The Founder

Senior Member
  • Content count

    5,011
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The Founder

  1. I have not seen the second episode just yet but the first one was pretty good. Decent pilot thus far. I'll give a deeper review when I see part 2. Although ... no contact with Klingons for nearly a century ...? So ... immediately after ENT they disappeared?
  2. What do you NOT want to see in Discovery?

    Good topic ... I think most of the others touched on it. No technobabble. No technology seen in the later series. No aliens that Picard/Janeway/Sisko made first contact with. I don't care if they would "explain" it away like the Ferengi in ENT. The TOS has a lot of rich lore to explore. Plus, make new aliens. No time travel. I don't mind a temporal anomaly like in TNG Cause and Effect, but I hated how jumping through time became so easy. Although ... I'm pretty sure by TOS they were able to time travel to "study" some pilot or something. Ugh. I love, love, love TNG/DS9/VOY but the humans were too perfect. Make them human again like they were in TOS. I don't want them to have 21st century hang ups. I don't want them re-do episodes from the other shows. I like ENT but they were guilty of this way too many times.
  3. Lots of New Information on Discovery

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/star-trek-discovery-is-in-prime-timeline-apparent_us_59bbe008e4b0390a1564dcb4 Like the Klingon post ... this is another example of ... they could have saved themselves a lot of headache by simply saying "The differences are done on purposes or will be explained." I think what annoyed fans like me was the jarring differences mixed with saying "this is the original time line" but we ain't explaining any updates.
  4. The Klingon Redesign?

    https://www.inverse.com/article/36441-star-trek-discovery-klingons-canon-tng-t-kuvma-kahless So I am reading more and more about how there will be an explanation on why the Klingons look the way they do. Instead of doing more "just pretend ...." stuff like was done before. I am glad that they are. Yes - the cosmetic side of Trek isn't as important as the story, but this is a good thing. I think it was dumb of them to have not started off by saying this was the case. They didn't need to go into details. Simply ... say all will be explained. Could have saved them a lot of headache IMO.
  5. No God in Trek?

    https://uk.style.yahoo.com/series-star-trek-discovery-confirms-091105340.html So .... what is this all about? I get that Trek is meant to be a more secular vision - especially on Earth. I completely agree that on Earth there should be no religious extremism, violence, hatred, etc. But all humans are now atheists? The other shows don't reflect that at all. I hate this for two reasons: 1) This continues the stupid trend that all humans (like all aliens) share some monolithic culture/beliefs. 2) We're at the point that humans are so atheist they won't even utter phrases with "god" in them? That's ridiculous. Even atheists will say "oh god" or "goddamn" or "godspeed". In fact, Neil DeGrasse Tyson got guff for that fact he said "godspeed" and he explained its just an old phrase for "god be with you" when someone goes into potential danger. These are just phrases. This is a minor quibble but seems like a really silly choice. To me, it's akin to when Roddenberry told the TNG writers you can't really mention money and you can't have internal fighting. Silly nonsense.
  6. The Maybe-Im-Willing-to-Give-Enterprise-a-Second-Look Thread

    Yes - ENT shows how the TOS aliens came together and began to form the first steps of the UFP. I feel like ... you should watch season 4 first and then decide to watch the rest later. Like TNG/DS9/VOY, I would not recommend newcomers start with seasons 1 or 2. Just skip to season 4 and you'll get the ENT that you seem to be looking for. I know some people call season 4 one giant fan service but .... the entire premise of Enterprise is fan service. "Want to see how Starfleet started? Want to see how the UFP was formed?" - well season 4 is the only season that will deliver on that. It's not fan service so much as it is living up to the premise of season 1's trailer. If you enjoy season 4 - I'd recommend watching the rest. The Xindi arc was poorly written but there are good moments. You see the early use of the transporters and how dangerous it was. You see how the Prime Directive was formed. etc. There is a lot of material worthy of viewing I think ...
  7. GHOSTBUSTERS Bombs, Are you Surprised ?

    In regards to franchising Ghostbusters - I think it does have potential for more stories. The popularity of the cartoons kind of proved that. I've seen worse ideas given a franchise. The problem is - can it be franchised without Murray, Ramis, Akroyd, and Hudson? If the answer is no - then Akroyd needs to accept it's gone now. He at least got to be part of a cult classic. That is more than most of us can say.
  8. The Klingon Redesign?

