From: darth_azrael@yahoo.com   
      
   Your Name wrote on Fri, 03 October 2014 17:53   
      
   >> weren't Star Trek as we know it.   
   >>   
   > EXACTLY the point.   
   >   
   > There are many other franchises (big and small) that   
   > have been ruined   
   > by the same sort of moronic stupidity from Hollyweird's   
   > fad for   
   > resurrecting the past. Although it must be noted that   
   > the comic book   
   > industry has also done this "buthering" of the past.   
   >   
   > As for a list, it's near endless. Ignoring the idiocy of   
   > "it's good" /   
   > "it's bad", franchises that have been changed (in some   
   > cases multiple   
   > times) include, but are not limted to:   
   > - Star Trek (starting with the "Enterprise" TV series)   
   > - Battlestar Galactica   
   > - Batman   
   > - Superman   
   > - Spider-Man   
   > - Bewitched   
   > - 21 Jump Street   
   > - Starsky & Hutch   
   > - The Smurfs   
   > - Thunderbirds   
   > - Happy Days   
      
   Most of these don't directly apply. For example, in the case   
   of something like Superman, you can't really have continuing   
   stories in the 'Superman universe' without Superman. Who   
   plays Superman will change over the generations almost   
   necessitating a reboot or reworking it in some other way. To   
   keep in the comic book world, this isn't so different from   
   different authors and artists coming along to continue the   
   comic book (which is done fairly frequently). Franchises   
   like Trek and Star Wars are a little different. You have far   
   more opportunity to tell other stories and continue the   
   timeline with different characters (as for example Star Trek   
   the Next Generation proved). I don't like the fact that Trek   
   got a reboot instead of a continuation with the latest   
   movies either but that is really the sole significant   
   complaint I have about those movies. Otherwise, I think   
   Abrams did a fairly good job with Trek and we already know   
   the new Star Wars is not a reboot in that sense anyway. And   
   as the reboot thing wasn't Abrams decision I don't see what   
   there is to fear from Abrams directing Star Wars. Did you   
   fear Kershner coming along to direct Empire Strikes Back?   
      
   >> Again, the "reboot" phrase doesn't necessarily have to be   
   used. Changes   
   >> can be made to an on-going series ... that's where   
   "jumping the shark"   
   >> comes from.   
      
   I think 'nuking the fridge' might be a better phrase for   
   what you are talking about in this case :). However, neither   
   phrase is directly related to new people working on a   
   series/franchise nor is it directly related to continuity   
   changes. 'Jumping the Shark' refers to the point in a series   
   where the quality starts to decline, for whatever reason. In   
   the Star Wars world some people would would point to when   
   the Ewoks showed up in Return of the Jedi or when Jar Jar   
   showed up in the prequels as jumping the shark moments. I   
   think there is a lot of life in Star Wars, am cautiously   
   optimistic about the new movies and don't expect a jumping   
   the shark moment until at least the fourth trilogy :).   
      
   > I have never said it definitely will be, only that   
   > almost every   
   > indication so far is pointing in that direction. Hence:   
   > "I have a bad   
   > feeling about this."   
      
   But most of your reasoning why and all of your examples how   
   it might be bad have been pretty bad themselves.   
      
   >> You can subcategorize it any way you want but he is   
   still   
   >> involved hence   
   >> still 'collaborating'. The word 'collaborate'   
   >> doesn't imply anything legal.   
      
   > The point is that George Lucas has no say in what does   
   > or doesn happen,   
   > so JJ Abrams (or whoever else is in charge) can make   
   > ill-fitting   
   > changes simply because they think that's what the   
   > franchise "should be"   
   > .... rather then George Lucas who actually created the   
   > franchise.   
      
   But the very fact that they did retain him as an adviser   
   would seem to indicate that they don't want to make   
   'ill-fitting' changes just for the hell of it.   
      
   >The fact that multiple people are being brought in for   
   vaious movies,   
   >etc. means it is even more likely that at least some of it   
   will be   
   >ill-fitting.   
      
   Why? The movies in the original trilogy all had different   
   directors, different script-writers and many other different   
   people working on them.   
      
   >>> JJ Abrams could ask George Lucas if he thinks the new   
   movie   
   >>> should   
   >>> include a four-hour graphic X-rated sex scene. George   
   Lucas   
   >>> would say   
   >>> "no, of course not", but JJ Abrams could still include   
   it   
   >>> anyway simply   
   >>> because that's what he thinks the franchise "should   
   be".   
   >>   
   >>  Yes, but this is a stupid example and won't happen.   
      
   > It was an *EXAMPLE*.  :-\   
      
   Yes, but a BAD one, otherwise known as a straw man   
   argument.   
      
   > Continuity ios what makes it a franchise. Having a pile   
   > of ill-fitting   
   > things creates a confused mess, or at best a set of   
   > comprting   
   > sub-franchises. Either way, nobody knows what the real   
   > "Star Wars" (or   
   > whatever) actually is.   
      
   Absolutely, but in the case of the new Star Wars movies   
   where you have many of the same actors, same writers, and   
   other same people who worked on the originals and have the   
   original creator as an adviser it seems a little silly to   
   start questioning continuity before they come out.   
      
   >>> Then you aren't a true "fan" of the franchise, as   
   defined   
   >>> by the   
   >>> meaning of the word. A true fan actually likes   
   something   
   >>> THE WAY IT IS   
   >>> and does not want idiotic ill-fitting changes turning   
   it   
   >>> into something   
   >>> very different.   
      
   >> I think this conversation has gone past the point of   
   being[/color]   
   >> ridiculous to the   
   >> point of just being a troll on your part.[/color]   
   >> Despite what you may think, you   
   >> aren't the sole authority on[/color]   
   >> what a 'fan' is. By your definition, no fan of   
   >>  Star Wars (or   
   >> anything else) would want a sequel because it will in   
   some   
   >> way   
   >> change their perception of the way things are.   
      
   > Again, that's not what I said. I said no true fan winats   
   > the franchise   
   > to be changed. They are a "fan" because they like the   
   > franchise as it   
   > is - that's the dictionary definition of a fan. They may   
   > not like   
   > everything in it, but they like it as a whole and a set   
   > of things that   
   > fit properly together.   
      
   Any addition to a franchise is by definition a change and   
   most fans DO want that. If you mean a change to the   
   continuity then I agree. But again, every indication is that   
   that will NOT be the case with the Star Wars movies for the   
   reasons I've already mentioned. And no, that is not the   
   dictionary definition of what a fan is.   
      
   >> Yes, anything is possible but I don't think there is any   
   >> evidence yet to   
   >> suggest the new movies won't fit in with the   
   >> old. The evidence that   
   >> exists for the most part suggests   
   >> otherwise.   
      
   > And yet again, I never said it will "definitely be a   
   > disaster", simply   
   > that many things are pointing in that direction.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)