From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: not@chance.dude
Subject: Re: Star Trek: Am I the Only One?

Mac Breck 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.
> 
> ...or they could quit watching Trek, period, ....which is pretty much
> what I've done.  I didn't watch any Trek between the end of "Enterprise"
> and "Star Trek" (2009) on DVD.  I have no great attraction to Trek
> anymore; I can take it or leave it.  I don't own TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY
> or ENT on DVD except for the Borg Collection (Collective?), which I got
> for the effects in VOY "Scorpion I & II."  When the next movie comes
> out, I'll wait for the DVD.
> 

I didn't buy any of the series on DVD either - I have that Borg 
Collection, as well as the Klingon one, and I bought TOS and TAS for hubby.

But I *did* buy ST: 2009 - at hubby's request (and he's a die-hard TOS fan!)

Natalie
-- 
"Wicked little doll, you have no soul"
(David Byrne, 1997)
http://www.supernaturalusa.net
--- 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)