From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos   
   From Address: YourName@YourISP.com   
   Subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness   
      
   In article <52338D3B.14350.startrek@capcity2.synchro.net>, Al Kaiser   
    wrote:   
   >   To: Will Dockery   
   > Will Dockery wrote to All Subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness   
   >  >>    
   >  >> The Abrams' films are not "so-called "Star Trek" movies", they   
   >  >> are "Star Trek" movies. Maybe they don't fit into your blinkered   
   >  >> view of what is "Star Trek" and what isn't "Star Trek", but they are   
   >  >> "Star Trek", at least as far as the people who own the rights to   
   >  >> that term are concerned. Makes you, and others with similar   
   >  >> opinions, seem very childish! IMHO, of course.   
   >    
   >  WD> Not only are the two J.J. Abrams films "Star Trek", I find   
   >  WD> them to be pretty darn good Star Trek, personally   
   >    
   > This is where everyone gets into the big arguements.  Are they Trek? Yea.   
   > Are they good?  Yea.  Spectacular? Yea.  Entertaining?  Yea.   
   >    
   > But..  Because the actors we grew up with are not in there, because now they   
   > are either "age-ed or dead".  People don't like it. Because they went    
   > with an alternative time line, but mixed in Spock from the old time   
   > line people don't like it and say it's not "real trek".  (Did they say   
   > that when Kirk met Picard in the Nexus)?   
      
   It has absolutely nothing to do with the different actors. It has   
   absolutely nothing to do with being an alternate timeline either ...   
   although that's really just an excuse for Abrams and co. to make lots   
   of idiotic ill-fitting changes of their own (like, as a simple example,   
   Kirk and Chekov at the Acadmey at the same time, simply so both can be   
   in the movie).   
      
   It also has absolutely nothing to do with irrelevant opiniopns of   
   whether the new movies are "good" or "bad" as movies in their own   
   right.   
      
   The fact is that Abrams' so-called "Star Trek" is different - he's said   
   so himself. It doesn't fit with the facts established by real Star Trek   
   over the many shows, movies, and books before Beavis & Butthead's awful   
   first attempt at rebooting the franchise with "Enterprise".   
      
   If you're going to put the "Star Trek" title onto something, then it   
   MUST MUST MUST MUST fit with what has come before it in the franchise -   
   that's the only way it can be part of the same franchise. A franchise   
   by definition is a set of fitting, consistent parts. If you create   
   something different that doesn't properly fit, then it's obviously not   
   actually part of that same franchise and hence, by all "common sense"   
   (which unfortunately is extremely uncommon), doesn't deserve to have   
   that name.   
      
   At best, Abrams' version is a new sub-franchise, which still means it's   
   not real "Star Trek". It alos means it splits the franchise into two   
   conflicting and messy parts so that nobody actually knows what "Star   
   Trek" really means any longer. Franchises like Batman and Superman are   
   even worse, with many different sub-franchises all conflisting and   
   making a confused mess.   
      
   The unfortunate fact is that most so-called "fans" are not really fans   
   of "Star Trek" (or anything else for that matter) at all ... they're   
   simply fans of a space travel show / movie. They don't really give a   
   damn that something doesn't fit and makes a total mess of the   
   franchise, as long as it's "good".  :-(   
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp   
    * Origin: Aioe.org NNTP Server (1:2320/105.97)   
   --- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux   
    * Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)