Paramout has confirmed that Spock will be played, in Star Trek (da movie), by Leonard Nimoy ... and Zachary Quinto! Not bad casting IMHO. They've also said they're trying to find a way to work in Bill Shatner playing with Nimoy at the 24th Century kinda age, but they're not about to just shove him in and admit to the Shatnerverse continuity nonsense. So hopefully he won't be able to lower the tone with his presence.

http://trekmovie.com/2007/07/26/abrams-con...-wants-shatner/

Let the adulation commence for those of you with an open mind ... for those of you who object that a time machine cannot be used to return to the sixties to use the original actors at their original ages and use that original sixties sense of no-one needing to be able to act as though they're real people in the real world with real feelings, let the moaning commence.

I think this is great, then again I've been looking forward to the reboot since it was announced. I've just got into Heroes (I know! I'm behind the times) but Quinto is a fantastic actor, and everything Leonard Nimoy has said about it leads me to believe this'll be fantastic. (Remember, he's not a gusher, he refused to be in Generations)

Yes there was a very brief article in yesterdays local paper about Nimoy making the announcement that he would be in the new movie at that ComCon thingy. It even had a groovy little picture of him.
I dont watch heroes so I cant comment of that other guy.

Okay, now my interest is piqued.  :)

If this was a story about spock and the Romulan underground, I'd understand. But it isn't. It's a reboot and will be another lame attempt at rewriting trek history like Enterforaprize.

I'm desperately trying to come up with a 'Spock's Brain' joke to go with this news, but I can't think of anything. The downside to midday naps.

Feel free to post a link to support that statement.

Dan

Read the casting notice that started this thread.  It's a 2.0/reboot/reimaging/whatever you wanna call it to justify a total abandonment of story details that are inconvenient to the "grand plan".

-Jonathan

Well I am still holding out that it is a prequel.  Action and story line happening before TOS and keeping within canon.  If it is a reboot or reimage I will be very disappointed.  However with various rumors going around I am worried.

Please quote from the casting notice that started this thread the comments and line items that support your thesis.  I'm interested in what you are reading that speaks to you in such a way.

Having read through it myself, I find I can draw no conclusions about content, canon, or adherence thereof from this article.

I can draw conclusions about how excited the participants are to be doing the movie. Knowing that Nimoy wouldn't come out of his acting retirement for the part he had in Generations, I feel confident that Old Spock has a pretty significant story to tell in this script.

The fact that they don't want to shoe-horn The Shat into the movie tells me that Old Kirk is dead in this movie's timeline, meaning that, right there, it at least tacitly awknowledges TNG (something that, personally, I wouldn't do if I were writing it, so try to find a nugget of happiness there...).

So, please, highlight and quote here the passages of the linked article that lead you to make your statement.

Dan

Perhaps I missed something. What did you mean here Dan? Specifically with regards to the TNG acknowledgement, and your not doing that if you were writing it?

The "easiest" way into the story if you have "Old Spock" on board, is to have "Old Kirk" on board and have the two of them reminiscing about the first time they met. Since putting Old Kirk into the movie was a not something the story lent itself to without conjuring phrases like "shoe-horn", Old Kirk must not be available within the confines of the story.

One reason he would be unavailable is if he's dead. Since he died in TNG's Generations movie, having him dead in "Star Trek" wouldn't overtly contradict Jon's beloved canon, while not requiring the audience to know how he died (making it accessible to Trek fans and mainstream fans who bailed before Generations).

If for some strange reason, instead of hiring the talented and creative professional writers they have, Paramount decided to hire me to write the script, I would reboot Trek. I'm not writing the script. For people like Jon and Sec31Mike and others who fear Ragnarök if canon is violated, the *fact* that I'm not writing the script should come as a small kernel of silver happiness ;)

I take the fact that Nimoy is participating, but that Shatner (though he wants to) is not participating as a positive from a story perspective (even though I love me some Shat, and would love Shat as Kirk as directed by JJ Abrams). It makes it more likely that Old Spock is going to be more than an exposition tool, and may actually have an adventure of his own that parallels the first adventure he had with Kirk back in the day.

Given that this is the first official, Q&A-style information session, with real fans posing the questions, and this is the information that came out of it, I see nothing to support the dire predictions that have been made on this board in various threads by various individuals over the last year or so.

Hope that's clear enough :)

Dan

OK, I take what I said back, partially.

Based on previous interviews with the writers and director that I've read, combined with the casting announcement, I maintain that there is ample evidence to indicate that they intend to do a 2.0/reboot/reimagining of Trek in this movie in an effort to increase their good graces within the Paramount elite and put "Saved Star Trek" on their resume.

-Jonathan

I don't "fear Ragnarök", as you put it.  I simply believe that opting to do a reboot or reimagining in the same manner that BSG has been made is lazy writing.  I also think that it's opting to ride on the coattails of a successful franchise in order to promote ideas the writer wouldn't have ever gotten a chance to had they been more creative and put it into a new series to stand by itself (please note that spinoffs that hold to the original universe's rules of engagement/history do not fall under this opinion.).

I also feel that it's dishonest and unethical for a production company to slap a familiar set of labels on something and imply that it's the same thing simply to get nostalgic fans to show up when you have no intention of giving them something that bears more than a passing resemblance to what they fell in love with.



I couldn't care less who is cast in the movie, really.  Cast Shat, cast Nimoy, cast the entire Original Series crew for all it matters to me.  All I care about is if they're going to throw out what came before, or if they are going to work their aft sensor arrays to exhaustion trying to get it right.

If they manage to successfully navigate the minefield that is TOS canon without setting off more than a few minor ones (and by minor, I mean truly insignificant - nothing history-altering), I'll be impressed.  But until then, I maintain that they are going to be doing a reboot, and we caught them in the act far earlier than they'd hoped we would.

-Jonathan

(edited to remove information not intended for public consumption - sorry...)

Ok well I can understand that.
If they wanted to include Kirk (Shatner preferably) they could easily have any "recent" part set sometime between TUC and Gen. that would seriously compromise canon. If theyre going to do it as a Kirk is dead, thing, as long as they "presume" he was killed on the Ent B then I dont really care, nor do I think most other people would. That would simply mean that those who have seen Generations are satisfied, as indeed Im sure would those older Trek fans who havent, because lets face it. It would be near impossible for them not to have heard about it by now.

I have to say, I hope they dont go messing about too much with canon. Yes, I have expressed certain annoyances about canon in the past, but those are mainly situations where people seem to take leave of common sense and intelligence. TOS canon is a minefield, as Jonathon quite correctly pointed out. Moving things there so that they happen say a few months earlier or later, even if this does change the year by one, isnt going to change things hugely, If they try to erase things, or modifiy things in a significant way, then I would be annoyed.

But then as we all know canon is continually being written while Trek is in production. This happened all the way through TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT. So its certainly nothing new from that point of view.

http://trekmovie.com/2007/08/01/interview-...art-1/#more-895

trekmovie.com's Anthony Pascale has a Comic-Con interview with Leonard Nimoy.

Dan

Well, if the man who I wanted to take the helm instead of Berman says that they're being careful to respect the history and what came before - and he has said that here - then I will relax my guard a bit.  The only thing I find odd is that he appears to look at canon and what that means a bit differently than the fans do.

I remain guarded, but open to new information.

-Jonathan

Let’s try this on remember there is a HUGE amount of prior star trek knowledge out there, way more lore and fact than Battlestar—so a re-envisioning isn’t as easy but…
How about focusing on  Reminiscing(face it there really isn’t an a developed world citizen who doesn’t know who Kirk and Spock are or look like), --Spock telling the story of how he (Spock) met the young Kirk and a professional  relationship and then friendship develops and continues..., if Shatner comes back there is plenty of ways to share an older set of memories between Kirk and Spock  Prior to the Kirk units death in Generations-Scene” Spock and Kirk in space dock as they walk towards a Gang way as the now Ambassador Spock leaves on his first assignment and Kirk shares how sorry he is that Spock will not be there for the commission of the good ship Enterprise B, Kirk continues with his fear of being useless and put out to pasture – perfect tie in and linking to utilize the old and patch in the new
I am hoping that Paramount /CBS came to their senses and said do it but  don’t disrupt canon too much as  we have way too many millions of dollars in star trek historical assets (prior series and films) to ruin them for new fans by not having them match the new movie..

Just as a point of perspective...

For 99.9% of the fans, they are not Trek obsessed like some (we) are.  They could care less about some of the canon. 

The last 2 movies, not to mention the last official TV series were pretty awful, so if they change some "canon" introduced there...  fine with me.  Star Trek the franchise has lost LOTS of former hardcore fans (like me) over the past 7 years or so.  As long as the new story works and is a good, compelling story, it will be fine by me (and 99.9% of the fans). 

