From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   In article , Cyber kNight   
    wrote:   
      
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)