Cary L. Brown said:
Ultimately, this is going to result in the new movie being treated much like the "Lost in Space" movie... as a separate piece. Except in the case of Lost in Space, both the TV show and the movie were abortions. In this case, the TV show is a classic, and we don't know WHAT the movie will be like. But it will inevitably cause a split in the mythos... fans arguing forever after about "which continuity" we're talking about... people choosing sides and fighting. Flame wars, etc.
It's pointless, counterproductive, and ultimately destructive. It may not mean that the film will be a success or a failure, but it will very likely put the final nails into the coffin of classic Trek fandom.
There are those who post here who'll take HUGE pleasure in that, too... and we know who they are.
Thanks, Cary, for the very thoughtful comments.
You are probably right about the "pleasure" comment. It was long known, not just in Hollywood, that Mr. Berman had an agenda of imposing his own politics onto TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT. Alot of folks went along with Bermanian TREK, and would not stand for criticism of it. There were many fans of TOS, myself included, who saw the implications of concept erosion even if the early years of TNG. When fans started becoming vocal in their criticisms of VOY and ENT, it was a surprise to me since I did not have access to first-runs of these shows. Having seen most of them in cable re-runs, and having witnessed the divided fan reaction on the internet, it isn't hard to put two and two together and see the some fans are in one camp and others are in the opposite camp. And boy, do they harbor a grudge after VOY ended and ENT was canceled.
Having said that, it now seems apparent that my previous postings have been misconstrued.
To re-iterate: a re-make/re-imagining can be legitimate; doing so does raise questions as to what the "new" TREK universe will stand for. Do the Starfleet characters operate under a Prime Directive or will they just chrage in, guns a-blazing, to "smoke 'em out of their holes"? Do the various races and species respect each other? Or is this going to be like the new GALACTICA, where you have fist-fights over a card game and pilots who are addicts? Will we see Lieutenant Uhura, or Britney Spears?
The notion of a remake is legitimate. (This movie could be a great thing.) So are these questions about the direction of such a remake. Saying "go and see the movie" doesn't cut it. Being a fan of TORA! TORA! TORA! did not obligate anyone to see PEARL HARBOR.
We'll have to wait 'n see.
It's interesting that critiques of the image (and the obvious implications of said image) were solicited in this thread, but anyone who does so risks being a target; "the movie isn't even out yet, and you're shooting it down". Meanwhile, people on TrekBBS are jumping to similar conclusions, using words to the effect of "This is exactly how it should look in a motion picture made in 2008." It seems that if the critique is flattering, it's okay to jump to a conclusion. The moment the critique is anything less than flattering, you're being outrageously judgemental and premature. Is that where we're headed?
So, all together now: the new movie will be the greatest STAR TREK ever, the image is so sexy that we all want to pre-order the model kit for next Christmas. And when we look back on the last 40 years, we'll look upon the "old" trek versus the new one, and we'll all agree that the Beatles was just Paul McCartney's band before Wings.
Are we all in agreement now?
Glad we got that right.