XPost: rec.arts.sf.tv, rec.arts.startrek.current   
   From: david@block.net   
      
   On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:49:18 -0700, Dimensional Traveler   
    wrote:   
      
   >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   
      
   Or more accurately "they ash-canned the old continuity deliberately   
   because the whole point was to get people interested again in an old   
   clapped out property that had lost most of its value."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)