XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise, rec.arts.startrek.current   
   From: anybody@anywhere-anytime.com   
      
   In article   
   <46ac5f9f$0$31420$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, "seon   
   ferguson"  wrote:   
      
   > "Anybody"  wrote in message   
   > news:290720071446259736%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...   
   > > In article , "Dough"   
   > >  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> "Anybody"  wrote in message   
   > >> news:290720071015215706%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...   
   > >> > In article <5tima3ldlosl8h16lpu1dtb7slfn5jbi0r@4ax.com>, Brian Thorn   
   > >> >  wrote:   
   > >> >   
   > >> >> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:03:34 +1000, "seon ferguson"   
   > >> >>  wrote:   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >> >Most prequals are rubbish. Just look at Star Wars episode 1-3.   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >> Ugh! Do I HAVE to?   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >> But I really liked "BATMAN BEGINS".   
   > >> >   
   > >> > One word:  "Enterprise".   X-(   
   > >>   
   > >> Then again, two more words: "Season Four"   
   > >   
   > > Ah, so you think they could make 50+ awful movies and THEN get it right   
   > > (supposedly). Star Trek would be completely dead long before they got   
   > > to that point, even if you counted the last few TNG movies in the awful   
   > > category.   
   >   
   > They weren't all awful. I enjoyed nemesis and first contact.   
   >   
   > Plus keep in mind if you want to "re vamp" Trek you don't have to make a   
   > prequal.   
      
   In Hollyweird's limited brain capacity world they DO have to make a   
   prequel (and a "reboot") simply because everyone else is doing it. One   
   of them does something mildy new or successful and all the others   
   simply jump on the same bandwagon.   :-\   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)