> They treat black holes as portable, general-purpose plot-line fillers.
True.
> Then there is the "supernova", which, somehow by magic, is able to "threaten to destroy the galaxy",
Funny you should mention that, it reminded me of Robert Heinlein's posthumous book "Variable Star", wherein a sun goes nova and produces enough gamma radiation to sterilize planets light-years distant. (Of course, this doesn't happen immediately -- speed-of-light limits apply.) On a profoundly different scale, Schmidt's "The Sins of the Fathers" also deals with this topic.
A little yahooing shows that a single supernova threatening life in a good part of the galaxy is a plausible, if unlikely, scenario. Of course, it wouldn't happen like it was shown in the film. I took the break-up of Romulus as a visual for the masses, who wouldn't necessarily have gotten a biosphere dying from gamma radiation. I agree it could have been done better.
> Then there are the super-teleporters [...] which are capable of delivering unstoppable warheads to planets light years away [...]
> Yeah...I've started wondering, am I not a trekkie any more? I didn't really watch the last TV series, I can't even tell you what it was called.
Funny, neither can I...
> [...] Enterprise [...]
Ah, that rings a bell.
Yeah, sorry, I don't believe you. If you can't recite at least the name of every TV series (there hasn't been that many) you never were a Trekkie. Especially the name of the last series "Enterprise" for chrissake. It's not like the name has never been used before.
I only watched the first three or four episodes, but at least I remember the frigging NAME.
> That was the option, re-invent & reboot or buh-bye.
Precisely. Even if a company would be insane enough to finance another conventional Trek film after Nemesis, only a very few ultra-hard-core fans in rubber forehead appliances and mouldering cosplay regalia would have gone to see it.
They could have just rebooted without explanation, as was done with Casino Royale. This would actually have simplified the plot and freed up 20 minutes or so for other things. The time travel angle was a nod towards die-hard fans, which appears to have been unappreciated.
So, fine, there's going to be a subgroup of intense trekkies who are very unhappy with the reboot, who would, perhaps, rather there be no more Star Trek unless it included Shatner or Stewart (depending on which camp you're in). I'm ok with that. I don't think Berman-era hardcore fans have the numbers to make or break a nationally released film, and their ire may (as implied in the Onion skit) actually have an opposite effect. It's all good. I'll be seeing the film again this week.
> I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
We do, but you have to put up with white-hot hate from both established parties.
Your criticisms are valid, and a refreshing change from "it's not Trek because there wasn't enough standing around sharing feelings..." oops sorry, "discussing ideas". Yeah, Kirk getting the Enterprise at his stage of development was highly unlikely and grated a bit. I put it down to script compression due to the need of having the "no-win scenario" scene and Kirk taking the helm in the same film. But at the end, they really should have put Kirk back in the academy, and back on academic probation. There are several possibilities they could use to give him Enterprise at the beginning of the next film, letting time pass between films.
But regarding Kirk taking the captain's chair in combat, I've never been in the military, but in one of his novels Heinlein talks about cadets given the rank of "temporary third lieutenant" on their first assignment, so that they are in the chain of command, and that historically, there were incidents, during war with heavy casualties and communication breakdown, where a temporary third lieutenant commanded a warship, and in one case where someone of that rank flew colors of a full admiral. So given that this is the limit of my knowledge, a cadet taking command in the heat of battle wasn't enough to make me walk out of the theater. It sounds like it was one of those things where the more you know, the more annoying it is.
> 1. Did the planet Vulcan, a founding member of the Federation, not have any planetary defenses? I find it hard to believe that a single miniscule (in planetary scale) mining vessel can destroy planetary defenses AND starships at the same time. I buy the fact that it wiped out the starships as it would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
> 2. Even though half of starfleet of the Constitution class starships got wiped out at Vulcan, Earth didn't have any defenses either?
Nero used the earwig thingy to get the access codes to Earth's defenses from Captain Pike. This raises the question of why starship captains are carrying around that kind of data in their heads, but oh well.
How was he able to conquer Vulcan's defenses? I dunno, maybe he pulled the same earwig trick on Spock. We're not told, can only speculate.
We know Narada had superior weapons. Maybe it also had superior shields?
> 3. Delta Vega is apparently a moon of Vulcan. Why didn't that moon get destroyed in the black hole?
Good question. Maybe it was a really small black hole?
