Re: Paramount Agrees To Two More Trek Movies

In article
<bob-8AA11A.15140502022008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Warchild
<bob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> In article <030220081041268432%anybody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>  Anybody <anybody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> > In article <Yv4pj.633$f73.337@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "Manco"
> > <manco_dollars@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > 
> > > Steven L. wrote:
> > > > At least, we can surmise that from what actor Anton Yelchin just
> > > > announced:
> > > > He has signed up to play Chekov in Trek XI, Trek XII and Trek
XIII.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.syfyportal.com/news424670.html
> > > 
> > > Assuming it's no flop, but from everything I've heard Trek fans are
going 
> > > to 
> > > love this. 
> > 
> > If it is a silly "reboot" (as some things point to), then nope, real
> > "Trek" fans will hate it because it will pee all over the already
> > established history and create a split franchise.
> > 
> > The "don't really care about 'Star Trek', just as long as it's got
> > space ships" fans might well love it though.
> > 
> > Then there are the "slap the words 'Star Trek' onto any old garbage
and
> > I'll watch it" fans who will literally watch any old garbage with
"Star
> > Trek" in the title - "Star Trek: Smarter than a fifth grader" anyone??
> > 
> > Then of course there's most of the general public, who will also go
and
> > see any old rubbish in the cinema just because it happens to be what
> > they do on Friday nights and those who will always go and see the
> > latest "new toy" on the block ... none of these people care what's
> > actually playing, but unfortunately they artificially inflate the box
> > office figures causing more dribbling garbage sequels to be made.
> 
> Which would Paramount rather have, happy fans or happy everybody else?

They could have both, but Hollyweird is simply too stupid and too
blinkered to see it. 

Rather than making a silly "reboot" movie that bares little resemblence
to "Star Trek" as we know it (and no, there is no proof that they have
done so, yet!), they could easily leave the Star Trek franchise to the
fans via novels, games, etc. (which would still continue to make some
money for them) and start a brand new franchise called something else
where they *can* do anything they want without slapping the face of
those who have supported "Star Trek" with an "in name only" movie.

People who dislike "Star Trek" are not going to be any more willing to
go to see some "rebooted" version while it is still called "Star Trek",
so again, having a totally new franchise would make more sense since
those people would be more likely to give it at least a chance.




> Frankly, I'm a Star Trek fan, but I wouldn't want to be in the same 
> theater with you watching Star Trek.

Then you have nothing to worry about. You probably live in a completely
different country and I won't be seeing this movie in a cinema anyway.
I'll wait for it to be shown on TV for free (assuming I think it's
worth watching at all after reading reviews, trailers and comments
here).