XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek, alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise   
   XPost: rec.arts.startrek.current   
   From: david@block.net   
      
   On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:32:30 +1300, Anybody   
    wrote:   
      
   >In article <45af4a86$0$32026$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, "Jaxtraw"   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> ToolPackinMama wrote:   
   >> > Jaxtraw wrote:   
   >> >   
   >> >  > Have problem, fix   
   >> >> by end of show, reset, rinse, repeat.   
   >> >   
   >> > TOS was the same in that regard.   
   >>   
   >> TOS was a show of its time, 40 years ago. It had a formula, yes, as do all   
   >> shows, but it _established_ that formula- it was the first of its kind.   
   >> Voyager brought nothing new to TV or Trek or anything else, at all.   
   >   
   >That depends what you mean by "new". You got new stories, new   
   >characters, etc. What you didn't get is stupid new ideas that make a   
   >show which is "Star Trek" in name only. People like "Star Trek" because   
   >it is "Star Trek" - if you want "new", then go and watch a "new" show.   
   >Voyager was part of the established Star Trek franchise, so it's not   
   >meant to be bring anything "new".   
   >   
   >It's that kind of "has to be new" stupidity that is being practised in   
   >Hollyweird these and results in moronically changed, ill-fitting   
   >rubbish like Enterprise or shows that bare almost no resemblance to   
   >what they're SUPPOSEDLY part of.   :-\   
      
   What do you care?  If you can't cope with the idea of alternate   
   realities, I assume you couldn't handle Star Trek anyway.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)