Matt said:There's a reason it's not called Star Trek ELEVEN. It's a new beginning.
So says you. Unless you're involved in the production in some way, you're just stating your opinion, or your wish as it may be.
No, you WANT it to be a complete reboot (you've posted as much here many, many times, haven't you?) and you're anxiously looking for anything to support your opinion.
It may have Nimoy, and it may have the original continuity in it, but I believe in the end it'll be this new coninuity, with the previous either changed or erased. This is based on all the information we know thus far.
1. New actors.
Well, this doesn't mean anything. Unless you have access to time machines or extremely advanced cloning technology, it was inevitable that they'd have to recast.
As has been stated many times in the past, there have been many performances of Shakespeare's plays, but very few have redefined the situation, plot, or even dialog (and those which have, have as a rule pretty well sucked).
Recasting is a NECESSITY, not "evidence" of anything.
2. Redesigned EVERYTHING.
Really? So you've been inside the production studios and have seen "everything" and KNOW that it's all "redesigned?"
Or are you just playing fantasist wish-fulfillment here? Sure SOUNDS like the latter... unless you can tell us all, NOW, that you've already seen the designs for "everything." Otherwise, you're simply pulling that out of your ass, bluntly stated.
3. Better tech. (They're not going to have a computer THAT-TALKS-LIKE-THIS. I-AM-FROM-THE-60S-BEEP-BEEP-BOOP.)
So you've heard the computers already? Damn, you must be HOOKED IN with that production team! Can I have your autograph???
Get a clue. You're once again playing "this is what I WANT and therefore this is what MUST BE." Which is, honestly stated, one of the indications of mental illness. So you MIGHT want to consider that.
4. A story that apparently violates established canon, based on what we know.
Does it? Do you know anything? Anything at all? I mean, has Orci, or Abrams, or anyone who's actually READ THE SCRIPT (and there are a few people who post here occasionally who HAVE read it... but they're not the ones talking about it!) told you this? Have you, personally, read it? Or are you basing this purely upon internet rumors?
I've gotta be honest... I'm LOVING how the Abrams team is using the Internet's "rumor-mongering" tendencies to help mask the real body of their story. By the time the film actually hits the theaters, even those who've been reading every rumor will have so many different conflicting stories stuck in their head that they won't know WHAT to expect. Gotta admire this, honestly.
Use logic, people. It's a reboot, just like the new Battlestar Galactica. Faithful in many respects, but definitely not the same.
The new Battlestar Galactica is many things, some good and some bad, but it is in NO WAY "faithful" to the original. They told a totally unrelated story that happened to use a few words from the original. Whether that story is better or worse isn't the point... it's DIFFERENT in every meaningful way.
We ARE using logic. You, however, are not. I haven't noticed anyone saying "we know for absolutely certain that this is NOT a reboot at any level whatsoever."
Know why?
Because IF YOU USE LOGIC you have to admit that you cannot say anything conclusive at this point without access to MUCH more information than anyone who's posting their "conclusive judgements" could possible have.
You, Matt, are PROJECTING YOUR WISHES.
You are NOT in any way "using logic" here. You could turn out to be right, eventually, but you simply do not have the FACTS to support your claims. Logic requires HARD DATA. We don't have that level of data right now. And "wishful thinking," while sometimes RIGHT, is not the same as LOGIC.
For someone who claims to have a high IQ, I'm surprised you don't understand this.
This is like arguing with people who believe Jimi Hendrix covered the Star Spangled Banner. It was a rendition, not a cover.
In this case, you're quibbling over SEMANTICS, not FACT.
Nobody ever denies that Hendrix PLAYED the Star Spangled Banner, or that he's FAMOUS for having done so, or that his rendition of that song isn't familiar to many, many people.
Those are the meaningful facts. Most people don't know, and furthermore COULDN'T CARE LESS, about the trivial use of the word "cover" or "rendition" in this regard. We know the truth, regardless of what words are used to describe it.
And I, personally, couldn't care less what words get used. I know what happened.
You DO NOT know what's happening in relation to Star Trek (2008). You have no more clue than anyone else here does. Isn't that true?
And I'd say that you also know a lot LESS than a few people here do, though I'm not gonna name any names (or screen names as it may be). The people in question will, I'm sure, eventually tell everyone who they really are. (Oh, and I'm not saying that I'm one of those, just for the record. I'm who I say I am, nothing more or less.)
