XPost: alt.tv.star-trek.tos, rec.arts.movies.current-films, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: not@chance.dude   
      
   A Watcher wrote:   
   >> Steven L. wrote:   
   >>  GeneK wrote:   
   >>>> "A Watcher" wrote in message   
   >>>>> Isn't a point of the latest movie? Changing their past changed the   
   >>>>> characters we knew in the original ST. Now they can go on and make new   
   >>>>> movies based on these different characters. There's no end to it.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Of course that will confuse the casual viewers who are really into ST.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It's THE point of the movie, i.e., "this is why our new Trek is   
   >>>> different   
   >>>> from the old Trek but still fits into canon." But casual viewers   
   >>>> couldn't   
   >>>> care less about canon, and for longtime viewers, "this is a reimagining   
   >>>> of Trek with a new canon" would be probably be explanation enough   
   >>>> for a good film and "fitting into canon" won't redeem a bad one.   
   >>>> GeneK   
   >>>   
   >>> This movie vindicated MY position on the future of Trek, which I had   
   >>> stated here before (check the Google archive):   
   >>>   
   >>> Star Trek does NOT require the original actors, nor the original   
   >>> sets, nor the original ship models, nor the original props.  The   
   >>> basic concept would work with any actors and any type of ship (as   
   >>> long as it was large enough to hold a varied crew).   
   >>>   
   >>> Critics have to deal with the passage of time:  James Doohan is gone,   
   >>> DeForest Kelley is gone, and the other actors are quite old now--too   
   >>> old for any more swashbuckling derring-do.  If a TOS-type series is   
   >>> to have ANY future, it HAS to be rebooted from a new cast of actors.   
   >>> Otherwise the only other alternative is to let Star Trek die off once   
   >>> and for all.   
   >>>   
   >>> I doubt that Abrams' critics would be happy about that.  If   
   >>> production of the movie had fallen through for any reason, they would   
   >>> be the first ones lamenting that "TOS is dead, too bad."   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> --   
   >>> Steven L.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> They're *still* saying it's dead.   
   >>   
   >> May they grieve in peace, cuz I'm looking forward to the next film.   
   >>   
   >> Natalie   
   >   
   > "They" don't have to watch.  They can keep watching reruns of TOS.   
      
   But apparently some can't do that without bashing those of us who liked   
   ST: 2009.   
      
   Natalie   
   --   
   "Wicked little doll, you have no soul"   
   (David Byrne, 1997)   
   http://www.supernaturalusa.net   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)