XPost: alt.tv.star-trek, alt.startrek, rec.arts.sf.tv
XPost: rec.arts.tv
From: Obveeus@aol.com
On 6/26/2017 8:24 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article , Obveeus
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/26/2017 7:47 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> 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 槼Â�Prime槼•ï
½1�2� timeline. That槼ÂÂ綼 why
>>>>>>>>> doing what
>>>>>>>>> they槼ÂÂ綖e
>>>>>>>>> doing is problematic well beyond any cries of racism or other
>>>>>>>>> intolerance. It was problematic when they did the same thing with
>>>>>>>>> Enterprise. It槼ÂÂ綼 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槼ÂÂç·† sure Iæ§
ÂÂ綮e 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....
>>
>> The third entry in the series was much better than the second. The only
>> real stink in it was a bunch of stupid motorcycle stuff. Of course, I'm
>> dreading the fourth film somewhat because I'm not looking forward to
>> Chekov getting run over by the ship and written off.
>
> You're honestly the first person I've heard rate BEYOND any better than
> 'worst of series, crime against humanity'
>
> Even the people that actually watched it felt that way.
Nope. The second film (where Khan was featured) was the worst of the
new trilogy. The third film, BEYOND, brought a good dose of humor that
STAR TREK desperately needed to see again. Plus, they added Sofia
Boutella...who I hope makes it back for film #4.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
