c3fe4b00   
   XPost: alt.tv.star-trek.tos   
   From: cigarmanwine@gmail.com   
      
   On May 21, 2:30 pm, "Bast"  wrote:   
   > MITO MINISTER wrote:   
   > > On May 21, 3:09 am, "Bast"  wrote:   
   > >> Wiseguy wrote:   
   > >>> Sandman  wrote in   
   > >>>news:mr-408D77.09190420052013@News.Individual.NET:   
   >   
   > >>>> In article   
   > >>>> ,   
   > >>>> YourN...@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.   
   >   
   > > There is nothing to save. The movie was a hit. There is no shame. No   
   > > embarassment. The people at Paramount are NOT walking around in fear   
   > > of bumping into obsessed taunting fan-boys. They have NOT ruined a   
   > > franchise. On the contrary, a third film is in the works. That is NOT   
   > > RUINATION. That is SUCCESS.   
   >   
   > > And you are in the basement.   
   >   
   > By July, the DVD/Blu rays will be in the Walmart 99� bins.   
      
   Not likely. But if so, so what?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)