From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: fakename{at}nomail.invalid
Subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness



Your Name wrote:
> In article , Al Kaiser
>  wrote:
>>   To: Will Dockery
>> Will Dockery wrote to All Subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
>>  >>
>>  >> The Abrams' films are not "so-called "Star
Trek" movies", they
>>  >> are "Star Trek" movies. Maybe they don't fit
into your blinkered
>>  >> view of what is "Star Trek" and what isn't
"Star Trek", but they
>>  are >> "Star Trek", at least as far as the people
who own the rights
>>  to >> that term are concerned. Makes you, and others with similar
>>  >> opinions, seem very childish! IMHO, of course.
>>
>>> Not only are the two J.J. Abrams films "Star Trek", I find
>>> them to be pretty darn good Star Trek, personally
>>
>> This is where everyone gets into the big arguements.  Are they Trek?
>> Yea. Are they good?  Yea.  Spectacular? Yea.  Entertaining?  Yea.
>>
>> But..  Because the actors we grew up with are not in there, because
>> now they are either "age-ed or dead".  People don't like
it. Because
>> they went
>> with an alternative time line, but mixed in Spock from the old time
>> line people don't like it and say it's not "real trek". 
(Did they say
>> that when Kirk met Picard in the Nexus)?
>
> It has absolutely nothing to do with the different actors. It has
> absolutely nothing to do with being an alternate timeline either ...
> although that's really just an excuse for Abrams and co. to make lots
> of idiotic ill-fitting changes of their own (like, as a simple example,
> Kirk and Chekov at the Acadmey at the same time, simply so both can be
> in the movie).
>
> It also has absolutely nothing to do with irrelevant opiniopns of
> whether the new movies are "good" or "bad" as
movies in their own
> right.
>
> The fact is that Abrams' so-called "Star Trek" is different
- he's said
> so himself. It doesn't fit with the facts established by real Star Trek
> over the many shows, movies, and books before Beavis & Butthead's awful
> first attempt at rebooting the franchise with "Enterprise".
>
> If you're going to put the "Star Trek" title onto something, then it
> MUST MUST MUST MUST fit with what has come before it in the franchise -
> that's the only way it can be part of the same franchise. A franchise
> by definition is a set of fitting, consistent parts. If you create
> something different that doesn't properly fit, then it's obviously not
> actually part of that same franchise and hence, by all "common sense"
> (which unfortunately is extremely uncommon), doesn't deserve to have
> that name.
>
> At best, Abrams' version is a new sub-franchise, which still means it's
> not real "Star Trek". It alos means it splits the franchise into two
> conflicting and messy parts so that nobody actually knows what "Star
> Trek" really means any longer. Franchises like Batman and Superman are
> even worse, with many different sub-franchises all conflisting and
> making a confused mess.
>
> The unfortunate fact is that most so-called "fans" are not really fans
> of "Star Trek" (or anything else for that matter) at all ... they're
> simply fans of a space travel show / movie. They don't really give a
> damn that something doesn't fit and makes a total mess of the
> franchise, as long as it's "good".  :-(




I disagree. The current A.D.D. movie fans don't need it to be good.
....Just about two hours long.

That there are people who liked  "After Earth" is proof of that. 


--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux