XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek, alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise   
   XPost: rec.arts.startrek.current   
   From: anybody@anywhere-anytime.com   
      
   In article , The Merry   
   Piper  wrote:   
      
   > On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:09:37 +1300, Anybody   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   > >With James Bond you can at least pretend that each new actor is in fact   
   > >a different agent and "007" is always given the alias "James Bond" in a   
   > >similar way to the Men in Black having their names changed when they   
   > >become an agent.   
   >   
   > Why?  He's James Bond.  So what if a different actor portrays him?   
   > It's never been a problem with anyone I know. In point of fact, there   
   > has been a great deal of buzz generated over the identity of the next   
   > Bond.   
   >   
   > Okay, I reread my words before hitting the send key and it sounds as   
   > if I'm being deliberately obtuse.  I'm not, I just never really   
   > thought about it with the possible exception of George Lazenby's   
   > throwaway line from "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" -- "This never   
   > happened to that other fellow."  Great line, that.   
      
   But, other than re=using the name, they aren't all the same character -   
   one has a Scottish accent for a start. If you pretend that each is   
   actually a different person being give the "agent name" of James Bond,   
   then those differences make a lot more sense.   
      
      
      
   > >The general public aren't the ones that keep a franchise going.   
   >   
   > I see where you are coming from with this but I am not convinced. Just   
   > about anything produced these days by a major company such as   
   > Paramount must appeal to a large audience, particularly with the big   
   > money being spent of special effect films.   
      
   If an existing franchise no longer appeals to a "big enough" audience,   
   then you simply don't make it any more. Leave it to the fans with   
   books, etc. You don't "re-invent", "reboot", etc. to some load of   
   silliness where the only real resemblence is the name.   
      
   But this is not the real problem with Star Trek. he problem here is   
   that Paramount simply has no idea what they're doing and they keep   
   hiring idiots to be in charge of making the new movies.   
      
      
      
   > >The "radical" changes in this new movie will almost certianly come from   
   > >the idiots ignoring everything that's gone before in some inane and   
   > >pointless attempt to "re-boot" the franchise.   :-(   
   >   
   > I know we've been over this ground a few times so please forgive ...   
   > but hasn't each reiteration of Trek fiddled with canon and the   
   > franchise to a degree?  Is it a given this newest offering is going to   
   > be a full reboot and not just another tinkering with canon?   
      
   The only real "fiddling" was from Enterprise, and the result was a   
   hopeless mess best ignored ... just as this new movie will be. Abrams   
   has already said he'd prefer people not know the shows - that stinks   
   highly of him making lots of silly, unnecessary changes and ignore   
   what's gone before simply because he wants to (re)do Star Trek "his   
   way" and because the big-wigs want to shovel more money in their   
   pockets. As with all "big business", they simply don't give a damn   
   about the fans / customers.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)