    I'm not sure about B&B - but I do feel that Coto addressing it made for nice few episodes (IMO). In regards to what you're saying about the DSC Team - if that's the case? Then I completely agree with you. If they're a "sub species" of Klingons? That sounds like a fun addition to their race beyond the vikings in space thing. I thought it was fan rumor, though. I didn't know this was actually the case. I do agree the rate of advancement of the technology is a bit much. When it got to the point that all energy was renewable - it made me wonder why people had "businesses" or the concept of "fuel" still existed. But the 29th century of Trek showed that starships, inside at least, didn't look all that difference (but I will concede that it was probably due to budget). In that sense, I do agree that Trek needs to slow down a bit. With regards to A.I. - I think that as long as "humans want to boldly go where no one has gone before" - they won't have ships filled with Emergency Command Holograms and Datas. I would expect remarkable improvements. Personal shields (like in Mass Effect or Trek Online) for security officers. Transwarp that will allow ships to travel the entire Milky Way Galaxy. etc. etc. etc. Armor akin to appearing over the security officers: But I get your point - the 25th century would not be without writing challenges as well. You're right on that. I guess I'd rather have writing challenges there than in the 23rd century.
  9. The Klingon Redesign?

    All of the above are fair points and I get what you're saying. It's not a matter of I think you're wrong. It's just I feel returning to the past constantly is tiresome. You feel it's tiresome to continue the TNG-era. I agree about the fatigue with the TNG-era for what its worth. But ... I was advocating a POST-TNG era focus. Not 1 year after Nemesis. But that is neither here nor there. The only aspect I don't agree on is how canon will not be restricted in a prequel era show. It absolutely will. In terms of what technology to use, what aliens can appear, what characters, etc. ENT was proof of that. That doesn't mean, as you said, that DSC can't carve it's own little corner of the Trek universe. It absolutely can. The universe is a big place. I doubt Kirk and co. were doing everything. I'm sure other crews had adventures too. Of course - I want a good story and that should be the focus over "how many decks do Federation ships have in this era?" But I only feel that way up to a point. Tiny minutia is nonsense to focus on. I don't care about rank pips, specific dates, what city Kirk met Bones in, etc. But if suddenly Archer is making first contact with the Ferengi/Borg. Yeah - I care. I'm not saying that DSC will do that, but that's what I mean about canon. If they have a good writing staff, though. I bet the show will be good. This may be one of the best Treks. I have hope. I get what you're saying Justin Snead.
  10. GHOSTBUSTERS Bombs, Are you Surprised ?

    I honestly had no idea he was doing stuff like that or truly believed in the paranormal. That's pretty interesting. It still won't bring back GB. Sorry, Mr. Akroyd.
  11. The Future of the Marvel Cinematic Universe ! Yay !

    Do I smell a potential for FF4 in the future? Maybe ...
  12. The Sir Patrick Stewart Topic

    Well if anyone deserves it ... it's him.
  13. Time travel in the JJverse

    Hah! Well that explains that. Now that Chris Hemsworth is really famous - I heard he will be back in 4. That doesn't necessarily mean time travel but I'm assuming.
  14. greetings and salutations

    Welcome! Glad to have you here.
  15. GHOSTBUSTERS Bombs, Are you Surprised ?

    Ackroyd, to me, is a wonderful actor from that era. Me and my dad love his old movies. But ... he really needs to let go with GB. Besides, I imagine the man has enough money ... ....seriously?
  16. The Sir Patrick Stewart Topic

    I know you posted this a while ago, Mr. Picard, but I absolutely agree with you him and his role in Logan. I always knew he was a good actor with TNG, but he took it to a whole other level in that movie. A wonderful, yet tragic depiction of Charles Xavier.
  17. Time travel in the JJverse

    Who knows? We might find out in part 4 as it is rumored to involve time travel. But it's too early to tell. The "rules" have changed. Apparently going back in time just splits into a new universe whereas before it would impact your own. So I'm not sure what rules they'll go with this time.
  18. Thread for helping us cope with how different Discovery will be

    There is an alternate universe where all of us are Vulcans and logic dictates we wait for a t.v. show to air BEFORE judging it.
  19. The Klingon Redesign?

