From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos   
   From Address: jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com   
   Subject: Re: Abrams' Trek Sequel To Be Released 29 June 2012   
      
   Quadibloc wrote:   
   > On Jan 10, 3:51 pm, "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".   
      
   Sure, an infinitude.   
      
   > The first batch of Star Trek movies still had the same actors in them.   
      
   Now all either dead or too old to star in an action adventure science    
   fiction show/movie. Come to that, everyone said they were too old in 1979    
   for the first reimagining.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Well, it had continuity (eventually) but in mood it was far less close to    
   TOS than the new movie was. The soporific, preachy, politically correct TNG    
   was in character an entirely different show to the 1960s adventure series.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   It's been recast because actors get old and die. Nobody says Hamlet isn't    
   Hamlet because it's not the original cast. I didn't find a new Kirk "hard to    
   relate to". I'd always wondered whether Trek was timeless enough to be acted    
   by different people, or whether it was all Shatner and Nimoy. Now I know.    
   It's the show that works, the casting can change. Discussing the movie    
   afterwards, both my sister (also TOS fan) had the same reaction to Pine/Kirk    
   at the end of the movie; in that last scene he had become Captain Kirk. Very    
   well acted.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   I don't know what experience you want, really. It's a matter of taste. But    
   for me, the general feel of the thing is far more important than continuity.    
   There was little continuity in the pre-fanboy days of TOS, the occasonal    
   mention of a past episode, recurring villains. Kirk has two different    
   upbringings, his brother dies horribly and is never mentioned again,    
   mentions of his previous career make little chronoligical sense.   
      
   I appreciate that the whole "fan experience" is all about universe building,    
   in having something one can treat as "real", so it all has to fit together    
   with this canon preoccupation. But Trek predates that whole idea anyway, and    
   storytelling is what matters, at least to me, not being able to write an    
   imaginary history book. It's all made up, after all.   
      
   > Star Trek: Voyager, although it did have many flaws, was an example of   
   > how to get this balance right.   
      
   It made me yawn a lot.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   I thought it was dull and banal, and so did a lot of other people.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Maybe, but it seems to be a "message" that is only in the minds of the    
   people who think they are receiving it. Of course they're trying to make    
   money out of it; everybody in private sector arts is trying to make money.    
   Roddenberry tried to make money out of Trek too. Shatner starred in it for    
   the money. We live in a capitalist economy (well, shreds of it remain,    
   anyway).   
      
   All that matters, *all* that matters about any created work is whether other    
   people enjoy it. That is it. There is nothing else. Every creator is trying    
   to create something that other people like, and every time they do, whether    
   it be a new series or a reboot, or a single episode, it's a gamble. Nobody    
   can be sure until they've counted the bums on the seats.   
      
   The new Trek might have been something nobody liked, but it turned out    
   pretty good. What mattered in particular is that it had a wide appeal,    
   because there aren't enough fanboy bums on seats to fund such a big budget    
   production. And anyway, as Nemesis showed, even the fans had lost interest    
   in the TNG stylee.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   I'm sure some people would enjoy that. But for the general public, Star Trek    
   has always been Kirk, Spock, beam me up, Uhura in a mini-skirt. The later    
   reimaginings never had the depth of penetration of the public consciousness    
   that TOS did. TOS was iconic. So they were very sensible to go back to that    
   iconic show, rather than continue down the dwindling road that TNG began, I    
   think.   
      
      
   Ian   
      
   --    
   http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com   
   sci-fi comics with shagging in    
      
      
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp   
    * Origin: Zen Internet (1:2320/105.97)   
   --- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux   
    * Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)