For those fans who obsess over things like this, they'll never be happy with it, so why try.  It would be nice and tidy not to have too many different versions of "history" -- but let's just chalk it up to another temporal burp that caused some minor distortion.  Or, perhaps, remind ourselves that this is a fictional TV show/movie series we're talking about...

It's 2007, and there hasn't been a Eugenics War.  I can still enjoy Star Trek.

Rick

90%+ of computer users across the globe use Windows.  Why should we bother with a safer/more stable/more secure OS, when less than 10% care about getting it right to begin with?

An estimated 90% of the world classifies themselves as heterosexual.  Why should we bother caring about the estimated 10% who don't?

90%+ of a school's student body is of sufficient talent to not need special care for education.  Why should I care about the less than 10% who have special needs?

I'm on time to work 90% of the time... ...why should my employer care about the 10% of the time I show up late or not at all?

Palo Alto's nuclear reactor's safety rate is above 90%.  Why should we care about the less than 10% it's not safe?

99% of the audiences I've done show support for don't care if I spent three extra hours prior to call to ensure that they got what they paid for.  Why should I have bothered doing it for the 1% who will end up enjoying the show more as a result of what I've done?

See the trend I'm laying down here?  If you don't care about that which IS impacted, then you can just as easily not care about the other portion.

And why would you want to minimize my caring about Star Trek with the classic argument-killer, "But it's just a TV show/movie/play/musical/etc.!"?  Well, so's Hidden Frontier, dude.  So's Odyssey.  So's New Voyages, so's Helena Chronicles, so's every other beloved TV program out there.  If that's the stance I'm being asked to take, why bother caring about any show at all?  After all... ...it's just a show.

-Jonathan

Jonathan,

You certainly can care about all that. 

I just point out that 99.9% of the people who will watch Star Trek XI will enjoy it for what it is, on its own merits as a film, not as a documentary.

--Rick

But I'm not looking for it to be a documentary.  I'm looking for it to be consistent with the part of the larger tale that's already been told.

-Jonathan

One must remember that in all those cases it has been possible to cater for both. If it's a case of really having to decide between the happiness\safety\whatever of the majority or the minority, unless the majority are evil or diseased or something, you go with the majority. Therefore the analogy doesn't really count.

*shrugs*

Then I'll lean back on my original comments that there's no reason to call it Star Trek except to get nostalgic fans to saddle up to the bar.  Once they've saddled up and plunked down their dough, it doesn't matter if they've been served something that only bears a passing resemblance to the picture on the menu.

-Jonathan

You mean like Star Trek: The Next Generation, and it's rather vague resemblance to Star Trek: TOS?

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20049407,00.html

EW roundtable interview with Abrams, Nimoy and Quinto.

Dan

This point jumps out at me.



I've never bought into the warnings of doom and gloom about this movie, and the screams of "reboot". Abrams has said over and over again that it isn't a reboot. And here he says it again.

Quit worrying. It's either going to be good, or not, but at this point all the fears of a Galactica style re-imagining appear baseless. At this point, though, I'm quietly optimistic.

http://trekmovie.com/2007/08/02/interview-...art-2/#more-897

Second part of Anthony Pascale's interview with Leonard Nimoy.

Dan

From Nimoy:
emphatically] I agree! I agree! I totally agree. At one point during The Next Generation television series I contacted the Paramount television people and said “I am looking at some of these shows and I don’t understand them.” These technobabble scenes where people sit around a table and pour out information that has no dramatic impact - that is not in character. It is just people putting out information to try and explain what is going on, but it doesn’t explain…it is just boring. I think you are right, Abrams did not do that. He kept this thing moving and some of the scenes were absolutely gripping…gripping. When he gets hold of a scene he knows how to milk the drama out of it and that is one of his great talents.

Amen Sista!

This is spooky... :shock:

Only a few days ago I posted a thread on the Quinto and how he looks like one of the HF actors. Funny how is suddenly turns out to be playing a ST character!

But they were quite careful to point out that while it bore similarity, it was a continuation of the story.  They didn't go "OK, new show, new rules, new history!"  They made an attempt, however half-hearted in some folk's eyes, to respect the history that came before it - and while they didn't always succeed, they didn't suddenly make Captain Kirk a girl.

-Jonathan

(Edit: Misspelled "some folk's" as "your".  Sorry.)

*shrugs*  Minimizing technobabble isn't my concern, JT.  I'm happy that they were able to achieve their desired story without overextended use of it.

That doesn't change my stance on the matter.

