Interesting, these comments about 'Trek/Not Trek'.
And yet, it's all Trek. Says so on the label.
Phily B wrote:
Yes, I can not for the life of me understand the "it's not star trek" stuff. It's more Star Trek than a lot of Star Trek!
A loaded comment like this does not make it any more Trek...
Yesterday saw it for the first time. It is not Trek. I can not understand why you think it is more trek than a lot of Star Trek.
... and an equally-loaded comment such as this does not make it any less so.
If you like it? Great, fantastic. If you don't like it? Sorry - maybe next time. Either way, it's still Trek.
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote:
I started a thread
about what's "real" Trek and what isn't, if anyone's interested in that tangent.
I started to read that. Almost immediately ran into some rhetorical gymnastics aimed at excluding some or other portions of Trek which did not conform to the poster's unique personal interpretation of Gene Roddenberry's Vision™, at which point I decided it was getting too vigorous for me.
If I don't enjoy some piece of movie or television entertainment, I just don't watch it any more. I really don't see the point in spending a lot of time and effort evangelizing against it.