XPost: rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: azathoth@outer.darkness.invalid   
      
   On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 18:12:00 +1200, Your Name wrote:   
      
   > 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.  :-\   
      
   Go where?   
      
   > There is no opinion.   
      
   Sure there is. Anytime someone says something is "moronically stupid",   
   unless he's a qualified professional that just administered an IQ test to   
   it, he's stating an opinion.   
      
   > Fact: The reboot re-uses the old name.   
      
   So?   
      
   > Fact: The reboot is (almost always) very different to the original,   
   >       in some cases the people making it even say so themselves!   
      
   Not usually. Usually they remain close to the spirit of the source   
   material, in the essentials. For example, Superman always comes from   
   Krypton, launched in infancy away from the dying planet and landing in   
   Kansas, and has the particular powers he has, plus a very high moral   
   standard (very little violence by him and it takes funky forms of   
   kryptonite or other manipulations to get any kind of dark-side behavior   
   out of him). Assumes the civilian identity of Clark Kent for non-   
   superheroic stuff. Etc.   
      
   >> > 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??   
      
   See above: "It destroys whatever is left of the original franchise".   
      
   > I said it destroys the franchise. It makes a confused mess of   
   > conflicting versions all with the same name.   
      
   If you find it confusing when there's more than one narrow vision of some   
   character like Batman, that's your problem. The rest of the world is not   
   obliged to limit its entertainment options just to avoid confusing the   
   easily muddled.   
      
   > "Good", there's your [insult deleted] opinion.   
      
   No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are   
   at all true.   
      
   > Whether it's "good" or not isn't relevant to the point.   
      
   Sure it is.   
      
   > The reboot version would still be just as "good" if it used a different   
   > name and so didn't pee all over the original.   
      
   The rest of the world doesn't share your golden showers fetish either.   
      
   >> > 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.   
      
   I'm not smoking anything.   
      
   > It's [insult deleted] your braincells.   :-\   
      
   No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are   
   at all true.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)