XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science
From: YourName@YourISP.com
In article , Ryk E. Spoor
wrote:
> On 1/25/14 11:27 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> > On 1/25/2014 12:37 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> >> On 1/25/14 12:29 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> >>> On 1/24/2014 6:02 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> >>>> On 1/24/14 8:33 PM, Greg Goss wrote:
> >>>>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" wrote:
> >>>>>> On 1/24/14 5:39 PM, Greg Goss wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Using Scotty as a comedy sidekick was just wrong. The ice creature
> >>>>>>> was something that belonged in a Star Wars flick, not Star Trek.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Indeed. Star Trek would never have bizarre creatures on it like
> >>>>>> one-celled organisms the size of a planet that eat life energy, or
> >>>>>> illusion-casting salt vampires, or energy beings that live off hate,
> >>>>>> or ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Those weren't tossed out for single-scene shock value.
> >>>>
> >>>> They couldn't afford single-scene monsters in 1967.
> >>>>
> >>> So we should blame inflation for Abrams' inability to follow a coherent
> >>> story? :P
> >>
> >> I would say you could blame your advancing age for being unable to
> >> follow a simple straightforward story. :)
> >>
> > We'll have to agree to disagree about the movie's time traveling,
> > paradox generating, story being simple or straight forward. :)
>
> Perhaps it's watching Doctor Who that makes following convoluted
> time-travel trivial.
Doctor Who gets around the problem of time travel complications by
simply rarely actually being about time travel. Most of the stories are
about the Doctor going somewhere, finding a problem, and solving it ...
he's little more than The A-Team / Macgyver / Knight Rider / etc. in a
TARDIS. :-)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
