XPost: alt.tv.star-trek.tos, rec.arts.movies.current-films, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: your.name@isp.com   
      
   "Dimensional Traveler"  wrote in message   
   news:4b20624a$0$1627$742ec2ed@news.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.   
      
   Not to mention having all the characters at the Academy at the same time so   
   that they could all go joy-riding on the "alt-Enterprise".  :-\   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)