XPost: rec.arts.sf.tv
From: YourName@YourISP.com
In article , infinitude
wrote:
> Your Name ::
> > I said it destroys the franchise. It makes a confused mess of
> > conflicting versions all with the same name.
>
> Ten years of SG-1, five of Atlantis, and two of Universe
> appear not to have destroyed the original Stargate film's
> franchise, since Emmerich and Devlin now seem to be
> rebooting that. Which suggests nothing can:
If those two fools do "reboot" it you'll end up with at least two
(technically three) different versions of "Stargate" ... as I said, it
creates a confused mess. Nobody knows what "Stargate" means or which of
the multiple versions you're talking about ... hence you then need to
go down the silly route of trying to distinguish them by changing their
name unofficially ("Star Trek TOS" / "Star Trek 2012", "Glen Larsen's
Battlestar Galatica" / "Ron Moore's Batlestar Galatica") ... whereas if
they had used some small amount of common sense, the different products
would have had different names.
> if people think they can make money by going back to the source and
> continuing in that style (even if SG-1 was vastly more popular then
> the original film) the series, they will. It's just mostly, they don't.
Then why re-use the name?!? Only a stupid moron who doesn't like
"Stargate" goers to see something called "Stargate" expecting it to be
different ... you don't (usually) get tomato sauce in jars labelled
"Strawberry Jam". :-\
If the product is no longer making enough money for the greedy swines
to fill their pockets, then let the product die and create a *NEW*
franchise complete with a new name. Say it's "based on" the original in
the credits, but keep it separate. It's what almost every other
industry on the planet does.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
