Star Trek Discovery. [SPOILERS WITHIN]

Khhhhaaaaannnnn


http://www.geekexchange.com/news/breaking-nicholas-meyer-working-on-khan-limited-series/

Given that you can't even spell Neil's name correctly, I think it's understandable why someone 200 years from now might have problems with stuff that happened in the 20th and 21st centuries.

We have a general knowledge about life in the past, but there's a whole lotta specific details that most of us don't know. And if we were relocated to the past would have to quickly learn, just to be able to function. The popularity of hats in the 19th century is thought to have more to do with the risk of getting shat on by flocks of passenger pigeons, than fashion.

Additionally, just because we discuss an issue one way today, doesn't mean that future generations will have the same perspective on the subject as we do.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/06/tom-cruise-the-mummy-control/amp

TLDR: Tom Cruise has a level of control over his movies that pretty much no one else does.

And I'm at a loss for what could take that power away from him.
If he ate a baby, while fucking a baby, while giving birth to a baby, it would only make him box-office poison here in the states, the international market would still love him.

I don't know why he couldn't have let Mummy be straight horror for the Halloween season, he did horror before in "Interview With The Vampire".

Yeah, but that movie made him gay.

Top Gun made him gay.

Paramount shouldn't have planned a monster movie universe.

there's no evidence of a trans character and having a gay character is hardly revolutionary at this point.

Also, obviously we can't assume absence of all reference to religious mythology since the whole franchise is littered with it. Sounds like some over-zealous intern frankly.
if I have a concern over this serious it's whether or not they are going to - as DS9 did, find the proper balance between heavy themes and basic Federation "optimism" - the material so far seems to lean towards the "dark" but that's what advertising people seem to think sells now-a-days

well to be fair, these guys are a sub-faction of Klingons, not "typical" Klingons so there's some sense in making them allegorical to a sub-faction political group rather than a nation state.

Is there an interview or article out there abou them being a sub-faction?

It seems like they are changing things up just cuz they can.

They should give the Vulcans four eyes while they are at it.

They don't seem to care about canon anyway.

I doubt any of them have seen TOS at all and are basically just paying lip service to it. This "no god" rule is probably their way of keeping in line with that sanctimonious speech Picard gave in "Who Watches the Watchers." Honestly I think for a lot of people, Star Trek started with season 3 of TNG.

We should all know who Noel Armstrong is! God bless that man. What a hero.

(P.S. - who the fuck is Noel Armstrong?)

(He wrote "Zat You, Santa Claus?")

Janice Lester was the first trans in Trek.

Why would Star Fleet teach Earth history to it's officers?

I don't expect everyone in Star Fleet to know who was the first human to land on the moon. Just as I don't expect them to know who was the first *literally insert any species from Star Trek here* to fly off the home planet and land on a moon or another planet.

I do expect humans from Earth to know it simply because it would be something taught in schools as part of history. Before the student joined Star Fleet.

The Warp Drive would be something where you would expect Star Fleet to teach about it's creators because it's had so many creators and Warp Drive is important to Star Fleet. But the first human to fly? Land on the moon? Trivial Pursuit stuff by the time the 23rd Century rolls around.

It's a fucking typo, dick face.

That's a pretty big typo, poopy pants.

"Noel" isn't even close to "Neil" on the Google/iOS keyboard typo scale.

That's pretty idiotic.

'God' is part of the vernacular, and is used as such by agnostics and atheists, so I'd expect the phrase to continue even if religion faded away to nothing.

As any fule kno, Noel Armstrong, along with Buzz Lightyear and Michelle Collins brought back the first slice of lunar cheddar, thus proving the Moon was made of cheese.

It is when you're at work and have to type quickly on your phone as was the case when I wrote it.

They're keeping a lot under their hat, but there is this.

It looks like they're expanding upon the different houses of Klingons, so it's less like a heraldic house and more to do with creed.

I'll see what they actually do with it before I pass judgement.

What a cop out.

Boredom.

My point:
http://trekmovie.com/2017/07/31/edi...tar-trek-discovery-is-not-that-big-of-a-deal/

if you had any idea how many times I watched that episode and wished more than anything such a machine would be invented. It is quite literally one of the constants of my childhood in the 70's

http://ew.com/tv/2017/07/28/bryan-fuller-star-trek-discovery/
oh wat might have been

Still, there is an intriguing theory postulated by a youtuber. Nick Meyer is said to be working on "another Star Trek project" so, the speculation goes, possibly they have him working on a fallback option that they can shift to as the "second chapter of the always planned anthology" if Discovery doesn't go over well. It may be a bit conspiratorial but, given the bad feedback CBS is getting it's not impossible that some suits have reverted to "how the fuck do we get out of this mess?" mode.

Nevermind how the idiots could have missed the potential profitability of a far-flung multi-generational franchise platform.

It almost sounds if they are going to do a secret reboot and wipe out all previous incarnations of Star Trek.

Because it's fucking stupid to have Spock have a human sister.

Just as it was dumb for Spock to have a brother named Sybok in Star Trek V. Not exactly the height of Star Trek films.

And I'd ad-lib the word God into everything. I'd make them fire me.

there is literally NO on-screen reason to suppose that Burnham could not be Spock's foster/adopted sister without breaking canon. None.

If folks want to argue that they don't like the touchstones which link various Trek properties into the same narrative universe...didn't like Spock in Unification, for example, or DS9 references to Kirk yadayada. Fine, opinions are just opinions. But the sister thing isn't WRONG (canonically) just because in your opinion it was a poor choice and there are plenty of more important things to be worried about with this show