From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article <221220130939231330%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name    
   YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:   
      
   > > >  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.   
   >   
   >  Except George Lucas created the franchise - he's the ONLY person who is   
   >  allowed to make changes to his ideas.   
      
   According to whom? He sold those rights, rmemeber?   
      
   Anyway, regardless of whatever "rights" he has, he still ruined Star Wars   
   with three awful movies that everyone is working hard to ignore.   
      
   > > When JJ Abrams did it, the result was two really good Sci Fi movies.   
   >   
   >  Again, pointless opinion, and not the point.   
      
   Opinion, yes. Pointless, no. And the point? Well, I think it is the point.   
   Good movies is what I enjoy. GL has provided no such movies in the last   
   three decades.   
      
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > "Staying true" makes it part of the same franchise. Making lots of   
   > ill-fitting silly changes makes it a NEW franchise, so it should NOT   
   > re-use the old one's name.   
      
   EXACTLY. Adding midichlorians was a silly ill-fitting change that made it a   
   NEW franchise that we can ignore. BUt I'm saying that even if GL *HAD*   
   stayd true to the original franchise and NOT added ill-fitting silly   
   bullshit, then the movies would have STILL been utterly worthless. Staying   
   true to the originals doesn't make the movies good.   
      
   > > >  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.   
   >   
   > Abrams had ALL the main characters ta the Starfleet Academy at the smae   
   > time - something that is completely impossible (Chekov, for example,   
   > would have been about 5 years old when Kirk was at the Academy).   
      
   But he wasn't wearing pink, now was he?   
      
   > As for Boba Fett suddenyl being a women, that came from one of the many   
   > other ridiculous "reboots" - Starbuck in Moore-Ron's so-called   
   > "Battlestar Galactica".   
      
   Which has what to do with Abrams and Star Wars??   
      
   > > >  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.   
   >   
   > You're completely missing the point of a franchise.   
      
   Of course not.   
      
   > As usual around here the ridiculous opinion-based "I think it's good"   
   > excuse makes everything all right, despite the FACT the obvious reality   
   > is that it is a acompletely different franchise (sometime even down to   
   > the poitn of the people making it saying it is completely different!). It   
   > also proves I'm just wasting my time and you'll never "get it", so you   
   > believe whatever silliness you want to :-\   
      
   Troll on, fanboy.   
      
   --   
   Sandman[.net]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)