Don't be such an insufferable little pimple.
I'm quite certain that, by now, you've read a number of posts, in various threads, giving examples of other legends (Arthurian ones come to mind) wherein changes have been made over time, some slight, some larger, and yet the characters and setting remain recognizably similar to the original. You cannot seriously claim ignorance of this. Your "changes", as you know perfectly well, go well beyond that--as well as well beyond any changes proposed in this new movie. You are NOT looking for "reasoned responses" to your query--you're looking to show just how clever you think you are. Well, put simply, you're not that clever. Frankly, the kind of argument structure and style you've attempted here is juvenile as you stretch the notion of using exaggeration to make a point well past any "reasonable" point. You are trying to argue there are no degrees of alteration--that any deviation from your precious "canon" no matter how slight or severe, is equally bad. And now you know why no one has bothered to give you a "reasoned response" (and why I won't waste time giving a detailed rebuttal of your post--it isn't worth the effort).
You may not agree with Basil's post... and yes, he used hyperbole there... but his point is entirely valid. And calling people him ugly names doesn't change that.
His point... which I thought was remarkably well-illustrated, frankly... was that any change is a change. How do you decide which changes are "OK" and which are "not OK?"
Nobody would argue that the changes he proposed are OK. Not him, not anyone else. But you can easily take the same arguments which are being tossed out, regularly, by folks on here to denigrate the point-of-view of those who think that the current batch of changes are NOT OK and apply those arguments to any of his "hyperbole" changes... and the arguments you guys keep making are every bit as legitimate and appropriate in that case.
Hyperbole is a great tool to illustrate the absurdity of an opposing viewpoint... IF it fits. In this case, it fits perfectly.
Who decides which "dramatic changes to 40+ years of continuity" are trivial and can be tossed aside, and which aren't? Who decides which "uber-kewl stuff" is allowable and which is ludicrous?
There are only two answers to that. Either "the studio guys get to decide, and we have to take what we've been given and say "thank you kind sir" and keep forking over our money... or "WE get to decide," and if the studio does those things, we can choose not to support the bad decisions they make.
Which is it? Do we have to accept any changes, no matter how ludicrous we think that they are, or do we have the right to decide what we like and what we don't?
