I think you may have misread my post a bit. I was thrilled by how true Abrams stayed to the characters and setting of TOS while also giving it a new feel.
It was great seeing young actors for a change. I appreciated that they were working hard to try to capture aesthetic touches and the fun of the original show. I had certain misgivings too, but there is already too much hate in this thread.
What has concerns me is really the justification. In principle, your initial justification would warrant anything so long as Trek lived on. Your secondary justification (i.e., your justification of your justification) is practical (but they didn't do
that - they
haven't done just anything).
Let me put it to you this way. I once had an ethics teacher who related a conversation she'd had with a devout capitalist that went along these lines. She expressed the concern that capitalism is only concerned with making money, and so might do anything in the course of chasing a buck. Her capitalist friend, however, argued that the market will always correct any inefficiencies. She asked, but what if it doesn't always do this? That, according to her friend, it had not yet happened, was no guarantee that it would not see abuse in the future.
While I doubt that you are really trying to say "Anything goes!" this is, nonetheless, the implication of your argument, and more importantly (since I have no beef with you personally) arguments like yours.
Again, if we all love Trek so much that there is something worth saving, then we cannot forget that new stewards should recognize this and honor, as much as they can, the tradition they're helming. And this means there is room, in principle, for some criticism. That's all.
