Isn't this just a knee-jerk reaction to a change in what has been so deeply embraced? Some people just can't pull themselves away from accepting anyone else but William Shatner as Captain Kirk. But guess what? People age and eventually die. So does that put a moratorium on any recreations? Certainly not. Yes, you'll want sufficient time to pass before recreating the character. How long that is depends upon the genre. We've certainly seen movies recreated and when very good actors create their own interpretations of previously portrayed roles, they are embraced.
It's time for a new generation of actors to revisit the original series. This does not take away from anything. It adds. There's no disruption of timelines. This is a new story with new people, based on a tried and true genre that is loved by millions.
We've already seen in going from one Star Trek series to the next that there's a limit to the integrity of continuity. If you try to make it all seamless with everything accounted for, you get mired down in details and never get anywhere. Because each series and movie has their own writers and production crews, there has to be some artistic license. Sure, you want to keep it reasonable with no horribly glaring conflicts. But sometimes you have to suspend disbelief for a bit. As an example, remember Chekov meeting Khan, as if they had met previously on NCC-1701? It was a noticeable violation of the timeline. Chekov was not aboard then. But this apparent violation still worked, didn't it?
Btw, I think it unlikely that the production of ST:XI will be converted to a TV series. There may be several sequels... but that will be it. TOS has the huge legacy of movies and TV series that followed it and relied upon TOS established facts. We can look at this new enactement in essence as a "What If", further "preserving" the TOS universe.
So, really there's no logic to not accepting the new Star Trek movie. If you choose not to, then you're just depriving yourself from a new asset of the Star Trek phenomenon.
It's time for a new generation of actors to revisit the original series. This does not take away from anything. It adds. There's no disruption of timelines. This is a new story with new people, based on a tried and true genre that is loved by millions.
We've already seen in going from one Star Trek series to the next that there's a limit to the integrity of continuity. If you try to make it all seamless with everything accounted for, you get mired down in details and never get anywhere. Because each series and movie has their own writers and production crews, there has to be some artistic license. Sure, you want to keep it reasonable with no horribly glaring conflicts. But sometimes you have to suspend disbelief for a bit. As an example, remember Chekov meeting Khan, as if they had met previously on NCC-1701? It was a noticeable violation of the timeline. Chekov was not aboard then. But this apparent violation still worked, didn't it?
Btw, I think it unlikely that the production of ST:XI will be converted to a TV series. There may be several sequels... but that will be it. TOS has the huge legacy of movies and TV series that followed it and relied upon TOS established facts. We can look at this new enactement in essence as a "What If", further "preserving" the TOS universe.
So, really there's no logic to not accepting the new Star Trek movie. If you choose not to, then you're just depriving yourself from a new asset of the Star Trek phenomenon.
Last edited:
