BafflingBeerMan

Can you even call this a reboot, since animation, especially superhero animation, has a long history of retelling/reshowing their characters in new ways? It's not like there haven't been numerous animated DCU fare, all unique, but I don't think you'd consider Superman: The Animated Series a reboot of the Fleischer cartoon.

At this point, superhero cartoon is to TV as the Brothers Grimm fairytales are to various children's stories. Can we agree that after a certain point today's media and "reboots" become "retellings" like that we have experience over the centuries, like with Shakespeare's plays and the Greek tragedies? Especially with TV properties that have a pretty clear beginning and end.

The point I was making about Trek's general treatment of villains was how much is Soren, V'ger, etc., except for Khan, developed in their own movies? In half of these movies, there was an inanimate or wholely unhuman threat that you can't really color any more than "challenge." Khan is the epitome of Star Trek villains. Which also makes him the exception. You can have a massive challenge that the crew of the Enterprise overcomes, against all odds, without giving more than lipservice to the villain. Which is pretty much a "Monster of the Week" in movie-form. Which is okay, because not every villain needs to have depth. It is unfair to compare Nero to Khan, like you said. Who comes close to Khan anyways in the Trek movies?

And I wholeheartedly agree with the statement that the second movie will paint a clearer picture of where Abrams will take Trek. Think about the first movie, The Motion Picture, and Generations. They aren't viewed with the rosiest of glasses. They are usually damned with faint praise. Why? Because, as you said, they are placesetters. It is the first time with a new cast. First time an attempt to make a Trek movie with certain conditions. And so on. You can't swing for the fences on your first attempt, because if you whiff, that's it, it is over.

To be fair, they are all clones. In a dream. That time-traveled. And are their own grandfathers.

DAMN YOU LOST!

JACK-RAGE!

Heh.

The only reason why Tyler is somewhat tolerable

You see, the problem is this:

YOU DO NOT LOOK DIRECTLY INTO THE AWESOMENESS THAT IS THE FLYING JACK-PUNCH!

But will they cast a non-Indian to play an Indian scientist again?

What evidence do we have that the Vulcan population was spread out in any significant way though?

Alt-Spock said they found a new spot to repopulate the Vulcan race with. Not that there was already an established spot they were relocating to, but a (implied) new suitable spot.

Yes, space is big. But that doesn't mean the Vulcans were spread out far, with any regularity. One can even assume they tended to avoid traveling around space that much by the movie First Contact, where they were trying to avoid Earth somewhat (or were even unaware there was life on our planet) until we developed warp drive.

Also, in Enterprise, weren't the Vulcans hesitant to help Captain Archer? They wanted to keep to themselves. Which again, wouldn't mean they wouldn't like to explore and see space, but would also tend to signify that they would be insular and depend on themselves more than Starfleet, unless the situation was dire, and keep their own resources nearby enough to help, if need be.

In none of the Star Trek franchise did I ever get the impression that the Vulcans were explorers and SETTLERS. It is equally feasible that while they explored the vast intricacies of space, these explorers often returned home. Hence, any number of them could be just leaving or just entering Vulcan's sphere of influence and easily return home during the attack and be decimated.

Again, space is big. A civilization's presence in that space may not be.