[Saquist]

Originally Posted by TriggerMan

Right, which is why his death doesn't change the fact that he didn't want to, and the fact its seldom if ever brought is up is why no one else wants to do a WW3 story either.

There are no FACTS here, Triggerman.
There is only deduction.

For the record:
there are dozens if not hundreds of WWIII stories.
Man is fascinated with the possibilities of the next War.

Right.

Of course it is.
It was logic.

Not my problem, you shoulda figured it out.

I had no such obligation.

Your quote:
http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/...6&postcount=90

"there was a strike that stopped his participation in the 2nd season"

If only your short term memory was as good.
SaQ said. "Not full control." in response to your error. "the same amount of participation"
Try and keep up. Debates do tend to progress.

Right, because as he was alive he never wanted to do it. How you can refute that?

Easily. I don't make assumptions.
You do.
It leads you to many false facts.

Ask Wiki, where you're copying and pasting your uncited information from.

Oh no!...not "un-cited" information on a public forum....

The information that I got was from Absolute Astronomy but it does source the wiki http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/top...ne_Roddenberry

I have been researching the issue on the strike.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Saquist

For the record:
there are dozens if not hundreds of WWIII stories.
Man is fascinated with the possibilities of the next War.

So - what? You want a Star Trek series or film to go way back before everything else and just show a war?

We've established that in general Star Trek only references past events like WWIII in order to contextualise the Star Trek 'present'. It was never designed as something to be shown in detail.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by kevin

So - what? You want a Star Trek series or film to go way back before everything else and just show a war?

We've established that in general Star Trek only references past events like WWIII in order to contextualise the Star Trek 'present'. It was never designed as something to be shown in detail.

I do not understand.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Saquist

I do not understand.

This WWIII stuff and Star Trek - what are you getting at, at the end of the day?

[spock84]

Personally, I'd like to be surprised by what they come up with for the next film.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by kevin

This WWIII stuff and Star Trek - what are you getting at, at the end of the day?

World War II was explored by TOS, by VOY and ENT....specificly....NAZI not Japan....

If you were given a choice in 3 occurences...
would you have chosen to have all three explore World War II or would you like to at least ONCE...to explore World War III?

[janeway72]

Voyager didn't really "explore" WWII. It really just used it as a scenario to hang a story round. It could have been any conflict in history. in the same way as they used the American Civil War in the Q and the Grey.

World War III would presumably require a lot of back story but everyone is familiar with the Nazis.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Saquist

World War II was explored by TOS, by VOY and ENT....specificly....NAZI not Japan....

If you were given a choice in 3 occurences...
would you have chosen to have all three explore World War II or would you like to at least ONCE...to explore World War III?

WWII has relevance - a fictional future war doesn't. Plus several of the depictions were not literal ones, they were alternate versions, simulations or designed as thematic comparisons.

WWIII is not as specific - it's backstory to the future.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by kevin

WWII has relevance - a fictional future war doesn't. Plus several of the depictions were not literal ones, they were alternate versions, simulations or designed as thematic comparisons.

WWIII is not as specific - it's backstory to the future.

I don't understand.
You must be saying that WWII has relevance to reality.
You must be saying that WWIII has no relevance to reality.

But the question is: What relevance does WWII have to Star Trek
: What relevance does WWIII have to Star Trek.

WWIII is Trek history there. I think the relevance is there.

The question is, why don't you like?

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Saquist

I don't understand.
You must be saying that WWII has relevance to reality.
You must be saying that WWIII has no relevance to reality.

But the question is: What relevance does WWII have to Star Trek
: What relevance does WWIII have to Star Trek.

WWIII is Trek history there. I think the relevance is there.

The question is, why don't you like?

It's not a question of don't like - but I certainly have little particular interest in the period in relation to Star Trek personally.

(Apart from the fact I'm also bored to tears by generic future war/Apocalypse stories (Terminator Salvation etc) that have little originality and by-the-book depictions nowadays and I don't think anyone in Star Trek could do a significantly different or inventive take on the period anyway.)

WWII has no necessary relation to Star Trek itself either, but it has relevence for the audience. As does the 20th Century and events and struggles within it that the shows used to engage them.

Why else are so many 23/24th Century characters in Trek so absolutely fascinated by the 20th Century?

It's relatable to the audience.

The 1960s and later themes that TOS/TNG covered were veiled allegories/commentaries on contemporary issues on a variety of subjects. But like BSG were a reflection on the present in a sci-fi setting.

WWIII doesn't really have any of that at this point, IMO.