roundabout way to say
Nostalgia Filter[/QUOTE]
Just so I was sure I understood the reference, I went to the link. I can appreciate your interpretation of my remarks. To explain why I don't think it's what I'm saying, I'll reference comments I made in earlier posts here. Prime is gone, save novels and independent productions. I may wish it were otherwise, if changes in the last iteration came sooner and led after a prudent interval to another series, more well thought out and executed from the get go. But that didn't happen and the reality of the situation is that too much time has gone by and the nature of entertainment production and presentation has changed to such a degree that the format of the Prime essentially wasn't reflecting that evolution.
But that doesn't mean, I equally accept the proposition that
the vision presented in the films is clearly and simply a permutation that stands on its own as a distinct and new version of the same entity. The general structure, the names, some of the individual's characteristics bear a resemblance to the narrative that was originally established. What I contend though is that these surface similarities are irrelevant. Sure, to unequivocally claim that there was a set agenda to ensure that Trekkies as a whole would reject the project is rather hyperbolic, as it suggests that there was no concern at all to appeal to that audience and forego an even greater degree of financial success than may have been anticipated.
However, at the same time, IMO the intent, calculation, and philosophy, if you will, behind the movies was not really pertinent to Star Trek or to the notion of advancing the core significance of what it had been, into the 21st century. It seems clear to me that what has been pursued is making genre films, granted superlative ones, with the property they are centered around as being primarily coincidental or of negligible relevance. It's as if Medical Center, T.J. Hooker, or 3rd Rock were considered to have the same potential for mass market appeal done up blockbuster style, they would do just as well as the vehicle that was settled on. Any specific draw to Trek was probably enhanced by the passage of time since the end of Enterprise, and perhaps more importantly and counterintuitively, its failure. This last because the changes wrought by its homogenization would be perceived as easier to justify and be sold as a dynamic and thoughtful rethinking of the brand, than if Enterprise was experiencing a successful run, both critically and popularly.
All of this is to say, that I don't wish that the films weren't made, as the franchise's history had played out. I don't begrudge or resent their success. I simply argue that my lack of interest in them is not their divergence from Prime continuity. It lies rather in the perception that their relationship to Star Trek is not meant as a continuation, evolution, reevaluation, etc. It is merely the imposition of the blockbuster mantle on a brand solely through the belief that it would fit well. What resentment I
do feel is in the proposition that this actually represents a purposeful, rational, and intended change for Trek, rather than rendering the idea of it into a genre driven empty suit. Calling this NuTrek is accurate from the angle of its chronological production timeframe, but in reality it is neither Nu nor Trek.
