XPost: rec.arts.sf.tv, rec.arts.startrek.current   
   From: pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu   
      
   Dimensional Traveler  writes:   
      
   > Joe Pfeiffer wrote:   
   >> Dimensional Traveler  writes:   
   >>> *notices none of the "It Was Great" crowd trying to show me I'm wrong*   
   >>   
   >> Of course not.  I agree with you on many of the flaws -- I came out of   
   >> the theatre saying it was great fun, but would have been improved a lot   
   >> if it had had a comprehensible plot.  I'm disagreeing on whether they   
   >> ash-canned to old continuity because they couldn't be bothered to do   
   >> their homework (your view), or if they gave a much-needed kick to a very   
   >> tired franchise (mine).   
   >   
   > Actually, my view is closer to "they ash-canned the old continuity   
   > deliberately because the whole point was to get people to think of   
   > them when someone says 'Star Trek' rather than the people who actually   
   > made 'Star Trek' a well known, valuable property".  :-P   
      
   If you'd just come around as far as "...to get people to think of the   
   new movie instead of a tired old franchise whose value had been as   
   systematically destroyed by B&B as Chrysler's was by Daimler" we'd be in   
   complete agreement.   
   --   
   As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should   
   be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;   
   and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)