XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek, alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise   
   XPost: rec.arts.startrek.current   
   From: anybody@anywhere-anytime.com   
      
   In article <2007073122383916807-thecroft@macunlimitednet>, Andrew   
    wrote:   
      
   > On 2007-07-31 22:08:51 +0100, Anybody  said:   
   >   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > There's nothing "idiotic" about them. They just don't have the   
   > anally-retentive approach to continuity that some fans (present company   
   > excepted of course) have to the minutiae of Star Trek, or other, past   
   > history.   
      
   It's called being consistent. A muddled mess isn't of interest to   
   anyone ... except of course those with short attention spans who can't   
   remember the show that played last week, let alone a few years ago.   
      
      
      
      
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > And there's no point in trying to get new fans.   
      
   The rubbish called "Enterprise" proves that trying to get new fans   
   doesn't work and is a pointless waste of time. People either like or   
   don't like a franchise, the only new fans you'll get are those few that   
   change their minds or are coming along fresh (usually these were too   
   young the first time around and are introduced to the franchise by   
   their parents).   
      
   The ones who do like it, like it because of the way it is. Changing it   
   is idiotic and slaps them in the face. The ones who don't like it   
   mostly won't even bother watching a new version straight off because   
   they see the name and say "yuck" (which is why Enterprise started off   
   without the "Star Trek" prefix).   
      
   Again, if the show isn't worth making, then don't make it. If you want   
   to make a new show / franchise, then make a NEW one. Do not butcher an   
   existing one simply to fill Hollywierd's greedy pockets at the expense   
   of the fans who like the franchise how it is.   
      
      
      
   > Or in telling different kinds of stories. But then again, IIUYC you   
   > liked TNG. That wasn't making Star Trek as it had always been done.   
   > Did you like DS9?   
      
   Yet again, TNG *is* the same and (mostly) consistent with the original   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)