Trent Roman wrote:
I've approached other films with this kind of skepticism before and nonetheless been convinced by viewing the movie itself (such as "Batman Begins"--after the last movie to bear that name, I wasn't expecting much [and it was a prequel!]
If I may, I'd like to offer my own opinion in regards to the subject brought up by this particular statement: I've heard both "Batman Begins" and "Star Trek" referred to as prequels before, but it is my feeling that neither one is what would come to be defined as a "prequel." It's true that both films take us back to the beginnings of our heroes' journeys but, once they do, they tell these origin stories in a COMPLETELY different manner. To me, a prequel implies a preceeding chapter to an already established line of stories (such as Episodes I-III of "Star Wars"). What both "Batman Begins" and "Star Trek" give us is an entirely new line of content. Events that we've previously seen that would take place afterwards chronologically happened in the previous series of films and would, I submit, therefore have no bearing or be in any way dependent on the events of the new one.
This is especially true for the "Batman" franchise, however I admit that it is a bit trickier for the "Star Trek" franchise. "The Dark Knight" (for example) features a new and darker take on the confrontation between Batman and Joker, rather than just rehashing the one from the Tim Burton movie from twenty years ago (good lord, has it really been that long?). "Star Trek," on the other hand, admits within the film's dialogue that the timeline would have progressed just as we remember it had it not been for the intervention of Nero. Therefore, while all that came before the events of the new "Star Trek" movie also happened in the original timeline, anything that happens from here on out will progress much differently from what would otherwise be expected.