There is no way I believe that destroying Vulcan, or doing the gimmick of an alternate timeline/universe was the only way to do a new TREK film, the best way to do a new TREK film, or the necessary way to do a new TREK film.
These people have probably done the most faithful reworking of
Star Trek we could have gotten out of Paramount's determination to rebuild their dying franchise - if you've read about the research they did on Trek's international reputation and performance, for example, before getting into this you'll have a pretty clear idea of where the
studio's priorities are. It's really hard to believe that they would have greenlit anything more traditional than this, and you're just lucky Abrams didn't pass on it - Paramount's having good luck with Michael Bay, these days.
As Captain X said, I think that this argument is, with all due respect to both yourself and all others who have made it, completely absurd.
Now, it may be that you are correct about Paramount's internal requirements to greenlight another Star Trek film. In this case, it is Paramount's thinking that is absurd.
The reason for this is that, when you look at all of the excitement, hype, and interest that this film is generating, not a lick of it has anything whatsoever to do with any of these changes. The film is drawing such interest because of A) the director, B) flashy marketing, C) a depiction of the film to the general public as something new and different from previous Star Treks. If that is not a believable argument, then let me put it this way:
Does anyone here
really think that this film is so highly anticipated by the media and the general public because it's done away with canon? Really? So basically, up until now, Star Trek was considered geeky because Kirk served on the Farragut, Vulcan existed, and everything took place in the old time line, but now that Paramount's done away with
those terribly nerdy things, it's approachable to the general public. Right.
The big problem here is that the vast, vast majority of those media members and everyday joes who are contributing to this excitement have no idea about
any of that. They don't know about point X, Y, and Z of "canon." They don't know that the film involves an alternate timeline which does away with previous material. They don't know very much of anything other than that the film looks cool, has lots of explosions and ice monsters and Uhura in her bra and Kirk on top of a woman, and that JJ Abrams directed it.
I'm not, in any of this, saying that any of those things are bad (or that they're good). That's not the point. The point is that this is what the general public has seen. The fact is that if the everyday joes who considered Star Trek too nerdy actually
knew that it involved alternate timelines and whatnot, that would probably, if anything, turn them off.
Ultimately, precisely the same excitement, hype, and interest could have been generated with a film taking place in the original timeline and all that. Heck, you could even have had that and seen almost unaltered the very tv spots, theatrical trailers, and other aspects of marketing that have been put out for public consumption, because none of them indicate anything other than that the film is about the Star Trek characters having a cool looking adventure in outer space with nice SFX. Take all that and make a "canon" consistent story, and you' have the same anticipation for the film.
It's just an idea completely unbased on reality that to make a successful Trek film, they had to do what they've done.
Which is to say none.
The Man Trap and Charlie X are still out there proving you wrong. Maybe you need a BIGGER JPeg to block the facts out with.