> 4. Where was the Narada when it was drilling Earth? It wasn't Saturn was it? If it was Earth, why didn't Earth (or did it?) get destroyed when the entire mass of the Red Matter destroyed the Narada?
I don't remember an adequate explanation for why Enterprise hid behind Saturn (except it made for a really cool special effect). Remember that Nero was enticed away from Earth by Spock's ship. Since they were warping, one can assume they stopped quite a ways away.
> 5. The Narada didn't seem to suffer any damage from the Kelvin when it activated it's warp core on impact.
I got the impression it was disabled by the impact. You can see it's lost manuvering power while the shuttles are escaping.
> 6. It seemed like you could get to Vulcan pretty fast from Earth. In the original Canon, I seem to remember a consistency of distance and time to get to other star systems. I know this is brand new and pretty much wipes that idea out but I hope that they stay consistent with that distance.
One of the things we used to debate for hours in the old days was exactly how fast warp really was. There didn't seem to be an answer that was used consistently in the series and movies. "Warp speed" seemed to be fast enough that we didn't spend months getting to the meat of the plot, but slow enough to be able to isolate starships when they got into trouble. Three minutes to Vulcan did seem a little fast, but there was enough ambiguity in canon that I couldn't fault it. At least, not without seeming a hopeless geek.
Ok, but what about the people who were not wearing costumes?
Here, talk to me. I was a fan from 1966 to about the mid-nineties. The new movie is not faithful in it's representation of star trek, and that's what makes it worth viewing.
I think the disconnect here is that there's a new generation of Trekkies who grew up with Voyager and Enterprise, and think that Star Trek is about a bunch of people standing around looking concerned as they spout equal parts of psycho- and techno-babble to the same dramatic twelve bars of orchestral music repeated endlessly. Trek didn't used to be like that. It used to be, you know, (or maybe you don't) interesting and exciting, not mildly depressing.
As far as I'm concerned, a selling point for the new movie is that it has mostly rejected the turbid baggage of the past 30 years and started over.
Similarly, I suspect that the people who grew up thinking "James Bond" meant hilarious camp as an elderly Roger Moore stepped out of a mini-sub shaped like a crocodile (1983), would be really disturbed by the "damage" done to the franchise by Casino Royale (2006), being too young to remember having been excited about Doctor No (1962). It's all about what you grew up with. It so happens I didn't grow up with people in red uniforms endlessly debating the prime directive in ultra-modern conference rooms.
My daughter, who was born in 1994, (I got married late in life) enjoyed many of the remastered TOS episodes, but you'd have to strap her down Clockwork-Orange style to get her to watch an episode of Enterprise. I suspect that she and I are the rule, and the pizza-stained redshirt-wearing generation between us is the exception, compared to the general population. And that is why I think this movie will succeed.
When a friend wasn't sure whether he'd go see the new Trek film, despite the positive reviews, I assured him "It's not like the other films. It's a complete reboot. New actors, new plot, completely different direction." He's seeing it this weekend.
> If you're looking for epic, multi-ship space battles, you won't find it here either.
I just saw the movie last night, and you're right -- there is an epic space battle, which we (the viewer) just miss. A nice dramatic moment, but a bit of a disappointment.
I don't mean to say that the movie (or any movie) should consist entirely of end-to-end firefights. We got that in the most recent Star Wars films and it's just... empty. But (and here I get in trouble with the most recent litter of Trekkies), neither do I think that people standing around spouting painful nonsense and looking concerned to the sound of cellos is worth seeing either. Sorry if that upsets anyone.
Look, what was the best Star Trek movie ever (before this one)? True fans are divided between Wrath of Kahn and The Undiscovered Country. (I tend to favor Kahn, but they're both good.) Both films dealt with serious issues -- Kahn was as much about the nature of friendship, sacrifice, and the ravages of age as it was tactics and firepower. But they both kicked butt.
I think we get wrapped up sometimes in whether a movie should be about ideas, or action. It's not as simple as that -- there isn't a straight line with "the measure of a man" on the left side and "the doomsday machine" on the right. Wrath of Kahn proved that a show could be about ideas and still be exciting.
A lot of the more recent TV episodes proved that an episode could be made cheaply and quickly by creating a lot of scenes where the concept comes directly from whatever pop psychology showed up in Yahoo! Answers this week and the script consists mostly of "[insert technical terms here]". This does not represent "a show about ideas", it's just maximizing the studio's investment in existing sets.
