XPost: rec.arts.sf.tv
From: YourName@YourISP.com
In article <54052c1a$0$36537$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Dimensional
Traveler wrote:
> On 9/1/2014 2:05 PM, Your Name wrote:
> > In article <5404b7a3$0$36570$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Dimensional
> > Traveler wrote:
> >> On 8/31/2014 11:12 PM, 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. :-\
> >>>
> >>> 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!
> >>>
> >> Doing something completely different is sometimes the reason and point
> >> for those making it.
> >
> > Then use a different name ... it ain't rocket science: different
> > products have different names.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Also the creative people frequently are forced to use it and alter their
> >> vision to fit when the money people demand they use the old name for the
> >> recognition value.
> >
> > There is no "recognition value" (except to deaf and blind morons) when
> > you make lots of changes and make what in reality is a different
> > product. People who liked the original will be expecting more of the
> > same. You don't buy a jar of "Strawberry Jam" unless you want
> > strawberry jam.
> >
> > If the original is so worthless that they have to make lots of changes,
> > then why re-use the same name?? People who didn't like the original
> > would be incredibly stupid to watch something with the same name ...
> > but then apparently the vast majority of the human race *ARE*
> > incredibly stupid. You don't buy a jar of "Strawberry Jam" and expect
> > to get tomato sauce. :-\
> >
> > The *ONLY* reason for re-using the same name that even remotely
> > approaches being "sensible" is because the greedy swines simply want to
> > extend the copyright and stop anyone else making a properly fitting
> > addition to the franchise.
>
> Calm down, I was agreeing with you.
>
> As for the strawberry jam analogy, the tomato sauce makers are
> deliberately trying to trick people into buying their product by
> labeling it "Strawberry Jam".
More like the Strawberry Jam makers deciding not "enough" people like
the current strawberry jam, so they change the recipe to something very
different and expect everyone to blindly believe it's the same thing
... and unfortunately most people are apparently stupid enough to do
so. :-(
And yet weirdly, so many people kicked up a stink when Coca Cola tried
to make changes that it had to be changed back. Same with Cadbury
chocolate here in New Zealand.
> Yes, its stupid but the studio execs only
> care about money and do think the public is stupid. Unfortunately there
> is a significant segment of the public that continues to act as evidence
> supporting that view. (For example, the two latest "Star Trek" movies.)
I know their brainless management's reasons for doing it, none of which
actually make any sense when you actually look at them.
It's not only management though. Sometimes it is the creative people
who have such massive egos that they believe they know better than the
person who actually had the talent to create the franchise. Some of
these fools often claim to be fans of the original, and then still
butcher it beyond any senislbe recognition ... and they almost make
even the worst fan fiction porn drivel look briliantly fitting.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
