XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek, alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise   
   XPost: rec.arts.startrek.current   
   From: anybody@anywhere-anytime.com   
      
   In article <45ab6833$0$31233$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, "Jaxtraw"   
    wrote:   
      
   > 80 Knight wrote:   
   > > "Anybody"  wrote in message   
   > > news:150120071919313333%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...   
   > >> In article , David   
   > >> Johnston  wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:21:53 +1300, Anybody   
   > >>>  wrote:   
   > >>>   
   > >>>   
   > >>>>> When did "Star Trek fan" become synonymous with "Someone who   
   > >>>>> wants to never see Star Trek on TV again"?   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> About the same time the idiots were put in charge and started   
   > >>>> trying to change Star Trek into something that is "Star Trek" in   
   > >>>> name only (or in the case of "Enterprise", not even in name).   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Oh bullshit.  Those self-same idiots were in charge starting with   
   > >>> TNG.   
   > >>   
   > >> No they weren't. Beavis & Butthead took over full control later,   
   > >   
   > > Wrong.  Gene Rodenberry died in 1991, TNG didn't end until 1993. B&B   
   > > ran the show from then on.   
   > >   
   > >> and neither had a clue how to do "Star Trek", nor did they even want   
   > >> to.   
   > >   
   > > Yes.  Exactly.  That is why TNG was one of the highest rated   
   > > shows.....   
   > >   
   > >> Both simply wanted to add a big name to their own portfolios - yet   
   > >> another form of selfish greed.   
   > >   
   > > Wow. To think people in this world have the never to want to make   
   > > money.   
   > > I am the first one to admit that Berman and Bragga ruined   
   > > "Enterprise". However, they also wrote some damned good episodes of   
   > > TNG and Voyager.   
   >   
   > Yet strangely, demanding that millions of dollars be spent producing TV   
   > shows and movies to satisfy a few fans isn't selfish and greedy at all,   
   > apparently.   
      
   Where exactly did I say they *had* to "produce TV shows and movies to   
   satisfy a few fans"????   
      
   What I have said all along is that if a franchise isn't "popular   
   enough" (by whatever silly system they want to use), then you do NOT   
   try to "remake" / "reboot" the franchise, you do NOT make a mess of   
   conflicting nonsense by trying to ignore what's gone before, you do NOT   
   change it into some garbage that is simply re-using the name for a   
   totally different show / movie, you do NOT slap the face of existing   
   fans who poured their enthusiasm and money into making the franchise   
   originally successful by saying "sod you, we want more money".   
      
   As I said, most fans would rather see no more TV shows / movies rather   
   than barely recognisable rubbish that is really "Star Trek" in name   
   only.   
      
   If the franchise isn't "popular enough", then you put it out to   
   pasture, retire it, leave it to the fans and make a brand new show /   
   movie ... they're basically doing that anyway, so may as well put a bit   
   more effort and creativity into it and use a new name to go with it.   
      
   Simply because they own the product doesn't mean they have the moral   
   right to do whatever they damn well please - legal yes, moral no. It's   
   even worse when the product is owned by a "big business" corporate and   
   every new idiot in charge thinks they know a better way to make more   
   money out if it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)