If the old universe isn't being added to, then it's been shifted off to second class status. They'll add nothing to it. They'll just be glad to take money from people for new releases of old recordings...
Recordings depicting a continuity that's been abandoned and won't be added to any more.
In the meantime they may well be adding to the new. That puts the original in second class status, and you know that as well as I do.
Yes, it will not be added to anymore. That's called "ending". Is Casablanca "second class" because it has an ending and there will never be further adventures of Rick and Ilsa? Or if need something that is more of a series - is The Lord of the Rings "second class" because it has an ending and there will never be further adventures of Frodo? Is the Silver Age of DC Comics "second class" because there will never be further adventures of Superman in that particular continuity and there have been 22 years of a new continuity? Do these stories disappear? Do people lose the ability to appreciate them?
No.
Your claim that by something being ended it is somehow denigrated either needs more explanation, or is simply a gut reaction on your part.
"All good things..."? Then why are they still using the title "Star Trek"? Why would the visual aspect have to be changed to tell an interesting story? Hmmm?
Because it's a reboot, which, as I explained, means recombining material that has been created in that universe. The visual aspect may or may not have anything to do with telling an interesting story, but I would assume eventually having updated tech that allows for technological advances made since 1966 will open up some story possibilities, either in this story or in a following one.
My dear, dial back the condescension. I read what you wrote and I responded to your assumptions. Your assumption - no more stories in this continuity means losing something. My response - no it doesn't because you still have all those stories. 42 years worth. I don't understand the greediness that requires yet more in that continuity.
Did you see Voyager? Enterprise? Generations?
It has been hampering their creativity for about 15 years now, which is why Star Trek during that time has been as compelling as Harry Potter fan fiction written by 12 year olds.
It is the Star Trek universe they want to write about. And they want to do it by being able to freely recombine elements from across its 42 years worth of material. Something they cannot do if they are beholden to every line of dialogue thrown out by writers working quickly to produce a weekly tv series who weren't even trying to write things that were consistent.
I'm giving opinions, just like you are. I assume we can have a civil, intelligent discussion, though your attitude in this response is accusatory, and rather nasty.
Apparently, following this story, there won't be.
Not when the bridge design looks like a tv set from the 1960s with a tech design which makes no sense given contemporary technology. That is relegating Star Trek to a bygone era. If it is to have life and continue into the future as a science fiction series, it needs an update.
I'm not. I said Star Trek assumed its history and actual history remained the same up until 1966. "Assignment:Earth" took place in 1968. If you're going to be anal about continuity it is helpful to actually know it.
Because the same setting we had before produced 15 years of crappy stories.
I have no attachment to the visuals one way or the other. As I explained in my first post I generally reimagine them in my head anyway. Why are you so completely attached to a particular design that you can't stomach a change - especially when there's been design changes between TOS and S:TMP, between S:TMP and TWOK, between all of that and TNG, DS9 and so on and so forth?
Yes it does, BY beginning it anew. The former version is thereby called "non-existant" as far as the new stories are concerned. This is called "ignoring and denying".
How can you claim the original is still considered as valid when it's being simultaneously overwritten?
As I explained, it's being recombined. There will be plenty of familiar material, but put together in new patterns. I don't find this to be denying the original material, but using it in a more freely creative way.
Your claims are empty and invalid.
You've even contradicted yourself.
You've failed to prove your point.
Totally.
I'm sorry you feel that way. No, I didn't contradict myself. And I didn't really expect to convince you of anything - that is not my purpose in posting here. Rather I am looking to have interesting discussions with other Star Trek fans.
