That theory is stupid. What settles it back? God?
That theory is stupid. What settles it back? God?
And how unlikely is it that Tuvok will be born? Not to mention any of them- their parents living, being in the same places, having the same children, naming them the same names, etc? It's ridiculous enough for Kirk's crew to have come together exactly the same (but in a completely different way than the original).…
TNG is undeniably descended from the original timeline. For it to exist as we know it from the new timeline is completely ridiculous. Of course, this new timeline is all about ridiculous- they've replaced logic, plot, and self determination with DESTINY (aka fairy dust). But the new Enterprise is roughly the same size…
Good lord! I'm a joke!
"inb4 John_Hazard."
My point is that if it isn't in the movie, it isn't in the story, and it wasn't in the theatrical release at all. The director's cut had ambiguity, but the original release had none- he was just plain human.
Next Gen doesn't exist in the new timeline. If so many things are different 20 years after Nero killed Kirk Sr., how much different will they be 70 years after he blows up Vulcan?
Rumors are nobody wanted to work with her ever again.
There's no debate. There were some scenes filmed to point to Deckard being a replicant, but they were not part of the original theatrical cut. I don't remember if they're in the director's cut, but it was not in the original movie, and the stars of the movie clearly made the movie thinking he was human.
Deckard wasn't a replicant in the movie.
He did the Khan books, right? I love those. First Trek books I read in years.
I just watched the first episode of Leave it to Beaver on Netflix with my girlfriend and her kids. Beaver ran away. They found his lunchbox and his mom said "he didn't even eat his tomato!"
I agree, though The Mummy movies are more silly lighthearted adventure than I hope this movie is.