XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek, alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise
From: fluidstates_NO+SPAM@REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com
"TaKYoN" wrote in message
news:f483g.8339$tc.6049@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> I concur, this is going to be bollocks. Each series and film should
> follow a progressive timeline, the Trek universe is very well laid out and
> continuity has to be followed. Enterprise fucked up on several occasions
> with the continuity.
Prequels and sequels are Hollywood's management of "risks". There is no
[apparent] risk in going either backwards or (slightly) forwards in time and
(partially) extrapolating situations. This is Hollywoodspeak for "Known
Quantity" - that is, (a) if it worked before we can modify, with minimal
effort, these items and come out with this solution and (b) "we know we have
a market, for it worked before..."
TNG was a /huge/ risk for Paramount financially - again, once you get behind
the camera and examine the business aspect of it, as noted in "behind the
scene" production books, the new paradigm that Paramount pretty much created
for the contracts of the TNG syndication rights was quite unheard of. For
TNG it paid Paramount off handsomely - probably the greatest syndication
income the Hollywood television scene had ever known.
But Hollywood simply cannot guarantee such a performance again...they do not
wish to take the same level of risk. So therefore taking our known
quantities - Kirk, Spock, Picard, Janeway, Sisco et al - and repackaging
them, instead of creating entirely new characters in an entirely new
situation, /appears/ to have both lower risk and greater built-in market.
Of course, your answer hits it right on the head:
Bollocks!
Rubbish in, rubbish out.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
