XPost: alt.startrek, rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   XPost: rec.arts.startrek.current   
   From: dtravel@sonic.net   
      
   On 6/28/2017 2:17 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:   
   > In article ,   
   >   Doc O'Leary   wrote:   
   >   
   >> For your reference, records indicate that   
   >> Dimensional Traveler  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> He didn't dare aim any of that at Paramount, they were the ones paying   
   >>> him and would have canned his ass so fast the Earth would have rotated   
   >>> backwards.   
   >>   
   >> Why do you think they have any investment in the Trek universe greater   
   >> than that of making a profit?  The pitch was to make a successful Trek   
   >> movie, not simply to do as he pleased.  There was just enough overlap   
   >> to suck the soul out of the franchise, to whatever extent the soul of   
   >> Trek still exists post-TNG.   
   >>   
   >> Likewise, I doubt Paramount really cares that much about the   
   >> anachronistic token diversity that is being pushed in Discovery.   
   >> Someone was simply able to sell them on the notion that they’ll get a   
   >> larger audience (and thus larger profits) if they hype that angle.  And,   
   >> in the short term, that will probably be true.  But short term planning   
   >> is *not* a wise thing to do when you have a brand that you want to build   
   >> a lasting value.   
   >   
   > Does Paramount have anything to do with STD?  I thought they had the   
   > movies, and CBASS has the TV shows.   
   >   
   This is all followup to my review of the first movie.   
      
   --   
   Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation   
   instinct are running screaming.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)