I'm in total disagreement with your review, but I'd like to focus on a single aspect of it to prove my overall point. You referred to the franchise as "depleted" and suggest "...what's wrong with saying something is over? How about a little death with dignity?" By this logic, there are any number of movie franchises that should never see another entry make it to the screen.
James Bond and Batman are the two that spring immediately to mind. Both have large fan bases spread across generations of audiences, and have seen numerous actors play the lead roles. The Bond series has a screen history that precedes the debut of the STAR TREK television series, and the 1960s Batman show was on the air at the same time as TREK, making a similar leap from small screen to big screen.
By your suggested logic though, a "depleted" franchise should just be abandoned, and new audiences shouldn't be given a chance to experience an appreciation for characters that predate them. Furthermore, new writers and directors shouldn't be allowed a chance to make these franchises relevant to modern audiences.
Let's take this a step further: why ever make another KING ARTHUR movie? Or ROBIN HOOD? Or Jesus, for that matter? This is all territory that's been explored and revisited time and again.
I actually expect studios to maintain profitable franchises by any viable means possible -- to suggest they SHOULDN'T want to keep making money from something there is a potential audience for (to borrow a phrase from our Vulcan friend) is highly illogical. A lot of people still love STAR TREK, but the franchise's success doesn't just rest in its appeal to dedicated fans, but instead in its overall appeal to a much wider audience.
I believe Abrams and co. made a movie that is extremely respectful of its source material -- so much in fact that they go to great lengths to AVOID saying what occurred to the characters in previous stories never happened. If you loved Shatner and Nimoy and the rest so much you can't bear to think of other actors in the roles, that's fine. This is a new universe; the original is still where it was.
Now the creators, and anyone who would like to see a more modern take on these characters, can enjoy that free of the inherent contradictions of the original continuity. You are right when you refer to the special fidelity it takes to pull off a time travel story. Why make another STAR TREK movie? Because only via movies can we all - creators, actors, fans and the general audience - hope to travel into both the past and the future at the same time.
What you saw as "emotionally damaged", I saw as re-energized. So beam me up!
Recent Comments
James Bond and Batman are the two that spring immediately to mind. Both have large fan bases spread across generations of audiences, and have seen numerous actors play the lead roles. The Bond series has a screen history that precedes the debut of the STAR TREK television series, and the 1960s Batman show was on the air at the same time as TREK, making a similar leap from small screen to big screen.
By your suggested logic though, a "depleted" franchise should just be abandoned, and new audiences shouldn't be given a chance to experience an appreciation for characters that predate them. Furthermore, new writers and directors shouldn't be allowed a chance to make these franchises relevant to modern audiences.
Let's take this a step further: why ever make another KING ARTHUR movie? Or ROBIN HOOD? Or Jesus, for that matter? This is all territory that's been explored and revisited time and again.
I actually expect studios to maintain profitable franchises by any viable means possible -- to suggest they SHOULDN'T want to keep making money from something there is a potential audience for (to borrow a phrase from our Vulcan friend) is highly illogical. A lot of people still love STAR TREK, but the franchise's success doesn't just rest in its appeal to dedicated fans, but instead in its overall appeal to a much wider audience.
I believe Abrams and co. made a movie that is extremely respectful of its source material -- so much in fact that they go to great lengths to AVOID saying what occurred to the characters in previous stories never happened. If you loved Shatner and Nimoy and the rest so much you can't bear to think of other actors in the roles, that's fine. This is a new universe; the original is still where it was.
Now the creators, and anyone who would like to see a more modern take on these characters, can enjoy that free of the inherent contradictions of the original continuity. You are right when you refer to the special fidelity it takes to pull off a time travel story. Why make another STAR TREK movie? Because only via movies can we all - creators, actors, fans and the general audience - hope to travel into both the past and the future at the same time.
What you saw as "emotionally damaged", I saw as re-energized. So beam me up!