For whatever reason I didn't like Superman, but the same can be said for Batman. That's been rebooted too often, although the latest version, I am liking very much.
There are differences between "rebooting" Star Trek and "rebooting" a super hero comic.
The comic books make a fundamental mistake. They hook events in the comic books to the real world while not letting the characters age proportional to those events. For example Iron Man originated in the Korean war and is still active 50 years later, either the character should be in his 70s or older or they needed to rewrite it (into the Vietnam war last I read). Batman is even worse as he was a mature man when the character was created in the 1930's. The age of the characters no longer matched the events of their lives, a reboot was needed to compensate. Even with the reboots they tried to be true to the character as originally created.
Star Trek as a (primarily) live action TV based "future world" has not been tied to events in the real world. The characters could be allowed to age as the actors aged.
Keep in mind the words Kirk told Scotty in Trek III : "New minds, fresh ideas... be tolerant"
But, dont stand behind Scotty's answer of " If grandma had wheels, She'd be a wagon" either.... 
No one objects to new idea, only to changing what already exists. I object to the revision of the Klingons post TOS, not the appearance but the culture. I don't object to the Vulcans as they are effectively the same race (allowing for changes with time).
Consecutive series have been based in different eras and it was definitely possible to keep the series consistant without conflicts between them. The movies could be put into the same context. Many fans (argurably most) don't want to see this continuity wantonly broken when there is no need. Myself among them.
It was possible with this movie to make it in a fashion that was compatible with the history that went before, they have apparently chosen not to. It was possible to create Enterprise while respecting what went before. What overwhelming need did they have to ignore the continuity when "creating" Enterprise?
Why could they not have used a different ship the co-existed with the NCC-1701 and created a new crew for it if they wanted to do THIS story is the Star Trek Universe? They could even have used the 1701B and filled in some of the missing history. They didn't NEED to revise what was already part of the series.
You didn't like first contact? Also, there's a difference between new ideas and raping and donkey punching Star Trek.
Could they not have filmed First Contact without moving Zefram Cochrane from Alpha Centauri to Earth? Why do they make these wanton changes?
So WHY do they need to reboot?
If activision is not going to include SFB in SFC3 why bother?
The objection is actually the same. SFC 3 is changed so much it deserves a new name. Change Star Trek enough and again it should be divorced from Star Trek and given its own new identity.
Topic: So on May the 8th Star trek will die (Read 17311 times)