From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   In article , Gutless   
   Umbrella Carrying Sissy  wrote:   
   > Dimensional Traveler  wrote in   
   > news:n62482$bqa$1@dont-email.me:   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > You're a comedian, eh? No, you have to convince them you'll do it   
   > more profitably than other potential investments at the time, There   
   > are exceptions, people who make movies out of passion. They aren't   
   > the ones who get big budgets.   
   >   
   > Movie making is a business, and that's all it is.   
      
   And any good business owner knows, the first rule is to keep your   
   customers happy ... not keep kicking 'em in the teeth by changing   
   everything they liked.   
      
   Of course, business management are just are braindead as movie   
   management. Useless idiots in "big business" are always doing stupid   
   and pointless things, such as "rebranding".   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)