XPost: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From: YourName@YourISP.com
In article <519f948a$0$15941$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl>, "Wouter
Valentijn" wrote:
> Sandman wrote:
> > In article ,
> > Wiseguy wrote:
> >
> >> Prequels don't ruin a franchise, whether you like them or not.
> >
> > Well, then JJ Abrams can't, either. I was responding to YourName that
> > claimed that JJ Abrams would destroy the "real Star Wars", whatever
> > that means.
> >
> > And I think you mean that prequels can't ruin the originals - the
> > franchise as such is the sum of all its parts, and if some of those
> > parts are bad, it certainly can ruin the franchise as a whole. The
> > original movies aren't ruined though.
> >
> >> They only tell what's gone before. Sequels, on the other hand, can
> >> ruin a franchise by turning the story in stupid directions.
> >
> > Huh? That makes no sense at all. The prequels can introduce directions
> > that ruins the franchise just as much as sequels. Like introducing
> > "midichlorians" that if you take it into consideration ruins Yodas
> > entire sensei talk on Dagobah.
>
> Actually, I prefer midichlorians over mumbo jumbo talk. :-) It made The
> Force more likable to me.
There isn't any problem for those with brains since midichlorians are not
and never were the Force.
> But as a whole the prequels were not as good as the first movies made. As
> they /originally/ were made.
Maybe, maybe not ... but the Prequels and the Special Editions are how
George Lucas wanted to make them, and since he's the one who created the
franchise, he's the only one allowed to say what does and doesn't happen
... not some over-egoed idiot like JJ Abrams.
> They were better than the 2009 incarnation of Star Trek I think, which was
> official Star Trek, but not as I (want to) know it.
Official Star Trek - yes.
Real "Star Trek" - nope, never will be.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
