XPost: alt.tv.star-trek.tos   
   From: epwise@yahoo.com   
      
   "Bast"  wrote in   
   news:kndop0$cgi$1@dont-email.me:   
      
   >   
   >   
   > Wiseguy wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > So you think a YOUNG kirk,....supposedly before the TOS timeframe, is   
   > not a "prequel"  ?   
   >   
   > The fact is, that as an alternate universe,..... it's just a   
   > bastardization/exploitation for profit.   
   > And a bit late for the writers to save it by claiming it was all a   
   > dream sequence.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   A prequel tells the story of what happens before another series or   
   movie.   
      
   This wasn't a re-telling, it was a revisit with time travel.   
      
   If they had just started the movie in the past and showed how the   
   characters got together then it would have been a prequel.   
   Changing the past so they can go through "the present" differently is   
   not a prequel to TOS.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)