XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek, alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise   
   XPost: rec.arts.startrek.current   
   From: rgorman@block.net   
      
   On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:53:46 +1300, Anybody   
    wrote:   
      
   >In article , David Johnston   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:39:31 +1300, Anybody   
   >>  wrote:   
   >> >> 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.   
   >>   
   >> And all you are left with the incredible stupidity of naming multiple   
   >> men "James Bond" just so everyone will know he's a spy.   
   >   
   >So?!?!? It *is* fiction.  :-)   
   >   
   >It's the same basic idea behind The Phantom.   
      
   No, it isn't.  The Phantom pretended to be the same guy as his   
   forefathers so he could convince some fairly superstitious people that   
   he was immortal and unstoppable.  That approach doesn't work quite   
   well when it's obvious to everyone that this is a new guy.  Not to   
   mention that multiple incarnations of Bond would have been fighting   
   the same Blofeld without Blofeld noticing the difference.   
      
   >> >> 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.   
   >>   
   >> If you're stupid and don't want to make money.   
   >   
   >Money is not the-be-all and end-all of everything ...   
      
   I don't have any money.  If I run out of food at about the end of the   
   week, I'm not going to be able to eat for the next couple of days   
   until I get some more.  Don't you tell me that money doesn't matter.   
   Money is _survival_.   
      
   >The franchise is obviously created to (at least partly) make money by   
   >the network, but that's not why fans go to see it, buy the books, etc.   
      
   Fans are not the be-all and end-all of everything...   
      
   >   
   >As above, if the franchise is no popular enough to make money for them,   
   >then they should end it and leave it to the fans.   
      
   But that isn't the issue.  The issue is whether they should ignore   
   everyone who isn't a rabid fan.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)