XPost: rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   In article , Azathoth   
    wrote:   
      
   > On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 13:07:50 +1200, Your Name wrote:   
   >   
   > >> Again, why do you care what they call it or how original it is?   
   > >> Nobody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to watch it.   
   > >   
   > > A. Re-using the same name for a very different product is   
   > >    moronically stupid. NAMES HAVE MEANING.   
   >   
   > Again, that's your opinion. If you don't watch it, why does that opinion   
   > matter?   
      
   Oh God. Here we go again.  :-\   
      
   There is no opinion.   
      
   Fact: The reboot re-uses the old name.   
      
   Fact: The reboot is (almost always) very different to the original,   
         in some cases the people making it even say so themselves!   
      
      
      
      
   > > B. It destroys whatever is left of the original franchise,   
   >   
   > Huh??? You really must be joking. If what you said was true, when "The   
   > Amazing Spider-Man" appeared in theaters, the Tobey Maguire trilogy would   
   > have ceased to exist, but half the cable channels I get keep rerunning   
   > them seemingly every damn weekend, and the copy of 3 I have still is   
   > sitting in my DVD rack. I also have the complete collection of Star Trek:   
   > The Original Series, which I was able to obtain long *after* TNG started   
   > airing back in the 80s.   
      
   Where did I say the old material suddenly disappeared??   
      
   I said it destroys the franchise. It makes a confused mess of   
   conflicting versions all with the same name.   
      
      
      
   > >    including any even remote hope of a getting properly fitting   
   > >    addition.   
   >   
   > That also doesn't make sense. First of all, you can indeed get   
   > installments of questionable style followed by a better one -- the   
   > silliness factor in Superman III and Superman IV was gone again in   
   > Superman Returns, and lots of people think Man of Steel was as good as   
   > Superman II. And second, if there ever is a "properly fitting addition"   
   > you'll come here and start whining that it "destroyed the franchise" and   
   > "why couldn't they make something *original* for once?"   
      
   "Good", there's your pointlessly idiotic opinion.   
      
   Whether it's "good" or not isn't relevant to the point. The reboot   
   version would still be just as "good" if it used a different name and   
   so didn't pee all over the original.   
      
      
   > > C. It's sheer laziness and over-egoed stupidity to   
   > >    butcher someone else's hard work.   
   >   
   > How can you "butcher" something without destroying the original, just by   
   > making something similar but new that stands beside it?   
      
   Whatever you're smoking, you should stop now. It's destroying your   
   braincells.   :-\   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)