    To me the change isn't all that radical, though. To me it looks "updated" but all the fundamentals look the same. It looks like it came from the bridge of the TOS show. DSC looks like it came from the bridge of the ENT E married to Abrams' Enterprise. In other words, the visual update doesn't look consistent. I can believe this: led to this.... The disparity between is not anywhere near as jarring as the DSC bridge. I don't know. It's a minor point. To swing this back to the topic of the Klingon redesign ... I think the reason I stomached the Klingon redesign in TMP is .... one that is the Klingons I grew up with and two this was before DS9 highlighted the differences and then ENT explained them. I just don't like how it was all pointless. Unless we find out this is a "sub species" of Klingons.... I think DS9 mucked up by noticing the differences. They honestly should have left it as is. Just pretend the Klingons always looked like Worf and left it at that. But I don't think at the time they were brave enough to re-film the scenes with the TOS Klingons looking like Worf. *shrugs*
  20. Thread for helping us cope with how different Discovery will be

    Ok one thing needs to be said ... The complaints need to be compartmentalized. I notice there is this broad brush approach when it comes to nay sayers. There is a distinct difference between the critics that are unreasonable and ones that are reasonable. I understand to all critics - their particular reasoning is reasonable, but some common sense can be applied here. The people who want this to look exactly like The Cage. A story with those poor graphics, poor alien make up, poor set designs, etc. is not feasible in the 21st century on television or movies. Not unless this was meant to be specifically retro and it isn't. The people who want fan film quality of reproducing old Trek. "If Youtube videos can do it ... why can't a studio?". Because they don't want to reproduce a TOS clone (or so they say). They can't just do the continuing adventures of Kirk staring random Youtube personalities. It's the equivalent of children saying "I'm good at role playing Star Trek on my front porch with my friends. Why can't we be actors in your show?" ... not feasible I've never seen this, but supposedly there are fans that want Trek to be a niche thing. Their thing. They don't want to lose it. "Not my Star Trek -itus". Well ... this complaint is poor, because Star Trek doesn't belong to any of us. And this mindset would be the death of Star Trek. TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT are all gone and ended. If no new Trek is acceptable, then trek dies. But one thing I will say ... I fully understand and support the mindset of "Not my Star Trek" when it comes to mind numbing explosions, mind numbing action, mind numbing doomsday plots. Yes, the original Treks had moments of that but it wasn't all about that. The reason Star Trek rose to fame was its morality tales. Not because of how cool it looked when a plastic toy Enterprise on strings fired phasers at a giant cone-shaped monster that ate starships. Sorry but that's the truth. If Star Trek loses that (I'm not saying it is with DSC) then that isn't my Star Trek. The people that want TNG-redux. Apparently, there is this idea that fans want the continuing adventures of elderly versions of the characters we grew up. I'm sure some fans want to see the stories conclude but I don't see this often. This is a poor idea because most of the actors don't want to commit to another series. Their stories are ended. The studios and writers want a fresh group with fresh stories. Going back to the TNG era cast is, to me, the equivalent of going back to the TOS one. Their time has come and gone. (unless you pull an Abrams ....) If we want to find out what happened to Bajor, VOY-after-Earth, Picard, etc. Read the books or play Trek Online. Having said all of that .... I am a very cautious critic of DSC. I am not unreasonable, because I keep saying I want to try DSC and I hope it succeeds. That is literally the opposite of someone that cannot see reason. Again - that doesn't mean I have to lap up everything this show throws out with no criticism. When I say I want a post-TNG era show - that does not mean I want more TNG/DS9/VOY. That is literally not at all what I am saying. It's not even close. It means I want to go beyond the TNG-era. Not stay in it. In fact - I am the one that wants more serialized Star Trek. The opposite of what that era was. If I am saying I want a jump into the future - that means new uniforms, new ships, new alien races, new characters. Everything is new. New ... but free from the constraints of the TOS time period. Why is this such a big deal? How does that mean that I "can't let go" and want Star Trek to stay with what I grew up with in the 90s? DS9, while semi-serialized, is not what I have in mind. I mean serialized like Game of Thrones. As in events leading into the other. Recurring characters. etc. Maybe with some episodes that are random one-offs. But I don't want "planet/anomaly of the week" episodes. Again .... that is the opposite of "Some people just can't let go ...." I want more Trek fans. I don't want Trek to be just "mine". I love the idea that Trek is a global phenomena. As for the argument of "Even if the studios did everything "right" and jumped in the future.... fans would still hate it." So? Trek fans, like Star Wars fans, love to complain and scrutinize their respective universes. So do Game of Thrones fans. Lord of the Rings fans. etc. etc. etc. It's what we do. That doesn't mean all criticism is unreasonable or not worth paying attention to. If we critics are to be analyzed ... let's make sure we understand what people are complaining about. Don't lump some of us with people that want jellybean buttons and construction paper sets ....
  21. If this is true its a game changer! Whoa!!

