The demise of Enterprise shows that 'authentic' ST doesn't have the wide appeal it once had.
Enterprise was not "authentic" in any way, shape or form.
Enterprise failed because it had the worst writing possible. A TV show lives or dies on the basis of its writing. If the BSG reboot had Enterprises writers, it would have failed even more miserably. Fortunately for them and fans, BSG got DS9's writers, which seems to have worked out pretty well so far.
Authentic ST can work. But not when you have crappy writing; nothing works with crappy writing.
Oh come on there's umpteen ST plots with time travel in (think ST IV and First Contact for a start).
Yes. Which is why it is overused and cliche. Hence the "WHY?!"
Not to mention that most time travel plots suck. Some work, some work very well, some are just funny, but most of the time that Star Trek dips into that well, they come up with crap.
Well I think the time travel thing was sort of required to set up the reboot.
No. First, there was no need for a reboot to begin with. If they wanted to tell new stories, just jump ahead of the DS9/Voyager timeline for about 25 years.
What they're doing here is trying to entice the old guard of Star Trek fans by ostenteously making a movie about the TOS crew, except that they're going to take their own spin on it, make the characters and setting their own, and take out whatever they want. That is, they're hijacking the setting in order to do whatever they want to.
The Batman Begins reboot was not that. It was a different take on the same character. The Casino Royale reboot is similar to that: it's still Bond, but in a more serious world.
The trailer showed clearly that they have no intension of being true to the characters of TOS, the setting of Star Trek, or, well, anything really. They're just stealing the face of the show to make yet another Hollywood blockbuster. In short, they're doing to Star Trek what was done to Transformers.
Its stupid really, they want a new series, but then hate the NEW stuff because its DIFFERENT from the OLD stuff.
That's a pretty ridiculous way of looking at it. Is it impossible for you to accept that we might like the new stuff if it were actually good, but we don't see the new stuff as being good?
DS9 was new for Trek. It was a very different kind of Trek. Grittier, darker, but there was still a sense of optimism and hope. It didn't focus so much on exploration of places as exploration of people, but the exploration was still there.
DS9 is the kind of "different" that I'm looking for. And thus far, this new Star Trek isn't that.
