XPost: alt.tv.star-trek.tos, rec.arts.movies.current-films, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: dtravel@sonic.net   
      
   Steven L. wrote:   
   > On 12/9/2009 2:27 PM, 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).   
   >   
   Yes, the basic concept would work.  If Abrahms had known what it was or   
   used it.  Characters with these names holding the same positions is   
   _not_ the basic concept.   
      
   --   
   "Dude.  They've gone fractal."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)