    Can they make sure Khan is Indian this time?
  22. The Klingon Redesign?

    I agree and that is why i would prefer a post-TNG show. Not a pre-TNG one. I honestly don't get the obsession with continuing to go back to Kirk's era. I get what Mr. Picard is saying that "Star Trek is best known for Kirk/Spock/Enterprise. They're going back to the familiar." Ok that's fair - but .... this new series doesn't have Kirk/Spock/Enterprise. You literally could have done a 25th century with the same crew, same ship name and design, and there would be zero difference. They may mention Spock frequently in the trailers or whatever, but .... that won't be enough to lure casual viewers. The only "upside" I see to a TOS series is the 24th century was a little too advanced. It makes for better stories when the humans don't have god tech. By the end of VOY, the technology on a Starfleet ship was insanely "god" like. The EMH could literally control evolution ... Another thing I reject is this notion that to bring in casual viewers - we have to make Star Trek ... not Star Trek. Casual viewers don't want all the heavy backstory of the TNG-era. I reject that because .... ALL of us started out as "casual viewers". I first really got into Trek with DS9. That means TOS/TNG and a part of DS9 had already been ongoing. That's a lot of lore. It didn't scare me away. It enticed me. We don't have to keep going back to the beginning because it might "scare off" of casual viewers. Plus, jumping into the 25th century would be the perfect balance. A "clean" slate because 100 years have gone by so everything is "new" but the occasional throw back to the previous shows every other episode if they mentioned Bajor or something. Both sides win... I understand and I don't feel that you're forcing your views on anyone. As you said - this is fun to discuss. I'll address what you said, though. 1) I meant doing their home work on a post-TNG story. That would mean studying everything TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT had created. That is an incredible amount of data (some of it contradictory. ex. the Trill look). I don't think they want to pour through that while simultaneously telling us they are adhering to canon. Look at how angry fans got over ENT's hiccups. There are entire videos on youtube dedicated to all the canon violations in Trek. Plus, it is a lot easier to do your home work when all you have to do is "respect" ENT/TOS. The only TNG-era stuff they have to "study" is make sure no Borg ships pop up. 2) Ok - here I vehemently agree with all due respect. I, for one, am not calling for the adventures of geriatric Admiral Riker on the refit Enterprise (with the three nacelles). In fact, I think the crews in TNG/DS9/VOY had beautiful endings to their stories. I wouldn't want that ruined by seeing them in random adventures... (cameos are different beast, though). When I say continue to lore - I mean go beyond what has already been established. Why go back and retread old stories? The way the Trek universe was left post-VOY is actually a mine field of stories. The Romulan Star Empire has fallen. Imagine the refugee story you can get out of that idea that mirrors the current refugee crisis in our own world. Or what if Earth nearly falling to the Dominion/Borg nearly caused a political upheaval that led to a controversial UFP President that mirrors Trump or Putin. The Klingon Empire is all but dead. Is decolonization going to happen on their conquered worlds? Could VOY's transwarp technology finally open the entire Milky Way Galaxy to the UFP? I can think of tons of ideas for good stories that mirror our own culture today from the 24th century. It is peculiar you think there is nothing left to say in that era or beyond it. What is there to say in the 23rd century? Some extra random side missions by a new crew? That isn't any different than a random new crew in the 25th century. If they are truly adhering to canon, outside of the visual sense, that limits the stories that can be said because then they can't contradict what is shown on TOS ... How in the world can these writers think or imply that it's a blank page in the TNG-era but a plethora of opportunities in the TOS era? No offense, but that makes no sense. Especially if you are working with something as debilitating as canon (which the showrunners, per Sehlat Vie, said they would). If anything, their hands will be tied now. The one thing I find confusing is ... you say reboot is a bad idea because you love the lore of Star Trek. But then you say that lore doesn't lead to writing opportunities. Let's just go back to the 23rd century that is visually virtually nothing like TOS era. That seems to be contradicting. 