Just to try and clear a few things up about my post. Again, I have no problem with the reboot. The reboot was very clearly successful. Mission accomplished. When I said that the reboot wasn't NEEDED, I emphasize the word NEED or NEEDED. I also stated that I don't think anyone can argue that it was absolutely needed. The reason I say that is because to think that there isn't one writer, producer, director, etc out in this planet that we call earth that couldn't re-imagine and come up with new and exciting Star Trek movies and stories in what ever way they see fit to release it and it be in the prime timeline and it be successful like current Trek is, seems to me to be a ridiculous statement. Am I making any sense? I understand that Kirk and Spock are icons, but to say there couldn't be a new crew introduced or a re-telling of some older stories, or stories of Kirk and Spock that were not ever told, not be a success is again a huge stretch to think. Again I have no problem with the reboot, but to say it was NEEDED, as in there was no other option and without it, Trek would die, is a huge stretch and unlikely. But when it's all said and done, the reboot worked (the success of the reboot is all that really matters) and I'm very happy with what they've done and am excited to see where things go from here. Does that clear things up a bit from where I'm coming from?
Understood, but why does it matter so much if it was NEEDED? It was an option, they took it, it worked . . . end of story. It's a done deal now. Why worry if it was NEEDED at this late date?
When it comes to fiction, few things are absolutely NEEDED. Did King Kong NEED to climb the Empire State Building instead of some random skyscraper? No, but it worked. Did they NEED to bring back Spock after he died? No, but I'm glad they did . . . .