Charles Phipps wrote:
The point of my essay is that Star Trek 2.0 is written for newcomers to the franchise as much as the old fogies of Trek. It's written for the explicit purpose of attracting a new generation as well as appeasing old fans.
Bullshit. You do not rewrite/reboot Mozart-Bach-Beatles-Elvis, just to please new fans. If you rewrite/reboot Elvis you call it Elvis vs JXL, not Elvis.
You became a trekkie because you saw a bright future, others went for SW because they liked the fighting going on in a fairy tale. You not became a trekkie because the show was cool. You want a cool ST? then do not call it ST, or at least have the decency to call it JJ ft. ST.
I personally don't care for the new JJ version of Star Trek, but I'm all for rebooting Trek. It's the only way to keep it alive. Sherlock Holmes has been kept alive for over a century because new writers have kept it going. Sometimes it's set in the 19th century, sometimes in the 20th century (where Holmes foils Nazi plans) now in the 21st Century with the Cumberbatch series, and there was even an animated series in which Holmes and Watson are solving mysteries a couple hundred years in our future. Superman gets a film reboot every few decades or so.
All that aside, let's stop pretending Star Trek hasn't already been rebooted before. The movies with the original cast were a reboot. TNG and the Berman-era spinoffs were a further reboot. Star Trek fans need to decide why it is they watch Star Trek in the first place: to be entertained by a story involving Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise or to simply have a delusion reinforced that Star Trek is somehow real and must be represented as a consistent universe which can never be tampered with. The latter is a waste of time when you realize the various ST TV and film series never have been one consistent narrative.