12-08-2016, 04:40 PM
furthermore, the new star trek 2017, is going to be placed something like 10 years before kirks era.
again! they already did that in Star Trek: Enterprise, and that was a big flop. I dont understand
whats so difficult with continuing in the same timeline of TNG, Voyager, DS9... yet, even the
movies themselves.... go back to the kirk era, and bungled everything up there as well... having to
rewrite a whole new timeline, just to cope with the fact that JJ Abrams never seen an episode of
star trek. lol
I'm just not impressed with the new star trek, and it hasn't even aired yet.
Its one thing for the tv shows, to go "back in time" when they're in the future...
but now they're trying to redo what the lamest version of star trek already did...
they say they wanted to "bridge the gap between our current timeline, and the era
of kirk, so that we can see how we got from there to here"
I don't really care about getting from there to here, lol scott bakula already did that
poorly in ST:E, now I want to go back........ back to the future!
again! they already did that in Star Trek: Enterprise, and that was a big flop. I dont understand
whats so difficult with continuing in the same timeline of TNG, Voyager, DS9... yet, even the
movies themselves.... go back to the kirk era, and bungled everything up there as well... having to
rewrite a whole new timeline, just to cope with the fact that JJ Abrams never seen an episode of
star trek. lol
I'm just not impressed with the new star trek, and it hasn't even aired yet.
Its one thing for the tv shows, to go "back in time" when they're in the future...
but now they're trying to redo what the lamest version of star trek already did...
they say they wanted to "bridge the gap between our current timeline, and the era
of kirk, so that we can see how we got from there to here"
I don't really care about getting from there to here, lol scott bakula already did that
poorly in ST:E, now I want to go back........ back to the future!