XPost: rec.arts.drwho, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: blueshirt@indigo.news   
      
   Daniel wrote:   
      
   > "Blueshirt"  writes:   
   >   
   > > solar penguin wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> It would be much quicker and shorter to just type “I am a   
   > >> grumpy old git,” and you would still get the same result.   
   > >   
   > > There's no way Dave Yadallee came up with a post containing   
   > > four paragraphs of coherent thought.   
   > >   
   > > So it might not be his own work but at least he made an   
   > > effort to post something sensible...   
   > >   
   > > It would also have been quicker and shorter to type, "we are   
   > > all old curmudgeons that can't handle modern changes to our   
   > > favourite TV shows."   ;-)   
   >   
   > I wouldn't call the changes modern. True, the changes are in   
   > the 'modern day' but the changes aren't modern in the sense   
   > of new or fresh. There is nothing fresh about modern sci-fi.   
      
   A lot of modern changes to the big sci-fi franchises have very   
   little to do with the sci-fi elements. They're usually about   
   whatever the message of the day is. The scripts are composed   
   around whatever cause the trendy writers want to virtue signal.   
      
   My opinion is, that's what soap operas are for. With sci-fi   
   shows I want a bit of escapism from the real world. Something   
   fantastical and enjoyable. Not a social commentary of the world   
   we live in today. I can go outside if I want that!   
      
   > The stories will never be timeless.   
   > The characters will never be memorable.   
   > These works will be forgotten within a handful of years or   
   > sooner.   
      
   Sooner. There's very few, if any, Doctor Who episodes of recent   
   years that I would sit down and watch over and over again like   
   I do the classic era of the show. For me, there's no charm about   
   the modern era of the show. Once watched, soon forgotten.   
      
   It's the same for Star Trek; I could watch my ST:TNG Blu-rays   
   again and again... they're classics. The Star Trek shows of   
   recent years (that I have seen) would be hard pushed to achieve   
   'entertaining' status, let alone classic!   
      
   > There's a good reason why the classic shows are gaining in   
   > popularity among today's youth: The stories were timeless,   
   > their dialog proper, and the characters iconic.   
      
   Even my son (31) would rather watch old Doctor Who episodes from   
   the 1970's... yet the modern era of the show, i.e. post 2005,   
   was supposedly made 'for' his demographic. But he's got no   
   interest in it and actually stopped watching Doctor Who   
   completely two years ago. So something has gone wrong somewhere.   
      
   > I'm moody because they exclaim that the modern product is   
   > aimed at a single demographic. The timeless classics were made   
   > for everyone. Their target demographic lacks the attention   
   > span or intellect for anything better.  Meanwhile, they attack   
   > the rest of us for not realizing the (air quotes) art.   
      
   It's art Jim... just not as we know it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)