From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: YourName{at}YourISP.com (Your Name)
Subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

In article , Lance Corporal Hammer
Schultz  wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:16:41 +1200, Your Name wrote:
> 
> > If they want to make a "Star Trek" show, then it MUST
fit with what has
> > come before, and not via same lame, half-assed time travel excuse that
> > doesn't work thanks to all the other silly changes and inconsistencies.
> 
> Yeah, cuz Trek has never had inconsistent time travel / alternate
> universe stories in it, ever ever.
> 
> Whatever.  You don't actually even know if you don't like it because
> you won't watch it.  

You don't actually have to watch something to know it's garbage ... that's
what reviews, trailers, etc. are for. 

You don't have to watch something to know it doesn't fit properly with the
established franchise ... that's what the people making it say "it's
different" is for. In fact that's what the terms "reboot",
"remake", and
"reimaginging" mean - lots of silly changes that mean it doesn't fit with
what has come before.  :-\



> I, on the other hand, watched it and decided I
> can easily make space for yet another alternate dimension in the Trek
> multi-canon for this re-boot.  The pre-movie graphic novel with
> LaForge (Countdown to Darkness) is no less "plausible" in a Trek sense
> than any of the other innumerable reset-button plots that have
> preceded it.  Works for me.

Having Chekov and Kirk both at the Academy at the same time is not an
"inconsistent time travel / alternate universe story", it's plain
ludicrous stupidity by a lazy talentless twit who doesn't know anythig
about real "Star Trek".
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux