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, 8:38apm, "Jaxtraw"  wrote:   
   > 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.   
   > 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.   
   It's true that Voyager, as I said, had its problems, and TNG was   
   indeed on the preachy and politically-correct side.   
   And I also realizing that doing what the hard-core fans want may not   
   be the most commercially successful thing to do - and that, at the end   
   of the day, what's most important is the quality of the work.   
   Paramount, though, is free to start with a blank sheet of paper, and   
   create new science-fiction shows that don't rely on the valuable Star   
   Trek trademarks... but which, by their quality, will quickly earn the   
   same kind of popularity that Star Trek achieved. I don't think fans   
   are being too unreasonable to say that if you're going to use the Star   
   Trek name, you should have some other reason for doing that than just   
   making money off of Gene Roddenberry's creative achievements.   
   Anything new that's Star Trek would, quite properly, reflect our   
   changing times. When the original series was made, although they were   
   trying to depict a more just and enlightened society than our own,   
   they were in many ways constrained by the standards of the times. So   
   without change, as a depiction of the future, Star Trek could become   
   laughable.   
   Even enlightened people, though, get to defend themselves against   
   cruel barbarians.   
   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)