-Jonathan

And that very same point leaps out at me and says exactly the opposite of what you've interpreted, especially this part right here:




Sorry, Nick - this screams to me that he's got no intention of respecting anything other than what's going to make it possible for him to write "Saved Star Trek" on his resume.  If that means he tosses out the history of the era that this movie's being made in - then apparently, that's OK for him.

Well, sacrificing what has come before to save what is to be is no victory - and it's certainly not what I'd call "saving Star Trek".

If the only way to "save" Star Trek is to do this lazy reboot/2.0 - then I'd rather let "professional Trek" go down in flames.

-Jonathan

Afraid I have to disagree with you on this Jonathan. It's entirely possible to make a film that does both, and that's clearly what he has in mind; a film that fits into continuity, but isn't so completely obsessed with inter-series references that it alienates the general movie-going public.

I have no doubts that the film isn't going to look much like TOS, which will undoubtedly anger some, but otherwise I'm convinced it'll fit into history just fine.

And I agree with your assessment and I think this is a case where we're on opposite angles when we look at JJ's comments.

You see them as fitting in with what we all want - a film that maintains continuity and that respects what comes before.

I see them as confirmation that he's broken his word to us and a declared intent to ignore the history as it suits him to do so.

-Jonathan

And I am in the middle



The quote can be read either way.

"This isn't about pleasing the fans, this is about making a great film" - Strikes me as to hell with what the fants want.
"And to do that, you have to both please the fans and please the people who've never seen Star Trek." - Wait I thought this wasn't about pleasing fans, but now you do and want to please the newbies.  Okay that is good.
" So having Leonard in the film shows that this film exists in a continuum of Trek history, as opposed to an absolute, page 1 reinvention."  This statement appears to say that they will keep with cannon.  But it doesn't actually say that, only keeping the continuum.  One could argue that the James Bond reboot, kept with the continuum of Bond films. 

So I am just not sure.

This goes out to everyone on either side of the "Abrams is going to ignore or contradict canon" debate - it does not matter.

He's said his primary concern is to tell a good story. And people dare to criticise him for that?? Patrick Stewart, I can remember for one, saying on the Insurrection DVD featurette that the primary goal of Star Trek has always been to tell a good story. Other Trek luminaries have said the exact same thing in different words time and time again. As long as Abrams intends to do that, and we can all agree that that seems to be what he's after, he IS keeping to what makes Star Trek special.

If canon ends up contradicting itself, big whoop. There are parts of Star Trek lore that were written many decades ago that either never made sense in the first place, or won't make sense given the story he wants to tell, so he may or may not reject them. It doesn't matter. Any new instalment of a franchise or series, be it a new film, new episode, new character or whatever, brings something new to that franchise. If in the course of that they bring something new that removes something old, it is in the order of things. Life goes that way, entertainment goes that way. It. Does. Not. Matter. What DOES matter to Star Trek is to tell that good story, and so he shall, and anyone who wants to stand in the way of that because they want to hold on to some "fact" (as they see it) that they picked up from an episode or book years ago is missing what it is to be a Trekker.

During this little rant, I also feel the need to mention a parallel that's crossed my mind - Christians can be some of the most passionate people about their beliefs. For many, their faith guides them in everything they do. And their holy text is FULL of contradictions (e.g. "turn the other cheek" v "an eye for an eye," and "love they neighbour" v "it is an abomination and they shall be stoned to death," to paraphrase) ... if Christians can put up with and resolve their contradictions, I'm sure Star Trek will too. I mean, hell, we already have had contradictions and changes to previously "established" lore and we have survived. It has not been the end of the world. Life goes on. Star Trek goes on. It's fine. It doesn't matter.

So if there's just one point to take away from this rant, the length of which I apologise for, it is this: Star Trek is defined by its ability to tell story worth telling. It is not defined by an encyclopaedia, Memory Alpha, a bookshelf full of technical manuals, and die-hard fans insisting that they are blessed with the only correct interpretation of what we've all been watching all these years. So as long as Star Trek XI's story is worth watching, it is Star Trek, it has every right to be Star Trek, and piffling canonicity minutiae be damned.

Robin, I'll let you take a breath before I write my note.





OK.

I think you've missed a rather larger point tbh.  It obviously isn't a problem for you, it will not be a problem for me.  Some people are undecided.  It does, however matter a lot to others.  No point arguing or trying to convince them, it's how they feel.  Bit like trying to convince you it does matter - won't happen.

Each to their own.

I think it's this idea that there's a massive number of people who care that's a little off.

There's a demographic that cares. Definitely. They're passionate. Of course. They have large numbers? No.

If they had large numbers, then they would be dictating the direction of the movie. This is still commerce: If enough consumers wanted a slavishly canon film, that's what Paramount would give them.

Again, though, back to the original, black-or-white, it'll-either-respect-canon-or-it-won't-position, there's nothing in the text or spirit of the interviews above that supports either extreme.

It's clear from the text of the various interviews that the people making the movie represent a broad spectrum of what a Trek fan is. Kurtzman and Orci have gone on record with their honest bonafides: One is a fan of all Trek and has a significant working knowledge of canon through TNG+, one is a fan primarily of TOS. JJ's a fan of TOS. Nimoy's friggin' SPOCK. In a lot of cases, he *made* canon. Quinto's at best a casual fan, but he's a fan of Nimoy's Spock. That's who he's playing so, um, good!

But lets address what I see as the heart of the matter: What *could* they, possibly, contradict about canon, and why?

...

*shrugs*

I don't see nuthin. We don't know dick about how Kirk and Spock met. The first time we see them together, they've obviously already spent some time working together. They've shared some adventures together. "Where No Man Has Gone Before" wasn't their first mission of Kirk's command of the Enterprise, and there's nothing stated that Kirk met Spock when he took command of the Enterprise.

We know nothing about the plot of the movie except the following:

Kirks' in it.

Spock's in it.

Spock's in it as an old guy and a young guy.

The Enterprise is in it to some capacity.

...

That's it. Given the interviews, the available information...I've said it before, I don't understand the hate. There's nothing out there to base the hate on.

Dan

Good summary, Dan.  I concur.  You just have pretty words.  LOL

- Rick

Sir, you mistake my disagreeing with a point for my missing it.

As ever, I want to make it clear to all those who for some odd reason think I carry around a sign that says the opposite: I do not hold opinions because I am misinformed. If you think I have missed a point, then it is usually you who are missing what I am saying about a point.

And my point was, as I clearly said, that those who care so deeply about the finer points of assumed canonicity, that they feign deep wounds when they feel those assumptions are challenged, have a poor sense of what it is to be a Star Trek fan.

Ed: grammar correction.

I don't see any hate, just different opions.


I'm not sure I did miss what you were saying and to clarify my point about "It does not matter" and the last line of this post, it does not matter to you or me, it does to some.

I'm sure we're all back to the start again, I think I recognise that tree, we definately came past this way ;)

No, I really honestly did not miss that. As I keep saying, the people who do think it matter miss the fact that what does matter about Star Trek is the story telling. I have not missed your point, I disagreed with it. I made it very clear I disagreed with it. And once again I must hammer home that I do not ever hold an opinion because I'm misinformed. I disagree. I do not ignore. Please, don't cause me to have to explain it again.

GEEK ALERT!

Carry on.

I don't know whether or not that was aimed at me :P But either way, if one were to condense my problem with the anti-Abrams moaning in to two words, one could not do much better than that!

If it was aimed at me then ... um ... touché? :S

No Robin, it was aimed at everybody. I'm amused by the intensity this is generating, and it was meant affectionately.

I fully understand what you've said, no need for a hammer.  Here it comes... but... there doesn't appear to be much room for people to disagree with the Star Trek is all about Story Telling point.  Some people think it's more than that and they are welcome to decide what they like and don't like. 

There really is no argument to have.

In your opinion.  You and I have talked, and it's already clear to me that insofar as Trek goes, you care little for if the story remains internally consistent.  However, it's my right to have a different opinion, and in this case, I do - It does matter to me. 



Ab-so-friggin'-lutely.  As I've said time and time again - the quality of the story will not be my beef with him.  We already know he's capable of telling good stories.  I do not know why people keep returning to that tactic to try to get me to see something as though I don't see it.  I see it just fine and my answer is: I... ...don't... ...care..  Please don't try this tactic again, I'm already rather irritated that people are repeating it to me as though I didn't read it the first dozen times they've tried to tell me.

After all, I hold the same stance on nuBSG, and I happen to think that it's a VERY well-written show.  Doesn't make it any more than what it is, though - a completely different show that has little resemblance to the show who's title it is claiming.




And to me, if he want to tell a good story, but doesn't want to keep to the history and sandbox - then write a good story in a different sandbox and leave the Trek box alone.  I've said this many, many times before - I don't really mind if Trek is never made again in a commercial format if the only way it can be done is through a fusion of slick marketing and lazy people who want to capitalize on nostaliga to make their story sellable.

