No actual details, but "a completely new take in theaStar TrekauniverseWell, we already had an incredibly bad reboot [1], so one more won't
and is not connected to any previous or current television series,
movie, or prior movie development projects" ... that's usually an
incredibly bad sign that turns out to be a a ridiculous "reboot"
attempt and/or an ill-fitting drivel cash-in exercise. :-(
On Sat, 15 Nov 2025 13:40:28 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
No actual details, but "a completely new take in theaStar Trek
universe>and is not connected to any previous or current television
series,>movie, or prior movie development projects" ... that's usually
incredibly bad sign that turns out to be a a ridiculous"reboot">attempt and/or an ill-fitting drivel cash-in exercise. :-(
Well, we already had an incredibly bad reboot [1], so one more won't
make any never-mind.
[1] Which did, however, manage to show what "wrath" looks like,
confirming that the "wrath" of Khan was more of a temper tantrum. Or a hissy-fit.
On 2025-11-15 16:11:58 +0000, Paul S Person said:Only if you take them seriously. The ST reboots I ignore (having seen
On Sat, 15 Nov 2025 13:40:28 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
No actual details, but "a completely new take in theaStar Trek
universe>and is not connected to any previous or current television
series,>movie, or prior movie development projects" ... that's usually
incredibly bad sign that turns out to be a a ridiculous"reboot">attempt and/or an ill-fitting drivel cash-in exercise. :-(
Well, we already had an incredibly bad reboot [1], so one more won't
make any never-mind.
Except every idiotic reboot adds its own new level of inconsistency and >silliness, so further diluting and confusing the franchise. :-(
You just have to look at the comic books. They've have so many changesI don't read the comics, but the graphic novel /Crisis on Infinite
over the years that now nobody know what "Batman", "Superman",
"Spider-man", etc. actually are any more.
--[1] Which did, however, manage to show what "wrath" looks like,
confirming that the "wrath" of Khan was more of a temper tantrum. Or a
hissy-fit.
Although if they pushed on with the 007 in the last one /and/ returned
to actual James Bond films instead of technothrillers like any others
which happen to have James Bond in them, that might be interesting.
What do we know about the new Star Trek movie?
Plot details are being kept under wraps at this time; however, it
is known that the movie will be "a completely new take in theaStar
Trekauniverse and is not connected to any previous or current
television series, movie, or prior movie development projects.
That pitch falls in line with Skydance founder David Ellison's
recent comments on an earning call where he said the nextaStar
Trekafilm would not be a sequel in the Chris Pine-led series but
something different with new actors. While not confirmed, sources
also add it's likely you will also see new characters being
featured in this version."
In article <10f8i5s$3716j$1@dont-email.me>,
YourName@YourISP.com says...
What do we know about the new Star Trek movie?
Plot details are being kept under wraps at this time; however, it
is known that the movie will be "a completely new take in theaStar
Trekauniverse and is not connected to any previous or current
television series, movie, or prior movie development projects.
That pitch falls in line with Skydance founder David Ellison's
recent comments on an earning call where he said the nextaStar
Trekafilm would not be a sequel in the Chris Pine-led series but
something different with new actors. While not confirmed, sources
also add it's likely you will also see new characters being
featured in this version."
You know, I'd be fine with this approach if they featured
a different ship. It could be interesting to see a ship
in some role other than exploration and first contact.
There are other parts of the history which could be
filled in, as opposed to rewriting existing history.
On 11/16/2025 8:32 AM, Paul S Person wrote:Sorry.
Considering that Dr. No was one of the earliest technothrillers filmed,
Although if they pushed on with the 007 in the last one /and/ returned
to actual James Bond films instead of technothrillers like any others
which happen to have James Bond in them, that might be interesting.
I think you have that backward. All the technothrillers are Bond movies >without James Bond.
In article <10f8i5s$3716j$1@dont-email.me>,
YourName@YourISP.com says...
What do we know about the new Star Trek movie?
Plot details are being kept under wraps at this time; however, it
is known that the movie will be "a completely new take in theaStar
Trekauniverse and is not connected to any previous or current
television series, movie, or prior movie development projects.
That pitch falls in line with Skydance founder David Ellison's
recent comments on an earning call where he said the nextaStar
Trekafilm would not be a sequel in the Chris Pine-led series but
something different with new actors. While not confirmed, sources
also add it's likely you will also see new characters being
featured in this version."
You know, I'd be fine with this approach if they featured
a different ship. It could be interesting to see a ship
in some role other than exploration and first contact.
There are other parts of the history which could be
filled in, as opposed to rewriting existing history.
On 2025-11-17 11:46:33 +0000, The True Melissa said:
You know, I'd be fine with this approach if they featured
a different ship. It could be interesting to see a ship
in some role other than exploration and first contact.
There are other parts of the history which could be
filled in, as opposed to rewriting existing history.
