From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos   
   From Address: not@chance.dude   
   Subject: Re: Star Trek: Am I the Only One?   
      
   Mac Breck wrote:   
   >>> Steven L. wrote:   
   >>>  GeneK wrote:   
   >>>>> "A Watcher" wrote in message   
   >>>>>> Isn't a point of the latest movie? Changing their past changed the   
   >>>>>> characters we knew in the original ST. Now they can go on and   
   >>>>>> make new movies based on these different characters. There's no   
   >>>>>> end to it.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Of course that will confuse the casual viewers who are really   
   >>>>>> into ST.   
   >>>>> It's THE point of the movie, i.e., "this is why our new Trek is   
   >>>>> different   
   >>>>> from the old Trek but still fits into canon." But casual viewers   
   >>>>> couldn't   
   >>>>> care less about canon, and for longtime viewers, "this is a   
   >>>>> reimagining of Trek with a new canon" would be probably be   
   >>>>> explanation enough   
   >>>>> for a good film and "fitting into canon" won't redeem a bad one.   
   >>>>> GeneK   
   >>>> This movie vindicated MY position on the future of Trek, which I had   
   >>>> stated here before (check the Google archive):   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Star Trek does NOT require the original actors, nor the original   
   >>>> sets, nor the original ship models, nor the original props.  The   
   >>>> basic concept would work with any actors and any type of ship (as   
   >>>> long as it was large enough to hold a varied crew).   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Critics have to deal with the passage of time:  James Doohan is   
   >>>> gone, DeForest Kelley is gone, and the other actors are quite old   
   >>>> now--too old for any more swashbuckling derring-do.  If a TOS-type   
   >>>> series is to have ANY future, it HAS to be rebooted from a new cast   
   >>>> of actors. Otherwise the only other alternative is to let Star Trek   
   >>>> die off once and for all.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I doubt that Abrams' critics would be happy about that.  If   
   >>>> production of the movie had fallen through for any reason, they   
   >>>> would be the first ones lamenting that "TOS is dead, too bad."   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> --   
   >>>> Steven L.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>> They're *still* saying it's dead.   
   >>>   
   >>> May they grieve in peace, cuz I'm looking forward to the next film.   
   >>>   
   >>> Natalie   
   >> "They" don't have to watch.  They can keep watching reruns of TOS.   
   >    
   > ...or they could quit watching Trek, period, ....which is pretty much   
   > what I've done.  I didn't watch any Trek between the end of "Enterprise"   
   > and "Star Trek" (2009) on DVD.  I have no great attraction to Trek   
   > anymore; I can take it or leave it.  I don't own TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY   
   > or ENT on DVD except for the Borg Collection (Collective?), which I got   
   > for the effects in VOY "Scorpion I & II."  When the next movie comes   
   > out, I'll wait for the DVD.   
   >    
      
   I didn't buy any of the series on DVD either - I have that Borg    
   Collection, as well as the Klingon one, and I bought TOS and TAS for hubby.   
      
   But I *did* buy ST: 2009 - at hubby's request (and he's a die-hard TOS fan!)   
      
   Natalie   
   --    
   "Wicked little doll, you have no soul"   
   (David Byrne, 1997)   
   http://www.supernaturalusa.net   
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp   
   --- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux   
    * Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)