From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: sdlitvin@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Star Trek:  Am I the Only One?

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Your Name [mailto:your.name@isp.com]
>  Posted At: Thursday, December 10, 2009 12:18 AM
>  Posted To: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
>  Conversation: Star Trek: Am I the Only One?
>  Subject: Re: Star Trek: Am I the Only One?
>  
>  
>  "Steven L."  wrote in message
>  news:T4udnZuhIbWoz73WnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>  > On 12/9/2009 4:51 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>  > > Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
>  > >> On Dec 9, 9:34 am, A Watcher  wrote:
>  > >>> trag wrote:
>  > >>>> On Dec 9, 9:56 am, "Smokie Darling (Annie)"
>  
>  > >>>> wrote:
>  > >>>>> I agree with Ted here. The whole Soran plot was just a device
>  > >>>>> (mcguffin, if I may), the real plot was reintroducing all the
>  > >>>>> characters that most ST viewers "know", and the new
>  interactions
>  based
>  > >>>>> on a certain event that occurred.
>  > >>>> That's not the Kirk that I "know".
>  > >>> 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.
>  > >>>
>  > >>
>  > >> Except, none of them act any differently from the old
characters.
>  > >> Well, except Uhura, who has a huge schoolgirl crush on Spock.
>  > >> Fascinating.
>  > >>
>  > > And yet most of the complaints include something about how the
>  > > characters act _nothing_ like the previous bearers of those
names.
>  >
>  > That's right, the critics of the movie fall into two camps: Those
>  who
>  > think the movie was too derivative of past Trek, and those who
think
>  it
>  > was too different from past Trek.
>  >
>  > My theory is that just the shock of seeing entirely new actors
>  playing
>  > the old familiar parts has unnerved a lot of Trek fans.
>  
>  The shock of having estblished facts simply thrown away has
"unnerved"
>  a lot
>  of fans.
>  
>  It aint "Star Trek". It's simply a money-grubbing exercise by
>  Hollyweird
>  hiding behind the name of the original ... like all stupid "reboots"
/
>  "reimaingings" / "remakes".  :-(

What "Star Trek" really is, was defined by Gene Roddenberry in the Star
Trek Writers' Guide given to all the writers of the episodes.

The details in canon we're talking about were NOT in that Writers'
Guide. It was written in a very general way.  Much of what we knew about
Spock, for example, was *created* by the writers of various episodes.
Most of that became canon *eventually*.

What canon really was, Roddenberry reserved to himself.

Would you have felt better if the movie had been like ST:TNG or VOY:  A
whole new starship not named "Enterprise," a new captain, and so on?

With today's word processors, it would have taken about 1 minute to
rename all the characters:  James Kirk could become John Smith, young
Spock could become young Spoork, the Enterprise could be renamed the
Excalibur, etc.

Would that have satisfied you?


-- Steven L.


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