XPost: rec.arts.drwho, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca   
      
   In article ,   
   Blueshirt  wrote:   
   >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.   
      
   And you wonder why the fandom is very split these days.   
   --   
   Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca   
   Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!   
   Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ;   
   All I want to hear from Jesus is WEll Done Good and Faithful Servant.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)