summer as Batman, it didn't do too badly.
1991: Star Trek VI is released, to. .. oh what the fuck. You get the point?
Probably not.
OK, here goes.
2001: (um heap big year bilong now) Star Trek Series V appears on TV screens. It is unmitigated lukewarm handmade shite that everyone watches only because there might be a new starship registry.
2002: (um heap big year bilong next) Star Trek X is released, and by then we're all so desperate for any decent Trek it does quite well.
------------------ Ross: This is not good for my rage. *takes another pill*
posted
I don't see why everyone thinks having two concurrent timelines is a big deal. They did it wit TNG and the TOS movies, and noones head exploded then, so apparently it's Trekker safe.
------------------ "I WANT A POST VOY SERIES STAR TREK ORIGINAL MESSAGE WAS LOOKING FORWARD NOT LOOKING BACK."
posted
I dunno, there's a few folks here about whom I can say that I'd pay good money to see their heads explode...
------------------ The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
Printer-friendly view of this topic
