I've given it a great deal of thought, for it's a complicated subject. However, I now believe that rebooting Star Trek is not a good idea.
The new Star Trek film, premiering this Friday, is a "prequel" in the sense that it takes place prior to the original series, but not a prequel in the sense that it actually results in an alternate timeline.((Yes, time travel--prepare for headaches.)) This allows J.J. Abrams to effectively shed the burden of forty-three years of Star Trek continuity and boldly go where Star Trek has never, never gone before.((Namely, Spock and Uhura. Yeah, that's right.)) Well, for the record, I think J.J. Abrams is wrong.
Yes, yes, I'm well aware that for many people, J.J. Abrams is God, and oh-em-gee-how-could-you-say-such-a-thing?!
I'm not against rebooting Star Trek's continuity per se. After all, Ronald D. Moore reimagined Battlestar Galactica, and that turned out rather well. Star Trek arguably has a more developed universe than Battlestar Galactica, however, which requires far more careful handling than simply overwriting the timeline. In that respect, Star Trek is more similar to Dune.((Seriously, who are you trying to fool, Brian Herbert?)) It's not the reboot that worries…