From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos   
   From Address: dxmm@albury.nospam.net.au   
   Subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness   
      
   Your Name wrote:   
   > In article <1u4vakr1zvmyj.dlg@starfist.thorsfinni>, Lance Corporal Hammer   
   > Schultz  wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 18:36:23 +1200, Your Name wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> If I owned the Mona Lisa then I have the "rights" to draw a moustache and   
   >>> glasses on it because I believe it looks better that way ... that doesn't   
   >>> make it the correct, moral, nor intelligent thing to do.   
   >>   
   >> Very poor analogy.  Abrams didn't use CGI to add effects to ST:TMP and   
   >> then burn the original negatives.  He made new movies.   
   >>   
   >> Abram's Star Trek movies are imperfect but they are Trek.  Not because   
   >> the studio has the right to use the trademarks; but because the   
   >> stories have the archetypes.   
   >   
   > The "stories" (largely stolen and butchered from Gene Roddenberry) don't   
   > actually fit with anything in the existing franchise, and so are not   
   > obviously not part of the existing franchise, and therefore are not   
   > actually "Star Trek".   
      
   United Federation of Planets.Old - Tick.New - Tick   
   U.S.S. Enterprise.Old - Tick.New - Tick   
   Captain Kirk.Old - Tick.New - Tick   
   Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Chekov.Old - Tick.New - Tick   
      
   Yeap, sure seems entirely different to me ... *not*   
      
   > If they want to make a new show / movie ... then make a NEW show / movie,   
   > with a new name.   
      
   They didn't want to make a new show/movie, they just wanted to continue    
   the franchise!!   
      
   > 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.   
      
   So, obviously then, Your Name, you don't count ST:NG, ST:DS9 or ST:Voy    
   as "Real" Trek, because they are from an entirely different time to ST,    
   different crew, different ships, different enemies!   
      
   Oh, hang on, the "Enterprise" used in the original crew films wasn't the    
   same as for the T.V. series, so you don't count them either, do you,    
   Your Name??   
      
   > It's an extremely simple and common sense thing to understand.   
   > Unfortuantely most people are apparently even "simpler" and have no   
   > "common" sense, and most people who claim to be "fans" only see the words   
   > "Star Trek" and blindly eat it up. :-(   
      
   Whilst people like you cannot accept that things cannot change over time.   
      
   Daniel   
      
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp   
    * Origin: TeraNews.com (1:2320/105.97)   
   --- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux   
    * Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)