XPost: alt.tv.star-trek, alt.startrek, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   XPost: rec.arts.tv   
   From: dtravel@sonic.net   
      
   On 6/26/2017 4:29 PM, Obveeus wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   > On 6/26/2017 7:01 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:   
   >> In article ,   
   >>   Dimensional Traveler  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 6/26/2017 3:04 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:   
   >>>> In article ,   
   >>>>    Dimensional Traveler  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 6/26/2017 2:03 PM, Doc O'Leary wrote:   
   >>>>>> For your reference, records indicate that   
   >>>>>> Wouter Valentijn  wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Another Reboot. That much is certain.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Just the opposite.  They announced that Discovery is supposed to be   
   >>>>>> set in the classic ‰裉Prime‰� timeline.    
   That‰菄s why   
   >>>>>> doing what   
   >>>>>> they‰菄re   
   >>>>>> doing is problematic well beyond any cries of racism or other   
   >>>>>> intolerance.  It was problematic when they did the same thing with   
   >>>>>> Enterprise.  It‰菄s just dumb to depict things 10 or 100 years   
   >>>>>> prior to   
   >>>>>> Kirk as being more advanced than what even Picard had just because   
   >>>>>> our   
   >>>>>> tech has taken off in the present.  It certainly *should* have been a   
   >>>>>> reboot.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Either that or, like I‰菄m sure I‰菄ve said before,   
   someone   
   >>>>>> needs to sit   
   >>>>>> down with all the property in the franchise and work out a fully   
   >>>>>> coherent continuity.  One that they can stick to for all *future*   
   >>>>>> production as well, of course.  All this piecemeal shit has become a   
   >>>>>> real anchor around the neck of the Trek universe.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>> The "creative" types would hate that.  They want to be able to put   
   >>>>> their   
   >>>>> own stamp on it without being "hampered" by being consistent with what   
   >>>>> others have done.  Why do you think Abrams burned the whole thing   
   >>>>> to the   
   >>>>> ground and started over from scratch?  Why do you think every other   
   >>>>> Superman or Spiderman movie is a reboot, origin story?  Because the   
   >>>>> "creatives" want it to be _their_ vision that controls.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That's partly it.  You've also got the part where the "creatives" won't   
   >>>> (some say can't) read the source material, and nowadays won't watch   
   >>>> source material.  Brannon Braga was apparently proud of having never   
   >>>> seen an episode of real Trek, which is how he ended up writing Zephram   
   >>>> Cochrane as a black woman.   
   >>>>   
   >>> I think the "won't read/view source material" is part of their egotistic   
   >>> "I can do it better! if you just don't bother me with the truth"   
   >>> problem.  So the two are sides of the same metaphorical coin.   
   >>>   
   >>> Plus there's the whole "I'll sue you if you ever read or watch something   
   >>> of mine and then ever in your life make something I can claim was   
   >>> unconsciously influenced by my work!" thing.   
   >>   
   >> Well, yeah, but refusing to watch an ep of Trek when you're making eps   
   >> of Trek ...   
   >   
   > Alternatively, Simon Pegg is a huge TREK fan and he put all kinds of   
   > stuff into the film to make TREK fans happy and they still complained.   
      
   He didn't get rid of the Abrams stink....   
      
   --   
   Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation   
   instinct are running screaming.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)