3) I don't want sets that are exactly like the 60s. I've said that. I am just saying that visual updates are a little bit trickier in Trek considering that TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT all implied that TOS did look the way it did. As jarring as it was. As implausible as it may be. But I am personally fine with visual rebooting it. I got over it with Abramsverse. I wish, at least, they could have kept the uniforms. Even Abrams did that .... but oh well. 4) I agree conceptual canon is always more important than updating the visuals. I agree 100%. Who cares if the phaser fire looks more "real" now and not as "silly" as the 60s version? You're right. Conceptual canon is far, far more important. But the reason I am on the edge of that is ... I don't want to give too much license to "visual" updates because they're going to completely butcher everything and say "cmon ... focus on the concept." No - some things are uniquely Star Trek and should just be "updated" not completely transformed. Again - the uniforms ... That's great. Thank you for sharing that. Their arguments are poor though no? TMP and TWOK changed from TOS because it took place years later .... Not years before. I agree with you that Kirk/Spock/Enterprise is Star Trek. Even with all the other Treks (including games, toys, novels, etc). However .... this new show is none of those. Fans will figure that out fast. Sarek cameos or not. Having this new main character playing Spock's sister is no different from making a new main character in the 25th century that is Spock's descendant. The nostalgia won't go far when the things you are saying will lure the common person to a new Trek series is no where to be found. At least Abrams had some version of Kirk/Spock/Enterprise. Also, TNG has already proven that Star Trek can be a commercial success without Kirk/Spock/(and that)Enterprise. This ship should have already sailed. The vast majority of us 90s children became Trek fans off of TNG/DS9/VOY. Not TOS. I appreciate TOS now because it is really great, but as a kid I found it boring. It wasn't until I saw the alien DS9 and all the wonderful aliens on the station that I got pulled in. I didn't need Kirk/Spock/Enterprise when I was a casual viewer. I'm sure plenty of casual viewers don't need to TOS era to become fans and I reject the studios' notion. You're right, of course. It's funny how much you get it. Yet you don't cite yourself as a traditional Star Trek fan. This is so on point. But isn't this a matter of opinion? I would very much prefer, not necessarily spin-offs to those shows, but something different from the TOS-era. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ One more thing I want to say that is slightly separate to the discussion above ... 1) I don't agree with the notion of "Trek has had tons of canon violations before." to excuse away any future ones. To me that is compounding one error with even more. Which brings me to my next point... 2) Why does canon matter? Because Trek is meant to be a coherent universe. If Trek was always like the TOS show. A Twilight Zone/Tales From the Crypt/Law and Order type show? Where each episode isn't connected. It's just a morality play set in space to make us look at ourselves. If that was all Star Trek was? Then I would absolutely agree "who gives a flying fig nut about canon?" It wouldn't matter. But unfortunately for Trek, there has been consistency. We have ideas leading to another. Ex: Worf helped Gowron on the throne. Gowron was on the throne during the Dominion War. Martok gained the throne from Gowron's death. Period. Consistency. Yes, Trek has no been perfect, but I'm not talking about stupid wardrobe errors. "Tuvok had Lt. J.G. pips on in one scene! He's an Lt. Commander!!!!!!!!!!! CANON VIOLATION!". That is clearly stupid and no one should care. We all know very well we mean actual consistency. If Sisko made first contact with the Dominion. I don't want to see Archer, Kirk, or Michael doing it. Period. "But WHY does it matter? We got a good story out of it. Focus on that." Because a coherent universe makes an amazing world. Look at the posters here who reject my idea of rebooting Trek in the traditional sense. Because they love the universe that has been built up. Been strung together. Has impacted stories, characters, ships, etc. We all love that. I don't want a Star Trek that is the crew battling alien freak-of-the-week or escaping anomaly-of-the-week. I want consistency. I want character growth. I want stories that start small and build into something bigger.
  23. The Klingon Redesign?

