XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek, alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise   
   XPost: rec.arts.startrek.current   
   From: anybody@anywhere-anytime.com   
      
   In article <2007073010345375249-thecroft@macunlimitednet>, Andrew   
    wrote:   
      
   > On 2007-07-29 03:42:37 +0100, Anybody  said:   
   >   
   > > In article <2007072900330516807-thecroft@macunlimitednet>, Andrew   
   > >  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> On 2007-07-28 23:14:34 +0100, Anybody  said:   
   > >>   
   > >>> In article <2007072821042816807-thecroft@macunlimitednet>, Andrew   
   > >>>  wrote:   
   > >>>   
   > >>>> On 2007-07-28 01:11:46 +0100, Anybody    
   > >>>> said:   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>>> In article , "Cubit"   
   > >>>>>  wrote:   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>>> 9 months ago, I posted a YouTube video urging that the original ST:TOS   
   > >>>>>> cast   
   > >>>>>> be replaced with new young actors.  Maybe someone saw it.  Maybe it   
   > >>>>>> was a   
   > >>>>>> coincidence.   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> They aren't "replacing" anyone or doing some idiotic remake of TOS.   
   > >>>>> They are making a prequel to the original Star Trek series, which means   
   > >>>>> they obviously can't use Shatner and co. to play an 20 year olds.   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> Having said that, they'll also be making lots of moronic changes and   
   > >>>>> ignoring stuff we already know, so the movie is going to be useless,   
   > >>>>> ill-fitting rubbish within the frame work of "Star Trek" as we know it.   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> Not that you're pre-judging it at all.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Since they haven't made it yet, all we can do is "pre-judge" on what we   
   > >>> currently know ... which is:   
   > >>>   
   > >>> - most prequels / reboots / reimaginings / remakes suck badly.   
   > >>   
   > >> Except when they don't   
   > >   
   > > Very rare.   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >>> - re-casting of characters rarely actually works.   
   > >>   
   > >> Except when they do   
   > >   
   > > Very rare.   
   >   
   > Works well for Shakespeare. And James Bond.   
      
   Oh dear, here we go again - round and round explaining the same old   
   thing over and over yet again.  :-\   
      
      
      
   > >>> - ignoring what's gone before is idiotically stupid.   
   > >>   
   > >> Probably. but there is no evidence that this is the case here   
   > >   
   > > Yes it is. They've already said they're not going to worry about   
   > > breaking with the past - the "facts" we already know about the Star   
   > > Trek history. They've already called it a "reboot". This is the same   
   > > problem that caused some of the hopeless mess that was called   
   > > "Enterprise".   
   >   
   > Actually I thought Enterprise was rather good - especially Season 4.   
      
      
   Season 4 may or may not be any good, but by then you've had (at least)   
   three seasons of garbage. A movie company is NOT going to sit through   
   making 50 crap films in the hopes that the fans like number 51. The   
   franchise will be dead long before that.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)