Originally Posted by Kataan
I thought it was quite well written also...here is a quote from the articile that stuck with me!
"People repeatedly ask why I am so much opposed to the idea of the new movie taking place in a new parallel timeline, a concept that has been repeatedly used in Star Trek before. There is, however, a huge difference between the parallel timeline that Abrams has created for "Star Trek XI" and the ones we have gotten used to. Because it is a narrative switch now. In other words, it is not a temporary visit of a fairground such as DS9's Mirror Universe. Abrams' version is the only Star Trek from now, perhaps safe for ongoing novel series that may carry on in the old continuity. TOS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager may still exist somewhere out there, but it is just a hypothetical possibility that some day the official Star Trek of Paramount/CBS will revisit the old universe. It is nothing more than wishful thinking of some fans that the old Trek continuity may still exist in some fashion. When the redesigned Enterprise warps away into the new universe at the end of "Star Trek XI", it is a point of no return in canon Trek."
Outstanding! I completely agree.
Parallel Universes, while RARELY used in Star Trek, are always used as a storyline for contrast
ONLY. TOS episode "Mirror, Mirror" is an excellent example, and the episode ended with the moralistic realisation of "It is easier for a civilized man to appear barbaric than for a barbarian to appear civilized".
Excuse me for being a rabid capitalist, but the last movie has utterly failed to generate the (highly profitable) fan following that TOS did. It failed to generate any significant post-movie buzz whatsoever. And licensing deals for the movie's new characters have fell through. It's a clear failure of branding.