    You perfectly wrote exactly how I feel. That is exactly how I feel about all of it. From agreement that this is a cheap attempt to lure old fans to even how some nay-sayers have good points and others are just whiny nit-pickers. I get the strategy behind trying to get us to come back to Trek. It's a smart one. But my principle concern is how utterly pointless it was to hit our nostalgia button if .... the show looks nothing like the Cage-era. I get that they are not going to seriously do a show where jelly beans are the buttons on the control. I am fine with that. It doesn't even look like an updated version of the Cage or circa that era. It honestly looks like ENT meets Kelvin-era. Which is fine by me. It would have made way more sense to do a Kelvin-era show. Why not? They made it such a stubborn point that this is the prime time line and then made something that looks nothing like it. It makes no sense. In any other show - literally any other show - I wouldn't have cared. The reason it is so jarring to me is because the other shows painfully, meticulously, in full detail, made it a point to show that the TOS era .... really did look like that. As goofy, pseudo-steam punkish, "primitive" as it was - the other shows in stark detail rebuilt those sets for TNG, ENT, and DS9. The whole idea of "pretend it always really looked like STD." makes no sense to me in Star Trek. It's funny you brought up ENT because I feel a lot of regret for how I treated it when it started. Say what you will about ENT - it did try to stick to canon. It just skirted that line (and at times skipped over it). I completely agree that this is so pointless. They clearly have their own take on Trek they want to pursue (which is completely fine). Go for it. My version of Trek is out dated. I completely agree. Hell, even DS9's alien techology looks outdated. But why bother forcing this idea that this IS the prime time line and there is virtually nothing familiar with it. So all this time Spock had a sister? I know, I know. Star Trek V did that with his brother. Yeah and last I checked ... most people HATED that. It just makes no sense. Between Abram's convoluted black hole time travel and this? It is so obvious that the intense lore of Trek built by TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT is intimidating to writers. They don't want to wade through article after article on Memory Alpha to ensure they have canon. (which is why the smarter idea would be to jump 100 years after Nemesis. That way they can have the most advanced tech they want, new aliens, new uniforms, new ships, etc). But oh well.... Hopefully the show will be good ..... Let me not make the same mistake I made with ENT. I'm giving Discovery a chance. I think, the one thing I will applaud Abrams for is this - he helped me let go of my old Trek. It ain't coming back but watch this newer, "edgier" Trek. Well ... here we go. I'm embarrassed to say I was one of those fans - in a way. I didn't literally think it would disappear. haha but when Abramsverse came out and they said it was like a soft reboot over the original time line. I literally did feel that this was the end of Trek (as I knew it). So it made me feel sad I'd never get answers to what happened to TNG/DS9/VOY post-Nemesis (outside of the novels). But I've come to peace with that. (as over dramatic as that sounds haha) It would mean closure for old Trek. It would mean giving the writers the freedom to write whatever they'd like free of any backlash (well .... Trek fans always unleash backlash but ... a smaller portion of it). It would mean "updating" Trek to fit with what we know of technology. It would mean losing the focus on all the "changes" and putting it where it belongs: on the story and the characters. I think it would be really good if the old Trek was put to a close after decades of amazing stories and characters. Why not start anew? Necessary might not be the right word. But it seems like that is what they want because Abramsverse and (seemingly) DSC are soft reboots in all but name only. It it obvious by how the writers stay away from the TNG-era like a plague. It's obvious they don't want to continue the rich story set there. They keep hiding behind a revamped version of Kirk's era. They want new uniforms, new look for aliens, newer looking technology, etc. They clearly want a reboot but fear doing it because of how it will anger fans. Axanar - whatever it was going to be - looked "updated" and "new" (as new as a fan film will allow) but still seemed true to the original. No, I am not advocating constantly rebooting every single spin off going forward with DSC. I agree with you that it would break the really expansive, rich lore you get from a shared universe. But I think due to how "outdated" TOS and TNG eras are - it might be best to just start with a fresh slate. Again - why not? They're doing it in every possible way except in name only. You have to ask yourself this: if they are fighting hard to do a "prime time line" story - why does it look nothing like the original universe? Why do they always run back to hide in Kirk's era? Because they don't want to push beyond TNG-era. Too much work for them. And for the record: I am not one of those unreasonable fans that want jelly bean buttons, terrible alien make up, and the ship held up on string. But nothing about this looks like Trek prime time line. Nothing. It's one thing if they updated it but it still feels slightly like the Cage but I see nothing recognizable from it. To be fair - I am going off of quick flashes in a trailer. It's why I'd rather watch the show before really judging it. But ... I have very little else to go off of at this point in the discussion. As Mr. Picard said - this has been an ongoing "battle" since ENT. Then onto Abramsverse. Now this. You'd think they would be tired of the mine field of canon and just start new.
  24. The Future of the Marvel Cinematic Universe ! Yay !

    Sorry. I didn't mean to spoil anything. Go see it. I think you'll enjoy it. It's certainly not a bad film and it was an impressive way of introducing such a big Marvel character in the middle of all these movies.