XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek, alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise
XPost: rec.arts.startrek.current
From: jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com
Anybody wrote:
> 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".
I'm having some trouble here with your considerable logical leap from "I
bought this product in the past" to "therefore its manufacturers are morally
obligated to consult me about changing it". Why is this a "sod you"?
The whole point of being in business is "we want more money". That's the
whole point of being an employee as well, come to that. What is morally
wrong with making the product that one thinks will sell the most?
> 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.
Where did morals come into this? It's a TV show we're talking about, not the
Bible. What is immoral about changing a product to improve sales?
> It's
> even worse when the product is owned by a "big business" corporate
Why? Would you be less slapped in the face if the guy re-tooling Trek were
working out of his garden shed? Why?
> and
> every new idiot in charge thinks they know a better way to make more
> money out if it.
What have you got against people making money?
Ian
--
www.jaxtrawstudios.com
science fiction comics with shagging in
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
