> [The following info about Trek XI is a *MAJOR SPOILER*, confirmed by
> two independent sources. You can decode it via rot13--but don't if
> you don't want to be spoiled.]
>
> Ebzhynaf sebz gur shgher, yrq ol n Ebzhyna anzrq Areb, hfr gur
> Thneqvna bs Sberire gb tb onpx va gvzr naq xvyy Wnzrf G. Xvex ng n
> lbhat ntr, naq ol qbvat fb punatr uvfgbel.
>
> Byq Fcbpx (cynlrq ol Yrbaneq Avzbl) svaqf bhg nobhg guvf cyna fbzrubj,
> naq ur tbrf guebhtu gur Thneqvna bs Sberire gb fgbc gur Ebzhynaf.
>
> Byq Fcbpx zrrgf uvf lbhat frys (cynlrq ol Mnpunel Dhvagb) naq jnea uvz
> nobhg gur cyna, naq lbhat Fcbpx nterrf gb cebgrpg lbhat Xvex sebz gur
> Ebzhynaf. Ng guvf cbvag va gvzr, lbhat Fcbpx naq lbhat Xvex unira'g
> orpbzr sevraqf lrg (hapyrne vs gurl rira xabj rnpu bgure ng nyy lrg).
> Byq Fcbpx gryyf lbhat Fcbpx nobhg gur jbaqreshy sevraqfuvc gung ur naq
> Xvex jvyy riraghnyyl unir (lrf V xabj, guvf pna yrnq gb fbzr cybg
> ubyrf gung nf lrg nera'g rkcynvarq).
> ...

> Steven L. wrote:

>> [The following info about Trek XI is a *MAJOR SPOILER*, confirmed by
>> two independent sources. You can decode it via rot13--but don't if
>> you don't want to be spoiled.]
>>
>> Ebzhynaf sebz gur shgher, yrq ol n Ebzhyna anzrq Areb, hfr gur
>> Thneqvna bs Sberire gb tb onpx va gvzr naq xvyy Wnzrf G. Xvex ng n
>> lbhat ntr, naq ol qbvat fb punatr uvfgbel.
>>
>> Byq Fcbpx (cynlrq ol Yrbaneq Avzbl) svaqf bhg nobhg guvf cyna fbzrubj,
>> naq ur tbrf guebhtu gur Thneqvna bs Sberire gb fgbc gur Ebzhynaf.
>>
>> Byq Fcbpx zrrgf uvf lbhat frys (cynlrq ol Mnpunel Dhvagb) naq jnea uvz
>> nobhg gur cyna, naq lbhat Fcbpx nterrf gb cebgrpg lbhat Xvex sebz gur
>> Ebzhynaf. Ng guvf cbvag va gvzr, lbhat Fcbpx naq lbhat Xvex unira'g
>> orpbzr sevraqf lrg (hapyrne vs gurl rira xabj rnpu bgure ng nyy lrg).
>> Byq Fcbpx gryyf lbhat Fcbpx nobhg gur jbaqreshy sevraqfuvc gung ur naq
>> Xvex jvyy riraghnyyl unir (lrf V xabj, guvf pna yrnq gb fbzr cybg ...

> "Jaxtraw" knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
> news:4738ff3e$0$13926$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...

>> Steven L. wrote:

>>> [The following info about Trek XI is a *MAJOR SPOILER*, confirmed...

>Unfortunately it is exaxtly the kind of garbage that B&B would have
>made ...

>Also, purely personally here, I find it quite amusing because My Idea for a
>new series, a "restart" of the franchise when it looked like Trek was no
>more and people were discussing what they'd like to do next if they had the
>chance, was to have one set in an alternate timeline where the Federation is
>losing a looong war against the Romulans-- which began when a Romulan used
>the Guardian to go back in time and waylay Spock en route to the phaser room
>in Balance Of Terror, thus allowing the Romulans to win that encounter,
>leading to war. I'm sure I posted that here at some point. It would've been
>a darker, grittier, more grownup Trek but based on TOS, with e.g. the
>uniforms and set designs being an evolution of the 60s ones. I wonder if I
>can sue? Haha! :)

> Also, purely personally here, I find it quite amusing because My Idea for a
> new series, a "restart" of the franchise when it looked like Trek was no
> more and people were discussing what they'd like to do next if they had the
> chance, was to have one set in an alternate timeline where the Federation is
> losing a looong war against the Romulans

> "Jaxtraw" knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
>

>> Also, purely personally here, I find it quite amusing because My Idea for a
>> new series, a "restart" of the franchise when it looked like Trek was no
>> more and people were discussing what they'd like to do next if they had the
>> chance, was to have one set in an alternate timeline where the Federation is
>> losing a looong war against the Romulans

>
> You don't even need a "restart" to do that. Trek's "branching
> quantum realities" pretty much establish that such a timeline
> probably exists in some alternate reality. All that's needed
> is a halfway not-stupid wrap plot for the pilot to introduce
> us to it.
>
> GeneK

> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 01:35:10 -0000, "Jaxtraw"
> knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote:
>

>> Also, purely personally here, I find it quite amusing because My
>> Idea for a new series, a "restart" of the franchise when it looked
>> like Trek was no more and people were discussing what they'd like to
>> do next if they had the chance, was to have one set in an alternate
>> timeline where the Federation is losing a looong war against the
>> Romulans-- which began when a Romulan used the Guardian to go back
>> in time and waylay Spock en route to the phaser room in Balance Of
>> Terror, thus allowing the Romulans to win that encounter, leading to
>> war. I'm sure I posted that here at some point. It would've been a
>> darker, grittier, more grownup Trek but based on TOS, with e.g. the
>> uniforms and set designs being an evolution of the 60s ones. I
>> wonder if I can sue? Haha! :)

>
> No offense, but that story would be an even bigger dud than "Nemesis".
> At least we'll see real events in the Abrams movie, not alternate
> timeline crap. Evidently Spock is going to be secretly trying to keep ...

> In article ,
> "GeneK" genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:
>

>> "Jaxtraw" knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote...
>>

>>> Also, purely personally here, I find it quite amusing because My
>>> Idea for a new series, a "restart" of the franchise when it looked
>>> like Trek was no more and people were discussing what they'd like
>>> to do next if they had the chance, was to have one set in an
>>> alternate timeline where the Federation is losing a looong war
>>> against the Romulans

>>
>> You don't even need a "restart" to do that. Trek's "branching
>> quantum realities" pretty much establish that such a timeline
>> probably exists in some alternate reality. All that's needed
>> is a halfway not-stupid wrap plot for the pilot to introduce
>> us to it.
>>
>> GeneK ...