From: dtravel@sonic.net   
      
   On 12/30/2015 7:07 PM, J. Clarke wrote:   
   > In article , dtravel@sonic.net says...   
   >>   
   >> On 12/30/2015 1:04 PM, Your Name wrote:   
   >>> In article , Gutless   
   >>> Umbrella Carrying Sissy  wrote:   
   >>>> Your Name  wrote in   
   >>>> news:301220151847246288%YourName@YourISP.com:   
   >>>>> In article , Dimensional Traveler   
   >>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/29/2015 4:36 PM, Your Name wrote:   
   >>>>>>> In article ,   
   >>>>>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> Your Name  wrote in   
   >>>>>>>> news:291220151042342329%YourName@YourISP.com:   
   >>>>>>>>> In article   
   >>>>>>>>> <9457ee4f-9710-4f61-af60-68cb8478a483@googlegroups.com>,   
   >>>>>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 7:51:43 PM UTC-5, Gutless   
   >>>>>>>>>> Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Expectations are running so high that a lot of people are   
   >>>>>>>>>>> referring to him as "Jar Jar Abrams." (That joke will   
   >>>>>>>>>>> almost certainly provide more amusement, both   
   >>>>>>>>>>> qualitatively and quantitaviely, than the movie.)   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Well, Terry? Do you stand by this comment from November?   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Yep, it's certainly true that a lot of people are calling   
   >>>>>>>>> the lazy, talentless hack "Jar Jar Abrams" ... me being one   
   >>>>>>>>> of them.   
   >>>>>>>>>     :-)   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> He's earned a lot of scorn for what he's done ot Star Trek,   
   >>>>>>>> though he's gotten more than he deserves, mostly for the   
   >>>>>>>> fact that what he made, while decent action movies, wasn't   
   >>>>>>>> even remotely Star Trek.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Now that I think about it, though, I'm more moderate in my   
   >>>>>>>> hopes for the next two movies, especially the last one. As   
   >>>>>>>> he demonstrated, quite vividly, with Alias and Lost, he's   
   >>>>>>>> *much* better at starting interesting storiest han at   
   >>>>>>>> finishing them.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I don't think he's ever finished anything. He always seems to   
   >>>>>>> walk out part way through to go and do something else,   
   >>>>>>> meanwhile leaving the hopeless mess he made behind for   
   >>>>>>> someone else to attempt to fix up.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I was going to say something similar.  Abrams has also reached   
   >>>>>> a point of popularity in Hollywood where studios will hire Bad   
   >>>>>> Robot just so they can slap his name in the credits somewhere.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You have to wonder why since he's a talentless hack who ruins   
   >>>>> everything he touches ... then again, this is the same   
   >>>>> Hollyweird that thinks creating idiotic "reboots" is actually a   
   >>>>> good idea.  :-\   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You make the mistake of thinking that making movies is about making   
   >>>> movies. It's not. It's about making *money*. When you already own   
   >>>> the franchise, there is a reliable business model for extracting   
   >>>> more moeney out of it by making reboots that suck that is more   
   >>>> profitable than making movies that suck while also paying for new   
   >>>> material.   
   >>>   
   >>> They'd make a lot more money if they actually made movies that fit into   
   >>> the existing franchise and didn't "suck". Unfortunately, there's almost   
   >>> nobody left in Hollyweird with the actual creative talent or   
   >>> willingness to do that these days. They'd rather just lazily butcher   
   >>> someone else's hard work to make a quick buck from all the morons.  :-(   
   >>>   
   >> You have to remember that in order to get the people with the money to   
   >> fund the production, you have to pitch it to them (and make them   
   >> believe) that you will do it _better_ than the original.  That pretty   
   >> much rules out "fitting into" an existing franchise.  Plus anyone with   
   >> an ego big enough to survive to _get_ the meeting with the money people   
   >> is by definition not going to "settle" for just doing what has already   
   >> been done.   
   >   
   > You don't have to convince them that it will be better.  They don't care   
   > if it's "better".  You have to convince them that making whatever you   
   > want will earn more money for them than making something else.   
   >   
   Which would be their definition of "better".   
      
   --   
   Now the Force-Ghost of DTravel since he was forced by shame to commit   
   hara-kiri with a dull light-spork after liking the Abrams/Bad Robot Star   
   Wars movie.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)