10 Star Trek Debates That Tear The Fandom Apart

STAR TREK IS DEAD! 

In 2009, Star Trek exploded onto screens with a flurry of lens flares, fast moving ships, faster moving people, and a bombastic score that fit the mood. This came four years after the cancellation of Star Trek: Enterprise - a show with considerably less lens flares - and seven years after the poor box office that Star Trek: Nemesis received. In terms of Hollywood, it is a little bit remarkable that such a big budget endeavour was gambled on a franchise that had, for all intents and purposes, died. 

Rebooting familiar properties is also something of a safe bet for movie studios that want more return than risk, but Star Trek had never truly dazzled at the box office - despite some impressive returns from The One With The Whales - so a complete tonal shift was employed to make it more marketable to the summer blockbuster crowd. Therein lay the first line that some Trekkies struggled to cross. How could this film - so utterly different in look and feel - truly be a part of the overall franchise? Having Star Trek exist within its own continuity was a wise move, even if that stoked more anger from those who wished to see the existing universe more fully explored. Casting Leonard Nimoy certainly helped allay some of those fears, as there are few more recognisable ears in Sci-Fi. 

While there is little doubt that, financially at least, J.J. Abrams’ gamble paid off, the Kelvin Universe films remain hotly contested in the fandom. There are those who drink them up gladly, while others simply tolerate their existence. There are those who simply ignore them, while more vehemently decry their existence - resolutely stating that Abrams & co attempted to murder the franchise. With the years passing, and little hope of Star Trek 4 on the horizon, it seems as though this is one argument, at least, that may be confined to three films and a couple of television references.