XPost: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From: epwise@yahoo.com
Sandman wrote in
news:mr-408D77.09190420052013@News.Individual.NET:
> In article
> ,
> YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>
>> > > > Even if he made it a musical of naked shaved wookies, it would
>> > > > still be better than the prequels.
>> > >
>> > > Lucas owned it and did what HE wanted. Sounds fair.
>> >
>> > Of course. Never said anything about it being unfair. Ruined it
>> > was, even so. :)
>>
>> George Lucas was allowed to do whatever he wanted ... he actually
>> created the franchise.
>
> Eh, yes I know? Why are you writing this? Have I claimed he either did
> not create it or that he could not do whatever he wanted?
>
>> Over-egoed "reboot" fools like JJ Abrams haven't got enough talent to
>> actually make their own franchise, so they have to go around
>> butchering other people's hard work instead. :-(
>
> Again - JJ Abrams could not butcher Star Wars even if he wanted.
> George Lucas already did that. It's like shooting a dead horse
> expected it to be more dead.
>
> If anything, JJ can either keep the horse dead (by continuing the
> train wreck that was the prequels) or he can do something better. He
> can not do something worse. It is not possible.
>
> If the 2009 Star Trek was renamed as Star Wars and released now, it
> would be a hundred times better than the prequels.
>
> (yeah, ok, a bit of hyperbole, but I've really come to despise the
> prequels).
>
>
>
Prequels don't ruin a franchise, whether you like them or not. They
only tell what's gone before. Sequels, on the other hand, can ruin a
franchise by turning the story in stupid directions.
Enterprise was a prequel, ST 2009 was a sequel.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
