Untitled Star Trek Sequel

Tools    





Sit Ubu Sit.... Good Dog
Khan Noonien Singh, commonly shortened to Khan, is a villain in the fictional Star Trek universe. According to the backstory given in the character's first appearance, the Star Trek: The Original Series season 1 episode "Space Seed" (1967), Khan is a genetically engineered superhuman tyrant who once controlled more than a quarter of the Earth during the Eugenics Wars of the 1990s. After being revived from suspended animation in 2267 by the crew of the Enterprise, Khan attempts to capture the starship, but is thwarted by James T. Kirk and exiled on Ceti Alpha V to create a new civilization with his people. The character returns in the 1982 film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, set fifteen years after "Space Seed," in which Khan escapes his exile and sets out to seek revenge upon Kirk.
Compliments of Wikipedia.
__________________



I LOVED the first movie.... so well done!! I cannot wait for the sequel... any timeframe for its completion...
Sincerely, Star Trek geek!!



Keep on Rockin in the Free World
__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.



Registered User
Not a big fan of Star Trek, but wouldn't mind watching it.



\m/ Fade To Black \m/
Right-wing preacher condemns Star Trek Into Darkness for bestiality



July 6, 2013 – Reformation Church pastor Kevin Swanson recently went on his Generations with Vision radio show to condemn Star Trek Into Darkness because it shows James Kirk in a post-coital bed with members of the “wrong species.” To which we can only respond—has Swanson ever seen Star Trek?

On a June episode of Generations with Vision, Swanson explained that he wasn’t going to take his children to see the new Star Trek movie because Star Trek—and evolutionary theory, he claimed—promotes interspecies romance, which is equivalent to bestiality in his estimation:

Swanson: Do I really want to take my kids to watch a movie that implicates the good guy in the film as mating with the wrong species- but not just one, but two.

Beuhner: Well you know I could understand that Christians would get upset if it was a male of a different species. No actually, I’m not sure that the bestiality and the homosexuality are really all that different.

Swanson: So uh Dave I said to myself we’re not gonna go see that movie. So, you know, you gotta draw the line somewhere don’t ya? I mean, ay yay yay. And how many Christians asked that question? I actually did a survey, I mean I went on to Google and kind of goggled, you know, Christian sites, I mean I try not to put the wrong kind of wording into the Google search, cause if you do that, you can be in a heap of trouble. So I did a little search, turns out there was a Catholic site, had a little forum discussion on the issue. And nobody brought up Leviticus 18 Dave, and of course the whole premise of this is that within an evolutionary construct there is no real problem with speciation and cross-species mating, there’s no problem with that at all, in fact that’s how you evolve, that’s how you get evolution, and so the end result of course is that evolution has no basic problem with bestiality or cross-species mating. Okay? Now some of you are saying that I can’t believe these guys are saying this on this radio program. I can’t believe I’m saying this either. They are going places where no man has gone before. Or should.


http://www.secretsofthefed.com/right...or-bestiality/
__________________
~In the event of a Zombie Uprising, remember to sever the head or destroy the brain!~