I consider the most recent film a welcome backlash against that kind of false scripting. As exemplified by that bit of dialog between Kirk and Spock when they're in a position to offer mercy to the enemy. There are times when you just get tired of contrived nobility. Not all the time, but at least for now.
Our family has an old and dear friend who's only flaw is the complete inability to leave a succinct voice mail message. Messages tend to be about 10 words of introduction (as if I didn't immediately know who it was), 40 words of apology for bothering me, 20 words of preamble, and then a 5 word question boiled down to about 30 words. (I know that doesn't make sense. You'd have to be there.) By the time we get to the actual issue, my mind has wandered and I have to start the message over.
This same person can raise the same issue in five words or less -- as a text message. (Bear with me here, this is on topic.) Yeah, I know, SMS is a stupid medium and it's criminal how much the phone companies are charging for what is essentially an already existing and unused part of their infrastructure. But, the constraints of the medium does serve to keep people on topic. I think it's a matter of expectation. We tend not to get offended by abrupt messages when they have to be tapped out on a keypad. It's amazing that we can communicate at all.
I haven't tried the speech-to-text services, but I guess it's the next thing to experiment with. I suspect it'll just present me with a huge block of free-form text instead of a stream-of-consciousness voice mail, and I'm not sure how that's an improvement, but at least I'll be able to skip to the bottom.
The feeling I got was that Berman was responsible for the dilution of the Trek franchise. Capitalizing on the fanbase created by TOS, the first few movies, and the first few seasons of TNG, he started a campaign of maximizing Trek's presence on the screen, replacing what used to be (mostly) the exploration of ideas with what became (mostly) formula, as long as it maximized screen time. There was always technobabble and contrived drama in Star Trek, going clear back to the old series, but like a property owner who subdivides, packs in as many families as possible and then refuses to maintain the property, he seemed intent on maximizing return with little thought towards quality or creativity. What amazes me is that the fans let him get away with it for as long as he did.
> I'm unhappy that the odds of any of the TNG, DS9 or even Voyager characters to appear any more are very low
1) They're too old.
2) They don't deserve to.
The problem is, at the logical time to do such an ensemble film, -- say, around summer, 2001 -- enough of us had gotten so sick and tired of the whole thing that there couldn't possibly be a market.
In my personal opinion, aside from a few brief flashes, Trek ran out of steam in the latter seasons of TNG, when the writing drifted from true moral dilemma to technobabble-of-the-week. Yes, there was still a lot of standing around and talking, (God, was there...) so if you didn't actually listen to what they were saying, you could still get the impression that the show was still about Ideas rather than Space Battles. But it was all a sham. Let's face it -- solemn music and serious expressions can't save you from horrible writing.
It's not the fault of the actors. Perhaps if, say, the cast of TNG had pulled a Christian Bale and refused to do Nemesis unless the script improved... oh, let's face it, there would have been one less Star Trek movie. But I would have been about $30 richer, and would certainly have found something more productive to do with that 116 minutes.
Back in the early nineties, I worked for a sprawling company that... now that I think of it, was eventually purchased by IBM... but anyway, early on it was recognized that getting to your next meeting on time, if it was across campus, bordered on impossible. It was collectively decided that meetings would end at ten minutes before the hour to allow travel time.
I understand Caprica has started. Might be closer to what you're looking for. I haven't seen it, but I've heard it has practically no special effects, just a bunch of people talking.
> If you want to see epic, multi-ship space battles, then stick to Star Wars.
Um, no. The difference is, there were no more decent Star Wars movies after Empire Strikes Back. That wasn't about having more or fewer space battles, it was about making crappy films that happen to have space battles in them.
Slashdot Mirror
> They treat black holes as portable, general-purpose plot-line fillers.
True.
> Then there is the "supernova", which, somehow by magic, is able to "threaten to destroy the galaxy",
Funny you should mention that, it reminded me of Robert Heinlein's posthumous book "Variable Star", wherein a sun goes nova and produces enough gamma radiation to sterilize planets light-years distant. (Of course, this doesn't happen immediately -- speed-of-light limits apply.) On a profoundly different scale, Schmidt's "The Sins of the Fathers" also deals with this topic.