And again, I'm seeing folks trying to minimize my stance by saying "some fact". I speak not of little things like if the Bridge stations are ordered correctly, or if some Ensign was wearing a yellow shirt or a red one during the series.  What I DO care about is major things.  The big, well known details.



Bad analogy - aside from the "passionate" part, I mean.  This example is precisely what I'd refer to.  The verses you are referring to are in two different testaments.

"An eye for an eye" was recognized by Christ as the Law.  He did not override this or say "No, that didn't actually happen."  He acknowledged it and then brought to his students a new instruction to follow - which actually never overrode the Law.  There's no actual contradiction or "reboot" there, because it was accepted and acknowledged as part of history.




In your opinion.  I feel that no matter how good the story is, if it decides to just bear the name without bearing ALL of the history, then it does NOT have the right to be called "Star Trek", it ISN'T "Star Trek" and it should be forsaken as a cheap attempt at money-grabbing and fame-seeking.

-Jonathan

^^^ Please state the elements of TOS canon that you, personally, feel cannot be violated.

So far, we haven't really got a basis to understand your position. You state (and this reeeally chaps my hide as a writer) that any attempt to write a story that does not include the elements of Trek's fictional history you deem to be canonical is "lazy". There's a rant in there about disrespecting the craft and creativity of talented writers by arbitrarily deciding when they've been "lazy" and when they haven't based solely on your opinions, without any basis in understanding their craft, but I'll stow that for a few more weeks and get down to some emperical stuff, see if we can't find an area of common ground to start from:

If the sets look different than the 60's show, is that violating canon? How "different" does it have to be before it violates "canon"?

If the Enterprise looks different, how different before it violates "canon"?

If the uniforms look different from the 60's show?

What will violate "canon", specifically, for you?

Dan

I've already told you in our previous conversations about that, but I'll be happy to restate.

1.) Anything that constitutes a "reboot".  Character changes, age changes, backstory changes.  For example - Scotty being a classmate, or Sulu suddenly becoming female, or Chekov existing as an officer on the bridge before he's supposed to in the timeline.

2.) Any major story points being altered with the excuse given being "the story comes first".

3.) Anything that alters the appearance of the Enterprise in a drastic way.  Exposing her field coils in the manner that Gabe suggests (which looks great, but still canon-breaking), smoothing her lines to make her look more like a super-fast convertable/roadster - even the addition of a field coil glow would be sufficient to qualify, since the original field coils were entirely enclosed, and we didn't see a nacelle glow at all.

These things may equal "WOW!" in the eyes of the average movie goer - they may even make a great story - but it would be "game over" as far as I'm concerned.

Further, I'll re-state what I mean by "lazy" - since you seem to be offended by it, and as I define it in this case- it has nothing to do with creative talent or lack therof.

1.) Wrapping a nostalgia-generating label around a story - good, great, bad or otherwise - that only has a slight resemblance with the history of that label in an attempt to grab an early fan base and buzz, instead of writing a completely original work and letting it stand on it's own without the power-boost that nostalgia and the instant fan base will grant.

2.) Re-imagining an existing work just for the sake of re-imagining it, and significantly altering key details of plot and character development - even if, like in the case of TOSBSG, there wasn't much character development to begin with.

See, Dan - I don't care how creative the re-imagining is.  It could be the greatest movie or TV show ever written for all I care.  It's still lazy, and it's still standing on the shoulders of people who came before in an effort to grab early ratings.

I honestly don't see a need for a new Trek just for the sake of new Trek.  The audience isn't exactly clamoring for new adventures if the ratings of excellent sci-fi programs across the past few years have anything to say about it.  So why do it?  Why bother making a new one - and more importantly - why pick TOS Trek to base this new story on?

My gut says that JJ can't resist the siren call of being able to add "Saved Star Trek" to his resume.  After all, that's a pretty-sounding song, and I'd be the first to admit that such a thing would be pretty hard to resist if I were in JJ's shoes.

I mean, don't you think it'd be badical if you got to put that on your brag sheet?  Saving Star Trek from the sands of time just as the world was convinced that it was fading away? 

I don't know where you get this idea that I've got some sort of beef with JJ or any other great writer over some sort of opinion I have about their creativity.  It's simply not the case.

As I've said before - I wouldn't care if it's God Himself who came down from on high and wrote the script for this new movie.  If it screws with the known history in a significant manner - then I wouldn't watch it.

-Jonathan