XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek, alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise   
   XPost: rec.arts.startrek.current   
   From: jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com   
      
   Anybody wrote:   
   > In article ,   
   > "Steven L."  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> You're putting Hollywood between a rock and a hard place.  If their   
   >> stated goal is to produce a remake that is faithful to the original,   
   >> you're going to be waiting to pounce on every flaw to claim "it's not   
   >> being faithful to the original."   
   >>   
   >> And if their stated goal is to re-imagine the original, then you're   
   >> going to claim "it's not the original in anything but name."  Either   
   >> way, you make it impossible for the Trek saga to be continued with   
   >> the famous characters once those actors are either dead or otherwise   
   >> unavailable.  And that's a self-defeating attitude.  It would prevent   
   >> all classic theater, from Antigone to Hamlet, from ever being   
   >> performed in the present day.   
   >   
   > "Flaws" are totaly different to "idiotic changes".   
   >   
   > If they want to make something, then they should make THAT. If they   
   > want to make a new show, then they should make a NEW show. Stealing   
   > the name of an old show and slapping it on something barely   
   > recognisable is simply beyond any common sense. It's also a slap in   
   > the face to the fans who liked the original - Hollyweird are   
   > basically saying "sod you, the version you like doesn't make enough   
   > money, so we're going to butcher it. We don't care that you bought   
   > the books, DVDs, etc. that kept the franchise alive and making ANY   
   > money".   
   >   
   > Personally I don't think they should even be allowed to do "remakes"   
   > at all within the lifetime of the original (which would vary   
   > depending on how popular and long-lasting it is).   
   >   
   >   
      
   This argument keeps coming up, and it makes no sense. The only criteria for   
   whether something should be made is whether anyone will want to watch it.   
   That's it. There isn't some higher divine authority regarding what movies or   
   TV should be made. Neither is it the job of studios or anyone else to try to   
   honour the perspective of some people who define themselves as fans and gain   
   in the process some kind of proprietorial belief in whatever they're a fan   
   of.   
      
   Watching a TV show doesn't make you its premise's owner, or part owner, or   
   anything else. You have the TV show you enjoyed, the movie you enjoyed, to   
   watch any time you want. What authority do you have over what is then done   
   with the name, characters etc? You're not being slapped in the face. You   
   simply aren't part of the equation.   
      
   If "the version you liked" doesn't make enough money, it makes obvious sense   
   to instead make something that does make money, because if it makes money   
   (an end in itself) that means it is serving the desires of a new audience.   
   It has a market. People want it. That's all there is.   
      
   If you don't want to see the new movie, don't go and see it. Your   
   involvement with it goes that far, and that's it.   
      
      
   Ian   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)