The ST franchise has re-invented itself several times already. However, the Abrams-version ST franchise has diverged significantly from what fans of the original series sometimes call the canon. The destruction of Vulcan, in particular, rendered a number of the original series episodes impossible, and some fans of the original series don't go along with that.
I accept that the franchise had to start appealing to a younger audience if it was going to bring in revenue, and that the previous attempt to invent wholly new characters (the Scott Bacula tv series) flopped. So the producers split the difference, and the result is a mixed bag for many of the first-generation fans.
I myself view the Abrams films as good sci-fi action yarns, only coincidentally populated by figures with the names "Kirk" "Spock" and "McCoy". Of course, if the characters had been called anything else, I'd have said it was a blatant rip-off.
-Removed-Yes, it's the 'alternate facts' time-line thing on the big screen now. I thought Abrams very cleverly worked alternate-Khan into one of the recent Chris Pine / Zachary Quinto films; and Uhura-Spock doomed romance is now substituted for Nurse Chapel-Spock doomed romance, which works better than I would have expected.
I agree, the spin-offs were a mixed bag. Captain Archer was a dipstick and his Vulcan sidekick with the impossibly tight-fitting body suit was too obviously a rip-off of Seven-of-Nine from Voyager.
Originally posted by moonbusAh, Seven-of-Nine.
Yes, it's the 'alternate facts' time-line thing on the big screen now. I thought Abrams very cleverly worked alternate-Khan into one of the recent Chris Pine / Zachary Quinto films; and Uhura-Spock doomed romance is now substituted for Nurse Chapel-Spock doomed romance, which works better than I would have expected.
I agree, the spin-offs were a mixed bag ...[text shortened]... he impossibly tight-fitting body suit was too obviously a rip-off of Seven-of-Nine from Voyager.