XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek, alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise   
   XPost: rec.arts.startrek.current   
   From: anybody@anywhere-anytime.com   
      
   In article <2007073117044816807-thecroft@macunlimitednet>, Andrew   
    wrote:   
      
   > On 2007-07-31 06:35:05 +0100, Anybody  said:   
   >   
   > > In article <2007073022360816807-thecroft@macunlimitednet>, Andrew   
   > >  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> On 2007-07-30 22:22:01 +0100, Anybody  said:   
   > >>   
   > >>> 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.   
   > >>   
   > >> What was the point of snipping the main point of what I had to say in   
   > >> order to answer an aside?   
   > >   
   > > Your so-called "main point" wasn't relevant to the discussion about the   
   > > movies.   
   > >   
   > > I said Enterprise was a hopeless mess, you said it got better in season   
   > > 4, I replied that wading through three seasons of crap for a supposedly   
   > > good show isn't going to happen with movies.   
   >   
   > No - the point I was making is that if a show gets bogged down in every   
   > little tiny detail of back-story, it becomes effectively impossible to   
   > tell good new stories. Some level of "breaking with the past" is   
   > inevitable and should be welcomed. That does not mean, however, that we   
   > can ditch everything.   
      
   It's nowhere near "inevitable". That's the entire reason that these   
   "remakes" are idiotic.   
      
   If a show is not worth continuing to be made, then don't make it.   
      
   If a show is worth contuning to be made, then make it as it's always   
   been done since that is what the fans like.   
      
   If they want to make a new show, then make a NEW show. Don't butcher an   
   older show and slap existing fans in the face with stupid ill-fitting   
   changes simply for the sake of stuffing Holyweird's pockets.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)