^^ Ah, that's why they kept seeing it. They forgot how bad it was. Now I understand.
Do you bashers really not understand how obnoxious and mean-spirited it is to say things like that? You're not just insulting the movie, you're insulting the taste, judgment, and intelligence of those of us who did
like the movie. Is it so impossible for you to admit that your opinion is just an opinion, not a universal truth, and that people of equal intelligence and judgment can simply disagree about the quality of a particular work? I respect your right not to like the film, but you seem to have no respect for anyone's right to enjoy it or find it worthwhile. Star Trek
is supposed to be about respecting different points of view, not ridiculing them.
I'm not talking about likes and dislikes either; First Contact and the Voyager finale were almost as bad as nuTrek. But the point remains that nuTrek is a reboot. That was the whole point. To start it over and dumb it down. People may wish that some of the other shows were out of continuity, but they're not. nuTrek is. It was designed to be.
That was your point, but it's too narrowly focused to recognize my point, which is that continuity is not the only level of analysis of a fictional work. Any pretense of continuity or discontinuity is just part of the fiction. It's imaginary, not real. Hell, two works that are blatantly in incompatible realities can pretend to share continuity, like having Mulder and Scully appear in The Simpsons
. Continuity is not the all-encompassing truth you're treating it as, it's just one more element of the illusion. It's a tool
used by storytellers.
What I'm talking about is the differences in interpretation among the storytellers themselves. Even with
the pretense of continuity, different Trek series and films represent different points of view, different interpretations of what that continuity is
, how it fits together, what belongs to it and what doesn't (e.g. whether the animated series or certain movies should count), what the ground rules of the universe are (e.g. whether it's based in plausible science or wild technobabble), etc. Ultimately it's all filtered through the interpretations of different creative minds, even when they are pretending it all forms a coherent whole.
It's analogous to how different artists draw a comic-book character. It may be meant to be the same person, but that person's appearance can differ wildly. John Romita, Jr.'s Peter Parker looks nothing like Humberto Ramos's wildly cartoony Peter Parker, even though they were working on parallel comics in the same continuity at the same time. Different artistic interpretations produced different results. Or when different actors play the same character, like James Bond or Zefram Cochrane, they bring different interpretations to the role. In-universe it's alleged to be the same uniform entity, but the real-world truth is that different creators bring their own differing interpretations to what they create. Whether they pretend those differing creations fit together or that they're incompatible realities is just part of the conceits of the fiction. Either way, they're still distinct creations on a more fundamental level.