From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article <211220130944254476%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name    
   YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:   
      
   > > >  Whether or not Abrams movies are "better" is a matter of irrelevant   
   > > >  opinion, but it's a fact that they certainly aint "Star Wars" and his   
   > > >  latest movies aren't even "Star Trek" in anything but name and simply   
   > > >  pee all over the real "Star Trek" franchise.  :-(   
   > >   
   > > I'm no Star Trek fan, but the two movies from Abrams are the only Star Trek   
   > > movies I've enjoyed watching. Star Trek movies are exceedingly boring, and   
   > > he made them fun again.   
   >   
   >  Which basically proves my point. He made movies that weren't really   
   >  "Star Trek". Like all silly "reboots", he ignored and changed   
   >  established facts, etc. In reality he creates a different entity (at   
   >  best a second sub-franchise) hiding behind the same name as the real   
   >  "Star Trek".   
      
   Sure, but when George Lucas did this - made movies that weren't Star Wara   
   and changed established facts and such - the result was three awful movies.   
   When JJ Abrams did it, the result was two really good Sci Fi movies.   
      
   Fact is, "staying true" to something doesn't make it inherently good. If   
   the prequel trilogy had stayed true to Star Wars (i.e. dropped the entire   
   midichlorian bullshit and a slew of other original-raping things) they   
   would still be awful movies without acting, script and story.   
      
   > > The last three Star Wars movies were not only boring, but also exceedingly   
   > > poorly written, poorly directed and with actors that are really good in   
   > > other movies play cardboard cutouts of themselves.   
   > >   
   > > There is no chance that Abrams will make something worse than that.   
   >   
   >  Yes there is. If he goes down the same route as previously, he'll   
   >  create ill-fitting messes that change established facts, etc. to suit   
   >  his own (and Hollyweird's) silly dreams   
      
   Geroege Lucas already did that.   
      
   >  gee, look, Boba Fett did esape the Sarlacc, but is now somehow a woman   
   >  simply because there were enough "strong female leads" in the proper   
   >  "Star Wars" movies. Darth Vader magically reaapears, but now wears a   
   >  pink suit because black is too depressing. Yoda and Obi-Wan are now twin   
   >  brothers. etc., etc.   
      
   Are you seriously saying that what JJ Abrams did to Star Trek is comparable   
   to Boba Fett surviving and being a woman? Why wasn't Eric Bana's ship in   
   the first Star Trek movie pink then? You're just constructing wind mills   
   here to fight.   
      
   >  You just have to look at a lot of the idiotic fan fiction stories (not   
   >  to mention some of the official novels!) to know how bad it can get   
   >  when outside fools start plonking in their own sily ideas.   
      
   Or I'll just look at tthe two very successful and very good Sci Fi movies   
   that this guy has already made and realize that he's a hundred times better   
   than the blithering idiot that did the last three Star Wars movies.   
      
   > > Plus, he has made a lot better movies quantity-wize than Irvin Kershner   
   > > has, who directed the best movie in the world; The Empire Strikes Back.   
   >   
   >  "Quality" is a irrelevant opinion - everyone has a different one.   
      
   Which is why I wrote "quantity", not "quality". Abrams has made two good   
   Sci Fi movies, Kershner has made one.   
      
   >  I'm talking about the facts, the ridiculously pointless changes. Not to   
   >  mention that A) Abrams is supposedly doing so many different things at   
   >  once, that he doesn't actually do anything useful other than rubber   
   >  stamp his own "famous" name on other people's work (which means even   
   >  more chance of ridiculous changes), and B) many of his previous works   
   >  start out okay, but end up at best as confused senseless messes (Lots,   
   >  Alias, etc.).   
      
   Isn't that when he steps away form them and someone else takes over? Maybe   
   not, I haven't kept track. And TV show production is worlds apart from   
   movie production.   
      
   > > George Lucas has in his lifetime managed to direct one good Sci Fi movie,   
   > > JJ Abrams has made two, so his track record is a lot better than Lucas.   
   >   
   >  Abrams could have made a bazillion other "good" movies, but that   
   >  doesn't mean he can make or knows anything about "Star Wars" movies.   
      
   Well then, who does? I mean, obvioulsy George Lucas hasn't got an idea   
   either, so who would?   
      
   And Irvin Kerschner, the director of not only the best Star Wars movie, but   
   the best movie in the history of mankind - what did he know about Star Wars   
   when he directed it? How was he better suited for the task than Abrams?   
   Your logic is falling apart.   
      
   If "knowledge" about Star Wars is required to direct a good Star Wars   
   movie, then George Lucas obviously lacks such knowledge, so the question is   
   - who DOES possess it?   
      
   --   
   Sandman[.net]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)