How do you figure there's a huge contingent of Trek fans thinking that all stories have been told? People are remarkably eager to get at the new story promised in the movie, and at the prospect that many more new tales will follow it.
The overwhelming majority of member posts that I see here that are happy with a reimagining (a majority of posting members, it appears) claim that it 'must' be done because either all of the potential stories in the original settings have been done, or because canon is so 'burdensome' that there is no way to tell stories that don't violate it - again, an excuse that there are no new stories. I completely disagree with this, just as I disagreed with these claims when ENT was on the air - while I agree that some aspects of canon are contradictory amongst themselves, I don't believe in any way that it is impossible, nor even especially difficult, to tell original stories
to this franchise that fit within the established facts. The problem I see is that the more recent writers, and so many fans, are so intent upon focusing only on those things with which they are already familiar - characters, settings and events - that they blind themselves to the rest of the available universe. Even this film is not, IMHO, a "new story" - it's
back story to other people, places and events, and in that context, sure, it can be a bitch to tell the tale without slipping up.
Let's face it: it's not like there isn't such a huge resource available to check on these things - millions of fans, among which tens of thousands probably know the number of eyelashes Spock has in any given episode - that there's no excuse for any
professional to say, "Well, how could we know that was an issue?" Hire some fans for fact checkers! Go on the Internet! Come to
this board! The answers aren't particularly difficult to find. And we probably would work pretty cheaply!
I guess I'm just one of those people who doesn't agree with the approach of, "This is the story I want to tell, and these are the details I want to use, and if they don't fit the facts, the
facts are wrong, and I have no intention or desire to rethink - and maybe even
improve - my story." To me, that's not just a lazy approach, it's an arrogant one (well-worn by Bermaga). But the one I would prefer to see is for someone to say, "Hey, isn't
Star Trek supposedly about 'where no man has gone before?' Then why the heck do we keep regurgitating the stuff we've already seen?" Quit talking about stuff we already know, or places we've already been, while telling us, "Ahh, but I'm so clever, I can tell you why what you
thought you knew 'ain't necessarily so,' and you'll be so impressed by me." I'd be a heckuva lot more impressed by someone who said, "Have we never turned left here? Why not? We're going left this time, and finding out what is there." If you make that left turn, I guarantee that you can do it and never have to worry about violating anything that came before - it's only when you won't leave your own block that you have to worry about retracing your steps.
EDIT to add:
Jackson_Roykirk, you're exactly right. There may be a limited number of basic
plots, but the combination of settings, characters and events can make even a time-worn story feel fresh - just as a poorly-told version can make you want to poke your eyes out. Look at all the variants on
Groundhog Day -
Stargate SG1 had a
great one ("Window of Opportunity"), while ENT did a truly miserable version of it in, I think, the same season! And yet, last season,
Supernatural went to that well and brought up wine instead of merely water. Nearly every modern series has told that story, and it was only in how it was written that we got either gold or garbage.
) it's about time they do something completely new.