A little yahooing shows that a single supernova threatening life in a good part of the galaxy is a plausible, if unlikely, scenario. Of course, it wouldn't happen like it was shown in the film. I took the break-up of Romulus as a visual for the masses, who wouldn't necessarily have gotten a biosphere dying from gamma radiation. I agree it could have been done better.
> Then there are the super-teleporters [...] which are capable of delivering unstoppable warheads to planets light years away [...]
Um,... what? Sorry, I don't remember that scene.
> Yeah...I've started wondering, am I not a trekkie any more? I didn't really watch the last TV series, I can't even tell you what it was called.
Funny, neither can I...
> [...] Enterprise [...]
Ah, that rings a bell.
Yeah, sorry, I don't believe you. If you can't recite at least the name of every TV series (there hasn't been that many) you never were a Trekkie. Especially the name of the last series "Enterprise" for chrissake. It's not like the name has never been used before.
I only watched the first three or four episodes, but at least I remember the frigging NAME.
> That was the option, re-invent & reboot or buh-bye.
Precisely. Even if a company would be insane enough to finance another conventional Trek film after Nemesis, only a very few ultra-hard-core fans in rubber forehead appliances and mouldering cosplay regalia would have gone to see it.
They could have just rebooted without explanation, as was done with Casino Royale. This would actually have simplified the plot and freed up 20 minutes or so for other things. The time travel angle was a nod towards die-hard fans, which appears to have been unappreciated.
So, fine, there's going to be a subgroup of intense trekkies who are very unhappy with the reboot, who would, perhaps, rather there be no more Star Trek unless it included Shatner or Stewart (depending on which camp you're in). I'm ok with that. I don't think Berman-era hardcore fans have the numbers to make or break a nationally released film, and their ire may (as implied in the Onion skit) actually have an opposite effect. It's all good. I'll be seeing the film again this week.
> I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
We do, but you have to put up with white-hot hate from both established parties.
Your criticisms are valid, and a refreshing change from "it's not Trek because there wasn't enough standing around sharing feelings..." oops sorry, "discussing ideas". Yeah, Kirk getting the Enterprise at his stage of development was highly unlikely and grated a bit. I put it down to script compression due to the need of having the "no-win scenario" scene and Kirk taking the helm in the same film. But at the end, they really should have put Kirk back in the academy, and back on academic probation. There are several possibilities they could use to give him Enterprise at the beginning of the next film, letting time pass between films.
But regarding Kirk taking the captain's chair in combat, I've never been in the military, but in one of his novels Heinlein talks about cadets given the rank of "temporary third lieutenant" on their first assignment, so that they are in the chain of command, and that historically, there were incidents, during war with heavy casualties and communication breakdown, where a temporary third lieutenant commanded a warship, and in one case where someone of that rank flew colors of a full admiral. So given that this is the limit of my knowledge, a cadet taking command in the heat of battle wasn't enough to make me walk out of the theater. It sounds like it was one of those things where the more you know, the more annoying it is.
> 1. Did the planet Vulcan, a founding member of the Federation, not have any planetary defenses? I find it hard to believe that a single miniscule (in planetary scale) mining vessel can destroy planetary defenses AND starships at the same time. I buy the fact that it wiped out the starships as it would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
> 2. Even though half of starfleet of the Constitution class starships got wiped out at Vulcan, Earth didn't have any defenses either?
Nero used the earwig thingy to get the access codes to Earth's defenses from Captain Pike. This raises the question of why starship captains are carrying around that kind of data in their heads, but oh well.
How was he able to conquer Vulcan's defenses? I dunno, maybe he pulled the same earwig trick on Spock. We're not told, can only speculate.
We know Narada had superior weapons. Maybe it also had superior shields?
> 3. Delta Vega is apparently a moon of Vulcan. Why didn't that moon get destroyed in the black hole?
Good question. Maybe it was a really small black hole?
> 4. Where was the Narada when it was drilling Earth? It wasn't Saturn was it? If it was Earth, why didn't Earth (or did it?) get destroyed when the entire mass of the Red Matter destroyed the Narada?
I don't remember an adequate explanation for why Enterprise hid behind Saturn (except it made for a really cool special effect). Remember that Nero was enticed away from Earth by Spock's ship. Since they were warping, one can assume they stopped quite a ways away.
> 5. The Narada didn't seem to suffer any damage from the Kelvin when it activated it's warp core on impact.
I got the impression it was disabled by the impact. You can see it's lost manuvering power while the shuttles are escaping.
