Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?
aridas sofia wrote:
Nerys Myk wrote:
JJ's Trek does not forget the action and adventure and is immensely popular. But IMHO it will not inspire a fanatic, deep obsessive fan base unless this road is followed long enough to build its own universe and mythos like the Star Trek that preceded it and the Star Wars that inspires it. Why? Because at heart, it isn't Star Trek. That doesn't make it "bad". Believe me, as an investor, I don't believe it is "bad". But I will be surprised if it results in a new "Star Trek" franchise. There is no "there" there, to steal from Stein. No heart. No Roddenberry and Jefferies (or Lucas and McQuarrie, for that matter). Just stuff -- stuff floating on a big, dead pond of nothing.
This. And I emboldened one section for emphasis.
Thing is "JJ-Trek" doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's not a new thing, its just the latest iteration, just as TMP, the other films, TNG and the other series were. They and TOS are the pond "JJ-Trek" floats on. So far this iteration is successful. When that success fades a new one will take its place, just as Nolan's Batman succeeded Schumachers. And what ever comes next will succeed Nolans.
You say at heart it isn't Star Trek. I would disagree. There's a lot of Trek's heart in there. Folks who dislike it focus on the "flash" and miss the subtance. Probably on purpose
Finally we're customers, not investors. ( unless you mean time.)
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.