C3PX said:
Gaffer makes a good point about adaptions. It is hard to think of this as a new adaption of the old series though. Mostly because they based some major plot points around not making it to.

Gaffer, imagine if J. K. Rowling had felt it nessecary to tie the books in with a film in order to explain away their variations. Let's say the Harry from the book went and somehow met the Harry from the movies, and they had a discussion about how things might happen differently in each of their timelines for some reason or another. Kind of silly isn't it?

Oh, yes, it certainly is. And I'm not saying I agree with everything done in adaptations. I generally think, for example, that the Harry Potter films are done well and respectfully, but, as a fan, there are things that annoy me, or I think could have done better, or simply think were botched. But since I think they were done well overall, I can overlook those things.

My point is, the majority of revisionism, if done well, I can put up with. I mean, I'm one of the few who argue that the NCC-1701 could work in its original design in this movie, as long as the effects are done well enough. I don't think it needs to be changed at all and would prefer it not be. But if I see it, and it ends up being good, then I will let it slide.

I'm not at all sure how this dual Spock thing will work out. When you put it like that, it seems pretty dumb. But maybe it will work out. I don't know. I was simply defending J.J.'s assertion that balances need to be reached in adapations a lot of the time. I agree with the concept, and I disagree that fans need to necessarily get up in arms because of that statement. That doesn't necessarily mean I agree with specific ideas and concepts he's put into the movie.