> 6. It seemed like you could get to Vulcan pretty fast from Earth. In the original Canon, I seem to remember a consistency of distance and time to get to other star systems. I know this is brand new and pretty much wipes that idea out but I hope that they stay consistent with that distance.
One of the things we used to debate for hours in the old days was exactly how fast warp really was. There didn't seem to be an answer that was used consistently in the series and movies. "Warp speed" seemed to be fast enough that we didn't spend months getting to the meat of the plot, but slow enough to be able to isolate starships when they got into trouble. Three minutes to Vulcan did seem a little fast, but there was enough ambiguity in canon that I couldn't fault it. At least, not without seeming a hopeless geek.
Ok, but what about the people who were not wearing costumes?
Here, talk to me. I was a fan from 1966 to about the mid-nineties. The new movie is not faithful in it's representation of star trek, and that's what makes it worth viewing.
I think the disconnect here is that there's a new generation of Trekkies who grew up with Voyager and Enterprise, and think that Star Trek is about a bunch of people standing around looking concerned as they spout equal parts of psycho- and techno-babble to the same dramatic twelve bars of orchestral music repeated endlessly. Trek didn't used to be like that. It used to be, you know, (or maybe you don't) interesting and exciting, not mildly depressing.
As far as I'm concerned, a selling point for the new movie is that it has mostly rejected the turbid baggage of the past 30 years and started over.
Similarly, I suspect that the people who grew up thinking "James Bond" meant hilarious camp as an elderly Roger Moore stepped out of a mini-sub shaped like a crocodile (1983), would be really disturbed by the "damage" done to the franchise by Casino Royale (2006), being too young to remember having been excited about Doctor No (1962). It's all about what you grew up with. It so happens I didn't grow up with people in red uniforms endlessly debating the prime directive in ultra-modern conference rooms.
My daughter, who was born in 1994, (I got married late in life) enjoyed many of the remastered TOS episodes, but you'd have to strap her down Clockwork-Orange style to get her to watch an episode of Enterprise. I suspect that she and I are the rule, and the pizza-stained redshirt-wearing generation between us is the exception, compared to the general population. And that is why I think this movie will succeed.
When a friend wasn't sure whether he'd go see the new Trek film, despite the positive reviews, I assured him "It's not like the other films. It's a complete reboot. New actors, new plot, completely different direction." He's seeing it this weekend.
> Burton basically said that if Frakes would have directed, it wouldn't have sucked so much.
IMDB says that Stuart Baird has only ever directed three movies.
Let's say your assertion is true. Is that what Trekkies are willing to settle for? Something that doesn't suck so much?
I wonder what their opinion would be on the legality of GPS tracker detectors in citizen hands.
> If you're looking for epic, multi-ship space battles, you won't find it here either.
I just saw the movie last night, and you're right -- there is an epic space battle, which we (the viewer) just miss. A nice dramatic moment, but a bit of a disappointment.
I don't mean to say that the movie (or any movie) should consist entirely of end-to-end firefights. We got that in the most recent Star Wars films and it's just... empty. But (and here I get in trouble with the most recent litter of Trekkies), neither do I think that people standing around spouting painful nonsense and looking concerned to the sound of cellos is worth seeing either. Sorry if that upsets anyone.
Look, what was the best Star Trek movie ever (before this one)? True fans are divided between Wrath of Kahn and The Undiscovered Country. (I tend to favor Kahn, but they're both good.) Both films dealt with serious issues -- Kahn was as much about the nature of friendship, sacrifice, and the ravages of age as it was tactics and firepower. But they both kicked butt.
I think we get wrapped up sometimes in whether a movie should be about ideas, or action. It's not as simple as that -- there isn't a straight line with "the measure of a man" on the left side and "the doomsday machine" on the right. Wrath of Kahn proved that a show could be about ideas and still be exciting.
A lot of the more recent TV episodes proved that an episode could be made cheaply and quickly by creating a lot of scenes where the concept comes directly from whatever pop psychology showed up in Yahoo! Answers this week and the script consists mostly of "[insert technical terms here]". This does not represent "a show about ideas", it's just maximizing the studio's investment in existing sets.
I consider the most recent film a welcome backlash against that kind of false scripting. As exemplified by that bit of dialog between Kirk and Spock when they're in a position to offer mercy to the enemy. There are times when you just get tired of contrived nobility. Not all the time, but at least for now.
