Greg Cox wrote:
If they're going to toss the last 40 years and start over, they should just develop some other SF series that includes spaceships, heroic captains, aliens, etc. It seems to me as though they only want to call it "Star Trek" because it's a recognized brand name.
Okay, I have to ask: If Batman Begins
was going to ignore all the previous Batman movies and TV series and start over again, should they have just invented another dark avenger of the night?
Of course not. Because the concept and the character do NOT equal the continuity. Batman Begins
is no less a Batman movie for starting over from scratch than any new Star Trek project that keeps the basic idea but chucks the continuity of the previous versions.
(Plus, let's be honest: If they'd done what you suggest, but kept the transporters and starships and a prime directive and such, everyone would rightly accuse the "new" series of ripping off Star Trek!)
Good point. I remember trying to tell people about Babylon Five
when it was on, and was astounded at the number of people who literally could not wrap their head around this not being Star Trek
"I really like it..."
"Yeah but I'm not into Star Trek
"This isn't Star Trek
"Oh, I know--but its set in the same universe."
"No. It isn't."
"I thought it was."
"Nope. Totally different."
"But its exactly like Star Trek
"I like both and this isn't much like Star Trek
"Yeah, but the exact same people did it, that's what I mean."
"Actually, they have nothing to do with one another."
"But it is just like Star Trek