From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos   
   From Address: jsavard@ecn.ab.ca   
   Subject: Re: Abrams' Trek Sequel To Be Released 29 June 2012   
      
   On Jan 10, 3:51apm, "Jaxtraw"  wrote:   
   > It's always a choice between a different Trek (or any other such   
   > story) or no more Trek at all.   
   There are different _kinds_ of choices between a "different Trek" and   
   "no more Trek at all".   
   The first batch of Star Trek movies still had the same actors in them.   
   Because Star Trek: The Next Generation had different actors, they   
   played different roles. But while TNG did reflect a lot of social   
   changes that took place between the time of the original Star Trek and   
   its day, and it had more of an ensemble cast, reflecting criticisms   
   made of the original series by David Gerrold and others, it was still   
   about a Federation starship visiting planets, or interacting with   
   alien races.   
   Objecting to a movie with the characters of the original series   
   *recast* is not objecting to every kind of "different Trek". It's   
   objecting to one particular kind of difference that makes it hard to   
   relate to the new, different version which still claims to be exactly   
   the same thing. That being said, I think the recast Trek did very well   
   - far better than I feared could have happened - and, given that two   
   major members of the original cast have now passed away, the situation   
   is different than when rumors of a recast Trek _first_ surfaced.   
   The saying "you can't go home again" is true. But there is a big   
   difference between more Trek that continues the story, but with a   
   different starship and crew, and something that tries to exploit the   
   name recognition of the original as much as possible - without   
   actually offering a similar experience.   
   Star Trek: Voyager, although it did have many flaws, was an example of   
   how to get this balance right.   
   The show was about a starship on its own engaging in adventures. The   
   starship didn't have to be the Starship Enterprise. It had new   
   characters as well as actors. So they avoided, for once, the fake   
   premise that, "oh, since _this_ is the starship Enterprise, it's going   
   to be the best ship in the fleet and have the most interesting   
   adventures". This was also avoided in the critically-acclaimed DS9;   
   but that one was too different in other ways to be as much fun to the   
   same audience - Voyager was fun, but fluff.   
   Star Trek as movies only, with new actors in the roles of the   
   characters from the original series... to many, it sends this message:   
   Star Trek is dead, but we can still squeeze more money out of it. The   
   people who perceive it that way may be wrong - the movie did appear to   
   be well-done and respectful of the original - but this is not an   
   unexpected attitude to take.   
   If they could do Star Trek well enough so that a TV series with new   
   characters on a starship not named "Enterprise" would succeed - that's   
   what many people want. But if they can't, then they need every leg up   
   they can get from using as much of the branding of the original as   
   they can.   
   John Savard   
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp   
    * Origin: http://groups.google.com (1:2320/105.97)   
   --- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux   
    * Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)