Re: Paramount Agrees To Two More Trek Movies

In article <foms4p$e5u$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "Bill Plenge" <B_Plenge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

> Anybody wrote:
> > In article <47ae668f$0$8413$db0fefd9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "Jaxtraw"
> > <jax@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >> Anybody wrote:
> >>> In article <HLOdnQa8hsT_1DPanZ2dnUVZ_t_inZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Alric
> >>> Knebel <alric@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Anybody wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> I bet it'll be good.  When these creative types do something this
> >>>> bold, it's usually pretty good.  It'll make a fortune.  Of course,
> >>>> you'll always have the whiners and pissers.  Hell, some people
> >>>> don't like THE GODFATHER.  So you know what the say about opinions.
> >>>
> >>> Bewitched movie ... There are a TON of extremely bad movies that are
> >>> "remakes", and that's even if you can ignore the fact that they bare
> >>> little resemblence to the original.
> >>>
> >>> There are ALMOST zero "remakes" that are any good.
> >>>
> >>> The fact that some big-headed moron thinks they know better how to
> >>> do something than the person who created it is simply obnoxious and
> >>> egotistical.
> >>
> >> Maybe they're not trying to do better, just different, or for a
> >> different audience. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Most
> >> Trek fans seem to think Nick Meyer did a better job with TWOK than
> >> the person who created Trek did with TMP.
> >>
> >> The obvious example of course is Battlstar Galactica, the "remake"
> >> of which is a gripping drama series that has received widespread
> >> acclaim, while the original on which it is loosely based was...
> >> well, not quite that.
> >
> > That's the entire point. The original is exactly how it was meant to
> > be by the person who created the idea. The new version is therfore not
> > "Battlestar Galactica", it simply steals it's name for a very
> > different show.
> 
> Agreed, the new Battlestar is an intensely riveting dark drama.  Better 
> written, better acted (mostly) then the original.  Yet I hate it.  I
didn't 
> like the original either, but I didn't absolutely loathe it -- it was
merely 
> another fluff show not worth watching.  After seeing a few episodes as 
> reruns I felt fortunate it originally aired during a time in my life I
was 
> living where TV wasn't an option.  The original was a rather light
hearted 
> family show, the new one takes a few names from the original and mixes
them 
> into Space Above and Beyond to make something that only shares it's name

> with the original.  I think I would've like it more if the called it 
> Truffles in Space or Fred's Journey, then it would've had nothing to
live up 
> to and would've stood on it's own merits.  When it took on the mantle of
BSG 
> it took on the legacy of the original vision and the obligation to
expand 
> it, not to rewrite it. 

You forgot to add the  "/sarcasm" tag to the end.