From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   In article , 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:   
   > > >>>>   
   > > >>>> 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.   
   >   
   > Star Drek is crap, but it's profitable crap that makes more money than   
   > real Trek ever did.   
      
   That's a inaccurate and misleading comparison (morons in management   
   love to believe such things) ... even the worst piece of crap made   
   today will almost certainly make more money than the best show / movie   
   made 40-50 years ago. For a start there are a lot more people to watch   
   it and a lot more money they can spend on it, even including the   
   adjustments for  idiotic "inflation".   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)