From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: your.name@isp.com
Subject: Re: Star Trek: Am I the Only One?


"Steven L."  wrote in message
news:nc2dneQYJ6XpzL3WnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> 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).


True, but real "Star Trek" does require fitting with the already established
facts, and a silly "reboot" / "reimagining" by definition doesn't do that -
it throws out whatever it wants and makes up new stuff along the way (no
matter how much they try to disguise it with a silly time travel backstory).

Abrams movie is not and never will be "Star Trek" ... it's "new Star Trek"
or "Abrama Star Trek" or other silly qualifers so that people no which
version you're talking about.


--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
 * Origin: Ihug Ltd (1:2320/105.97)
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux
 * Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)