That's what "Enterprise" tried to do .. and failed miserably.
Deep Space Nine and Voyager also tried at and were more successful.
The problems occur when some new idiot in charge starts making up their
own silly ideas that don't fit with what has already been established.
In article <10fg874$1684g$1@dont-email.me>,
YourName@YourISP.com says...
On 2025-11-17 11:46:33 +0000, The True Melissa said:
You know, I'd be fine with this approach if they featured a different
ship. It could be interesting to see a ship in some role other than
exploration and first contact. There are other parts of the history
which could be filled in, as opposed to rewriting existing history.
That's what "Enterprise" tried to do .. and failed miserably.
Deep Space Nine and Voyager also tried at and were more successful.
The problems occur when some new idiot in charge starts making up their
own silly ideas that don't fit with what has already been established.
I had a weird relationship with Enterprise. I didn't look forward to
it, but when I did watch it, I generally enjoyed it. I eventually
concluded that it was a good show but not good Star Trek.
I dropped out, though, so I missed the ending everyone hated.
On 2025-11-19 19:32:38 +0000, The True Melissa said:
In article <10fg874$1684g$1@dont-email.me>,
YourName@YourISP.com says...
On 2025-11-17 11:46:33 +0000, The True Melissa said:
You know, I'd be fine with this approach if they featured a different >>>> ship. It could be interesting to see a ship in some role other than
exploration and first contact. There are other parts of the history
which could be filled in, as opposed to rewriting existing history.
That's what "Enterprise" tried to do .. and failed miserably.
Deep Space Nine and Voyager also tried at and were more successful.
The problems occur when some new idiot in charge starts making up their
own silly ideas that don't fit with what has already been established.
I had a weird relationship with Enterprise. I didn't look forward to
it, but when I did watch it, I generally enjoyed it. I eventually
concluded that it was a good show but not good Star Trek.
I stopped watching Enterprise after about ten minutes (or whenever it
was the first idiotic soft-porn "Oil Me Up Scotty" so-called >'decontamination' scene started. It was patently obvious they were
simply going to sink to the gutter-level to boost viewer numbers.
I dropped out, though, so I missed the ending everyone hated.
Most real Star Trek fans loved the ending (even if like me they never
saw it), because it made the entire show a complete load of nonsense
that can easily be ignored. :-)
In article <10fldsb$2htdb$1@dont-email.me>,
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-11-19 19:32:38 +0000, The True Melissa said:
In article <10fg874$1684g$1@dont-email.me>,
YourName@YourISP.com says...
On 2025-11-17 11:46:33 +0000, The True Melissa said:
You know, I'd be fine with this approach if they featured a different >>>> ship. It could be interesting to see a ship in some role other than >>>> exploration and first contact. There are other parts of the history >>>> which could be filled in, as opposed to rewriting existing history.
That's what "Enterprise" tried to do .. and failed miserably.
Deep Space Nine and Voyager also tried at and were more successful.
The problems occur when some new idiot in charge starts making up their >>> own silly ideas that don't fit with what has already been established.
I had a weird relationship with Enterprise. I didn't look forward to
it, but when I did watch it, I generally enjoyed it. I eventually
concluded that it was a good show but not good Star Trek.
I stopped watching Enterprise after about ten minutes (or whenever it
was the first idiotic soft-porn "Oil Me Up Scotty" so-called >'decontamination' scene started. It was patently obvious they were
simply going to sink to the gutter-level to boost viewer numbers.
Right. Unlike the orion slave girls, mini-skirts & braless yeomen of TOS...
On 2025-11-19 19:32:38 +0000, The True Melissa said:
In article<10fg874$1684g$1@dont-email.me>,
YourName@YourISP.com says...
On 2025-11-17 11:46:33 +0000, The True Melissa said:
You know, I'd be fine with this approach if they featured a different ship. It could be interesting to see a ship in some role other than exploration and first contact. There are other parts of the history which could be filled in, as opposed to rewriting existing history.
That's what "Enterprise" tried to do .. and failed miserably.
Deep Space Nine and Voyager also tried at and were more successful.
The problems occur when some new idiot in charge starts making up their own silly ideas that don't fit with what has already been established.
I had a weird relationship with Enterprise. I didn't look forward to
it, but when I did watch it, I generally enjoyed it. I eventually
concluded that it was a good show but not good Star Trek.
I stopped watching Enterprise after about ten minutes (or whenever it
was the first idiotic soft-porn "Oil Me Up Scotty" so-called 'decontamination' scene started. It was patently obvious they were
simply going to sink to the gutter-level to boost viewer numbers.
I dropped out, though, so I missed the ending everyone hated.
Most real Star Trek fans loved the ending (even if like me they never
saw it), because it made the entire show a complete load of nonsense
that can easily be ignored. :-)
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 19:26:59 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
5 files (8,203K bytes) |
| Messages: | 184,913 |
| Posted today: | 1 |