XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise, rec.arts.startrek.current
From: anybody@anywhere-anytime.com
In article <46ac7c63$0$245$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, "Wouter Valentijn"
wrote:
> "seon ferguson" schreef in bericht
> news:46ac5f9f$0$31420$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >
> > "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.
>
> They could call it a Star Trek 2.0 or something like that.
> Borrowing from JMS's proposal.
If they change it as much as Ron Moore's so-called "Battlestar
Galactica", then it really needs and deserves a totally new name as
well.
Maybe "Galaxy Hiking". ;-)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
