The most sickening word in the English Language

[Nate the Great]

I have a great many options on reimagining, the folly of reimagining Trek, the reason why Enterprise bombed, and all that, but lets stick to the article.

I. "Star Trek"? That's it? Are you kidding me? What do you do with the second movie? "Star Trek 2"? Come on.
2. If they're outright reimagining Trek, then it ain't Trek. Star Trek is our universe. It needs people from what DC calls Earth-1, what Marvel calls Earth 616, what Sliders calls Earth Prime, or what have you.
3. Star Trek has never been about action as the primary driving force. Even the war years of DS9 were never about the battles, it was the motivation for the battles, the aftermath of the battles, the way people were changed by the battles, and so on. You don't need score after score of starships blowing up to accomplish that.
4. "Reimagining" and "100% true to the fanbase" are mutually exclusive. They're losing right from the start. "100% true" needs no "reimagining."

[Burt]

Infinite Improbability:
You're my guy in this matter. I defer to you.
To be honest, I feel tired. I feel abit of a let down, cos...I just really don't think it's gonna go well.

[Nate the Great]

That tends to be one of the most depressing experiences in life these days, I've discovered. That feeling of being tied to a tree on a hill. You can see the trains driving toward each other on the same track at top speed. You know that they're going to collide. You know that the hill obscures their view of each other, so they're gonna be totally ignorant, then the engineers are gonna have five seconds of blinding terror before both go up in a huge fireball of shrapnel. Star Trek XI is going to be like that. You know it, I know it. Lets just hope that they FINALLY learn their lesson.

[ijdgaf]

Hmm...

Suddenly, I'm wondering why doom-and-gloom fandom still gets to me after all these years.

[Burt]

But thats it! I'm not a doomy fan guy. I love everything about the shows I watch! I could sit and watch static if they called it Star Trek and still give it a 6/10. Loved Enterprise, and still do. Like new directions. Like new ideas. Go new ideas!
It's just... the way they were saying things in that interview... It just sounds to me more an attempt to make Trek profitable again. Big names, Action...all of which I can handle... but I just don't think it will be done well...
ominously
I feel a dark power rising...

Really though. Not just hating something because it's new or being changed. But feel like I've heard this kinda thing before. Like with Enterprise. ( I did like it). They were all positive about it before hand. Now, they say...oh yeah, maybe it wasn't a good idea... didn't think it through yaddda yadda.

hhhmmmm

[Nate the Great]

That's just the point. Having "marketability" be the primary point of Trek has always failed. Always. Okay, fine, not always. Trek IV worked well as an attempt to widen the viewer base, but you've all heard about the exception that proves the rule.

Trek is about Trek. It always has been, it always should be. Turning Trek into LOTR or Star Wars or whatever just can't work. If you stick a starship named Enterprise into a Star Wars/LOTR/Harry Potter/whatever plot, you don't get Trek, you get a starship named Enterprise in a Star Wars/LOTR/Harry Potter/whatever plot.

[ijdgaf]

These examples are completely absurd. Are you really expecting a plot with elves and/or wizards?

Sorry, but if Paramount wants to bring back Trek and have it stick around for any half-considerable length of time, they need to be focused on profitability. They need to be thinking about how to expand the fanbase. Otherwise, just what the hell is the point? They can't limp on forever you know. The dwindling ratings of Enterprise proved that.

Just be glad that movie-goers these days are less likely to be distracted by pretty explosions or balls-to-the-wall action. They actually tend to favor good, entertaining stories. And I hate to bring back old examples, but Batman Begins and Casino Royale are case and point, respectively.