Our family has an old and dear friend who's only flaw is the complete inability to leave a succinct voice mail message. Messages tend to be about 10 words of introduction (as if I didn't immediately know who it was), 40 words of apology for bothering me, 20 words of preamble, and then a 5 word question boiled down to about 30 words. (I know that doesn't make sense. You'd have to be there.) By the time we get to the actual issue, my mind has wandered and I have to start the message over.
This same person can raise the same issue in five words or less -- as a text message. (Bear with me here, this is on topic.) Yeah, I know, SMS is a stupid medium and it's criminal how much the phone companies are charging for what is essentially an already existing and unused part of their infrastructure. But, the constraints of the medium does serve to keep people on topic. I think it's a matter of expectation. We tend not to get offended by abrupt messages when they have to be tapped out on a keypad. It's amazing that we can communicate at all.
I haven't tried the speech-to-text services, but I guess it's the next thing to experiment with. I suspect it'll just present me with a huge block of free-form text instead of a stream-of-consciousness voice mail, and I'm not sure how that's an improvement, but at least I'll be able to skip to the bottom.
I think you read my response a little too fast. You saw what you expected to see, rather than what was there.
Elrod, admit it. You have a costume, don't you?
That's more like it, yes.
> Why do you yell "F**k you" to Rick Berman?
The feeling I got was that Berman was responsible for the dilution of the Trek franchise. Capitalizing on the fanbase created by TOS, the first few movies, and the first few seasons of TNG, he started a campaign of maximizing Trek's presence on the screen, replacing what used to be (mostly) the exploration of ideas with what became (mostly) formula, as long as it maximized screen time. There was always technobabble and contrived drama in Star Trek, going clear back to the old series, but like a property owner who subdivides, packs in as many families as possible and then refuses to maintain the property, he seemed intent on maximizing return with little thought towards quality or creativity. What amazes me is that the fans let him get away with it for as long as he did.
Wow, have you read a newspaper lately?
> I'm unhappy that the odds of any of the TNG, DS9 or even Voyager characters to appear any more are very low
1) They're too old.
2) They don't deserve to.
The problem is, at the logical time to do such an ensemble film, -- say, around summer, 2001 -- enough of us had gotten so sick and tired of the whole thing that there couldn't possibly be a market.
In my personal opinion, aside from a few brief flashes, Trek ran out of steam in the latter seasons of TNG, when the writing drifted from true moral dilemma to technobabble-of-the-week. Yes, there was still a lot of standing around and talking, (God, was there...) so if you didn't actually listen to what they were saying, you could still get the impression that the show was still about Ideas rather than Space Battles. But it was all a sham. Let's face it -- solemn music and serious expressions can't save you from horrible writing.
It's not the fault of the actors. Perhaps if, say, the cast of TNG had pulled a Christian Bale and refused to do Nemesis unless the script improved... oh, let's face it, there would have been one less Star Trek movie. But I would have been about $30 richer, and would certainly have found something more productive to do with that 116 minutes.
Back in the early nineties, I worked for a sprawling company that... now that I think of it, was eventually purchased by IBM... but anyway, early on it was recognized that getting to your next meeting on time, if it was across campus, bordered on impossible. It was collectively decided that meetings would end at ten minutes before the hour to allow travel time.
But I guess stranger things have been patented.
> Star Wars is over there. *points*
Obviously, I didn't make myself clear. I want to see good epic, multi-ship space battles.
> Most of the series were logial in their application of science
Sure Whatever you say.
I understand Caprica has started. Might be closer to what you're looking for. I haven't seen it, but I've heard it has practically no special effects, just a bunch of people talking.
> If you want to see epic, multi-ship space battles, then stick to Star Wars.
Um, no. The difference is, there were no more decent Star Wars movies after Empire Strikes Back. That wasn't about having more or fewer space battles, it was about making crappy films that happen to have space battles in them.
I am proud to call yourself a Trekkie, too.
> If you stop caring about the proper use of language, you will begin making the same mistakes yourself.
Certainly. But who would notice?
> This is not a complete reboot or re-imagining but a prequel set just before the original series from the 1960s.
Wishful thinking.
> Unless they accept this as a [...] re-envisioning of ST
God, I hope so!
> as was done with Battlestar Galactica.
God, I hope not!