XPost: alt.startrek, rec.arts.startrek.current, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   XPost: rec.arts.tv   
   From: Obveeus@aol.com   
      
   On 6/26/2017 7:47 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:   
   > On 6/26/2017 4:29 PM, Obveeus wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> On 6/26/2017 7:01 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:   
   >>> In article ,   
   >>>   Dimensional Traveler  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 6/26/2017 3:04 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:   
   >>>>> In article ,   
   >>>>>    Dimensional Traveler  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 6/26/2017 2:03 PM, Doc O'Leary wrote:   
   >>>>>>> For your reference, records indicate that   
   >>>>>>> Wouter Valentijn  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Another Reboot. That much is certain.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Just the opposite.  They announced that Discovery is supposed to be   
   >>>>>>> set in the classic ‰裉Prime‰� timeline.    
   That‰菄s why   
   >>>>>>> doing what   
   >>>>>>> they‰菄re   
   >>>>>>> doing is problematic well beyond any cries of racism or other   
   >>>>>>> intolerance.  It was problematic when they did the same thing with   
   >>>>>>> Enterprise.  It‰菄s just dumb to depict things 10 or 100 years   
   >>>>>>> prior to   
   >>>>>>> Kirk as being more advanced than what even Picard had just   
   >>>>>>> because our   
   >>>>>>> tech has taken off in the present.  It certainly *should* have   
   >>>>>>> been a   
   >>>>>>> reboot.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Either that or, like I‰菄m sure I‰菄ve said before,   
   someone   
   >>>>>>> needs to sit   
   >>>>>>> down with all the property in the franchise and work out a fully   
   >>>>>>> coherent continuity.  One that they can stick to for all *future*   
   >>>>>>> production as well, of course.  All this piecemeal shit has become a   
   >>>>>>> real anchor around the neck of the Trek universe.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The "creative" types would hate that.  They want to be able to put   
   >>>>>> their   
   >>>>>> own stamp on it without being "hampered" by being consistent with   
   >>>>>> what   
   >>>>>> others have done.  Why do you think Abrams burned the whole thing   
   >>>>>> to the   
   >>>>>> ground and started over from scratch?  Why do you think every other   
   >>>>>> Superman or Spiderman movie is a reboot, origin story?  Because the   
   >>>>>> "creatives" want it to be _their_ vision that controls.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> That's partly it.  You've also got the part where the "creatives"   
   >>>>> won't   
   >>>>> (some say can't) read the source material, and nowadays won't watch   
   >>>>> source material.  Brannon Braga was apparently proud of having never   
   >>>>> seen an episode of real Trek, which is how he ended up writing Zephram   
   >>>>> Cochrane as a black woman.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> I think the "won't read/view source material" is part of their   
   >>>> egotistic   
   >>>> "I can do it better! if you just don't bother me with the truth"   
   >>>> problem.  So the two are sides of the same metaphorical coin.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Plus there's the whole "I'll sue you if you ever read or watch   
   >>>> something   
   >>>> of mine and then ever in your life make something I can claim was   
   >>>> unconsciously influenced by my work!" thing.   
   >>>   
   >>> Well, yeah, but refusing to watch an ep of Trek when you're making   
   >>> eps of Trek ...   
   >>   
   >> Alternatively, Simon Pegg is a huge TREK fan and he put all kinds of   
   >> stuff into the film to make TREK fans happy and they still complained.   
   >   
   > He didn't get rid of the Abrams stink....   
      
   The third entry in the series was much better than the second.  The only   
   real stink in it was a bunch of stupid motorcycle stuff.  Of course, I'm   
   dreading the fourth film somewhat because I'm not looking forward to   
   Chekov getting run over by the ship and written off.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)