XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek, rec.arts.tv   
   XPost: rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: dtravel@sonic.net   
      
   On 6/26/2017 6:27 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:   
   > In article ,   
   >   BTR1701  wrote:   
   >   
   >> In article ,   
   >>   "Jim G."  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> Ubiquitous sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 02:28 PM:   
   >>>> jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid wrote:   
   >>>>> anim8rfsk sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 12:22 PM:   
   >>>>>> "Jim G."  wrote:   
   >>>>>>> anim8rfsk sent the following on 06/24/2017 at 04:44 PM:   
   >>>>>>>>      "Jim G."  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Heh. No, Abrams did his damage in the discipline and dumbing-down   
   >>>>>>>>> departments. This latest fustercluck seems committed to doing its   
   >>>>>>>>> damage   
   >>>>>>>>> in the "diversity" and "passion" departments. Honestly, I wonder if   
   >>>>>>>>> J.J.   
   >>>>>>>>> is paying these idiots to provide a new target for the anger and   
   >>>>>>>>> hostility of Trek purists. All I know is that each time someone new   
   >>>>>>>>> comes along to "improve" Trek for a more "inclusive" audience, the   
   >>>>>>>>> worse   
   >>>>>>>>> the show gets.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> But don't you think this whole thing is staging, so that they can cry   
   >>>>>>>> 'racist' to *any* complaint about Star Trek STD?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Are the people behind this thing competent or clever enough to pull off   
   >>>>>>> something like that? Because they're clearly not competent or clever   
   >>>>>>> enough to pull off a good Trek prequel. (I just saw a photo of a   
   >>>>>>> transporter room, and these people are consistent, if nothing else.)   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I saw that that was out there and didn't even bother to look at it.  How   
   >>>>>> badly does *that* bode?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Bear in mind that this is set in exactly the same year as THE CAGE, so   
   >>>>>> we *know* what stuff should look like.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The entire mindset of people who do this sort of "reimagining" seems to   
   >>>>> be something along the lines of: "We know that ours will be better   
   >>>>> because we're making it all different!"   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I thought it was merely their attempt to mark their own territory.   
   >>>   
   >>> They will accept that analogy as long as you acknowledge that their   
   >>> method of urinating is both different and extremely clever and artistic   
   >>> and creative.   
   >>   
   >> Plus socially-relevant and diverse.   
   >   
   > Meaning "no whites allowed"   
   >   
   Say all the white men financing all this.   
      
   --   
   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)