[tnpir4001]

Just be careful. When you present ideas that are as incompatible with someone else's project as yours are with mine--ideas that fail those three tests--then, when your ideas are rejected as too derivative, announce that you're forging ahead with a full script, it presents the appearance that you're more interested in pushing your own ideas than you are with the other project. I don't want to dredge up ancient history, but suffice it to say that over the course of producing two elaborate films, I'm speaking from experience.

I'll give you an example--when I was producing my first film, Specter, one user wouldn't stop harping on the idea of using the title theme from Disney's The Black Hole from 1978 for Scene 42, "The Extraction Process," nevermind that that particular piece of music had entirely the wrong feel and mood to it, not to mention it was far too long for the scene in question and couldn't be edited down smoothly. I pointed those things out repeatedly, to no avail.

The same kinds of things kept happening during the production of Retribution. In every case, people were putting forth their own ideas of things that would have been interesting to see, no question, but which had no place in serious storytelling. It didn't take very long before I stopped taking those people seriously, and not much longer after that before I stopped listening altogether.

Long story short, anytime you're going to offer a suggestion for a project--be it Redemption or anything else--you want to make sure what you're offering isn't too "off the wall" compared with the existing project.

A story involving the Q is at least within the bounds of the Star Trek universe, even if the concept you presented is very derivative. A concept that in any way involves Digimon has no business being anywhere near the Star Trek universe. And neither of these ideas are in any way compatible with the story I'm telling.

The Section 31 bit made some sense since it was established in Retribution that they were connected to what was happening there. The difference is relevance.