From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: your.name@isp.com
Subject: Re: Star Trek: Am I the Only One?
"Steven L." wrote in message
news:m6Gdnan_DKimzb3WnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> On 12/9/2009 3:07 PM, Your Name wrote:
> > "Smokie Darling (Annie)" wrote in message
> >
news:08e41785-e42f-4238-865c-31efceb6d2af@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Dec 9, 9:33 am, trag wrote:
> >>> On Dec 9, 9:56 am, "Smokie Darling (Annie)"
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I agree with Ted here. The whole Soran plot was just a device
> >>>> (mcguffin, if I may), the real plot was reintroducing all the
> >>>> characters that most ST viewers "know", and the new interactions
based
> >>>> on a certain event that occurred.
> >>>
> >>> That's not the Kirk that I "know".
> >>
> >> Which is why I put it in quotes. They have the same names, but
> >> because of a certain event, they have changed (some a little, some a
> >> lot).
> >
> > "Certain events"
> > Translation: Nobody in Hollyweird knows (nor cares) how to make real
Star
> > Trek any more.
>
> It seemed like real Star Trek to me.
>
> Kirk was arrogant but dedicated and resourceful,
> Spock was struggling with his human half (and the bias of other Vulcans
> against it), his relationships with Amanda and Sarek were as we knew them,
> McCoy was gruff but decent.
>
> We seem to have two sets of contradictory criticisms here:
>
> The OP started out by saying that the movie was too derivative of years
> and years of past Trek plots,
>
> but now you're saying that the movie wasn't real Star Trek.
>
> That's a contradiction.
The fact that it was a silly "reboot" that doesn't fit with already
established facts means it was real Star Trek. It's a silly new,
sub-franchise, version, and the original is now completely dead and won't
ever see the light of day again (except in re-runs and DVDs). :-(
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
* Origin: Ihug Ltd (1:2320/105.97)
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux
* Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)
|
