It was like a spoof of “Transformers” without an actual movie to spoof other than 20 year gone cartoons, which were in large part more “epic” than the movie adaptation, even with some of the childish dramatization they employed.

Every Star Trek movie to date has had years of television episodes backing it – plenty of time to develop characters, maybe get a feel for workable stories with a group of actors who work well together. All of that is now lost and they are jumping into a new movie and assuming a hit.

It’s just arrogance.

If you really think about it, taking a cultural icon and creating a “success” by standing on the long history of something well known like “Star Trek” or “Transformers” does not take any talent whatsoever. Its like standing outside some large beautiful house and pretending its a recent real-estate deal you closed. Putting a label on a product that rhymes with a big-name manufacturer of a similar product.

Talent might be construed as, created a new, successful TV series that took off in a new direction. Why do certain franchises have longevity? People like the existing story and theme. Changing the Star Trek world – 40 years of it – into something more hip and fresh etc – would seem to be more of an ending than a beginning.

Star Trek was never about sci-fi. It was about storytelling – a distinction that seasoned writers learned to make with many past mistakes that had time to self-correct due to the nature of television series. Can the same be said for this so-called reboot?

I think Gene Roddenberry did not consider “Star Trek V: The Final Frontier” to be canon.

WAIT!!

What did I just write??!!
We’re talking Shatner here.

That’s BIG bucks. HA!

That’s GREAT!

And we would’nt even need a writer for that!
Just may a residual payment.
But then, that may be a problem.