XPost: alt.startrek, rec.arts.startrek.current, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   XPost: rec.arts.tv   
   From: liam@valentijn.nu   
      
   Op 28-6-2017 om 19:56 schreef Dimensional Traveler:   
   > On 6/28/2017 10:51 AM, Wouter Valentijn wrote:   
   >> Op 27-6-2017 om 23:46 schreef Dimensional Traveler:   
   >>> On 6/27/2017 12:51 PM, Doc O'Leary wrote:   
   >>>> For your reference, records indicate that   
   >>>> Obveeus  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Using a phaser that looks closer to STAR TREK (The Original Series)   
   >>>>> The complaints about the Klingon looks or the look of the transporters   
   >>>>> or the look of the phasers is right on par with the complaints about   
   >>>>> SUPERMAN's outfit being the wrong shade of blue or WONDER WOMAN's   
   >>>>> outfit   
   >>>>> not being flaggy enough.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I would disagree a bit with that, and even then only from a continuity   
   >>>> perspective.  It *would* be fair comment if a *single* representation   
   >>>> of S or WW had their costume change without explanation.  And it would   
   >>>> be *very* wrong to suddenly replace the person themselves with a   
   >>>> blonde (or give them head ridges :-).  Unless it’s a reboot, you do   
   >>>> *not* get to exercise your “creativity” in those sorts of aspects of   
   >>>> the universe.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Were you guys sitting around the water cooler back in the 80s griping   
   >>>>> about how much the new BUCK ROGERS TV series sucked because the   
   >>>>> ships no   
   >>>>> longer swung back and forth on pieces of fishing line like they were   
   >>>>> supposed too?  ...and they failed to have cigarette smoke wafting   
   >>>>> randomly out of the back like was coda?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Well we’re sure as hell not going to complain about Wilma Deering’s   
   >>>> outfits!  :-)  But seriously, you have to make a distinction between   
   >>>> what is a surface difference and what is being changed in an   
   >>>> established story line for the wrong reasons.  If they didn’t want to   
   >>>> do “Prime” Trek, they should have created yet another timeline, or not   
   >>>> made it a Trek property at all.  Simple as that.   
   >>>>   
   >>> The problem is they DID start a new timeline.  And in the process said   
   >>> "this is the only Trek now, we have destroyed the timeline of the prior   
   >>> serieses and movies."   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> That was basically what JJ wanted. He was not amused that the CBS half   
   >> of the franchise refused to give up their goodies in favor of 'only   
   >> Kelvin timeline stuff'.   
   >>   
   > Which just shows how over-inflated Abrams' ego is.   
   >   
   >> And as far as I'm concerned Discovery is yet /another/ timeline.   
   >>   
   > I think that's official.   
   >   
      
   Than they really should call it that. Be honest about it.   
      
   --   
   Wouter Valentijn www.j3v.net   
      
   "Be yourself no matter what they say"   
      
   Sting ("Englishman in New York")   
      
   liam=mail   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)