From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: epwise@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Kirk and Spock in the news, again (link)

Your Name  wrote in
news:150620141008481100%YourName@YourISP.com: 

> In article , Daniel
>  wrote:
>> On 14/06/14 17:29, Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>> > Your Name schreef op 14-6-2014 00:05:
>> >> In article <539af9f9$0$2964$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl>, Wouter
>> >> Valentijn  wrote:
>> >>> Your Name schreef op 13-6-2014 08:12:
>> >>>> In article , ToolPackinMama
>> >>>>  wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> http://www.cnet.com/news/americans-think-star-trek-is-the-
future
>> >>>>> -not-sta r-wars-study-says/
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Well, DUH!
>> >>>> Star Wars is set "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away".
>> >>>> Star Trek is set in Earth's near-ish future.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ROFL
>> >>>
>> >>> I'd take Star Trek over Star Wars any day.
>> >>>
>> >>> Not that I'm totally anti Star Wars. I liked Star Wars (IV) and
>> >>> TESB very much. ROTJ was a lesser movie and the prequels... Never
>> >>> mind them. 
>> >>
>> >> The only real issue with Star Wars is that there was such a long
>> >> time between the trilogies, meaning they look quite different due
>> >> to technology improvements, differeing style, over-the-top fight
>> >> scenes, etc. Many of the later additions to the Original Trilogy
>> >> look out of place with the older film quality / style. If all six
>> >> (and soon a ridiculously tacked-on third Trilogy) had been made
>> >> continuously like "Harry Potter", for example, then those
>> >> differences would have been much less noticeable.
>> >>
>> >
>> > "Improvements"... Not a word I'd use. :-)
>> > Nah, I think the stories themselves took a nose dive. They became
>> > more 'kiddiefied'.
>> > I'd keep 'Star Wars' and "The Empire Stikes Back', but the rest....
>> >
>> Seems to me, George Lucas, originally, made the discussion to produce
>> Star Wars (i.e. chapter 4 in his original nine part storyline),
>> whoever was able to convince him, much, much later, that parts one
>> through three were worthwhile .... THAT PERSON SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN
>> OUT THE BACK AND SHOT!!
>> 
>> If they went anywhere, after 4, 5 and 6, it should have been 7 then!!
> 
> There was never nine movies (nor 12 as in some reports) actually
> planned.
> 
> Originally there was a *ROUGH* story outline that *MIGHT* have made
> nine or 12 movies, but that storyline was altered and squashed as the
> full story was written. At one early point the mythical third Trilogy
> was to be about Luke going off to find his sister (who was not then
> Leia), and both coming back to defeat the Emperor.
> 
> With the storyline there is now, the Saga finishes properly with the
> death of the Emperor, the redemption of Anakin, and the "happily ever
> after" ending. Tacking on a third Trilogy is nothing but pure
> senseless money-grubbing and the idiotic current Hollyweird fad to
> resurrect everything from the past because they simply don't have any
> real ideas of their own (a fad probably started by George Lucas making
> the Prequel Trilogy).
> 
> If they want to make more movies in the Star Wars universe, then more
> spin-off movies is fine (if done properly), but there's no need to add
> more Episodes to the Saga itself.

Perhaps we should start calling New Zealand "New Zealotland."
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
 * Origin: TeraNews.com (1:2320/105.97)
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux
 * Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)