On Jul 19, 3:58 am, Anim8rFSK
cox.net> wrote:> In article
giganews.com>,
> "80 Knight" please.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> "Anim8rFSK"
cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:ANIM8Rfsk-543972.22391518072008@news.west.cox.net...>>> In article
giganews.com>,
>>> "80 Knight" please.com> wrote:>
>>>>> On Jul 18, 1:15 pm, "Kweeg" wrote:
>>>>>> "Brenda" wrote in message
>
>
>>>>>>>>> Kweeg, I gotta somewhat disagree with you on this. Seeing the care
>>>>>>>>> TPTB
>>>>>>>>> have NOT taken
>>>>>>>>> in the past with trek canon, I'm not hopeful. It seems to me the
>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>> management wants
>>>>>>>>> to write new scifi but give it the trek name so it'll pull in the
>>>>>>>>> fans.
>>>>>>>>> Yes, season 4 of ENT
>>>>>>>>> rocked and perhaps the series might have succeeded had Coto been
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> board from the get go,
>>>>>>>>> but he wasn't.
>
>>>>>>>>> I'm skeptical. I fear this will simply be another enterprise
>>>>>>>>> debacle.
>
>>>>>>>> .. like Roddenberry believing everything people were saying about
>>>>>>>> him
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> screwing up Trek canon with his "New Trek" TNG. Season 1 & 2, now
>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>> are painful to watch.
>>>>>>>> Don't confuse canon with FANon. {{;-/>
>>>>>>>> Point is Brenda when there is someone who cares and understands
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> makes it "Trek" (like Coto / Moore / Bennet) we usually get good
>>>>>>>> Trek.
>>>>>>>> While not a big of fan as Coto is, I hold out some hope JJ will do
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> justice, and I will not condemn it *before* I've even seen it.
>
>>>>>>> Kweeg, you should know me better. I'm a fan, not a fangirl. I'm not
>>>>>>> confusing canon with fandom.
>>>>>>> When something is presented on screen and then the new powers that
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> choose to completely IGNORE
>>>>>>> that history they ignore canon..better thought of as continuity.
>>>>>>> Voicing
>>>>>>> skepticism isn't condemning. It's
>>>>>>> being skeptical.
>
>>>>>> Of course the worst offender for "canon violations" was TOS.
>
>>>>>> --
>
>>>>>> Qapla'
>>>>>> Kweeg
>>>>>> Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
>>>>>> "Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
>>>>>> 1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
>>>>>> "So say we all!"
>
>>>>> All canon violations aside (which was more the cause of inconsistent
>>>>> writing than blatant 'rebooting'), TOS was still and is still hugely
>>>>> popular as it is. It doesn't need remained.
>
>>>> But how is re-imaging TOS going to hurt you? You can still watch TOS on
>>>> TV,
>>>> and in DVD form, you can still buy books, games, poster's, and everything
>>>> else. Choose not to watch the new movie if you are so against it, but
>>>> let
>>>> others give it a chance.
>
>>> No.
>
>> Sorry, the movie is already being made...
>
> So what? Doesn't mean the smart people need to give it a chance.
What an ironic statement. So it's smart to rag on a movie NO ONE has
seen, a script you haven't read, to not even 'give it a a chance'?
It's never smart to make assumptions with very little evidence. It
sounds stupid and arrogant to me.
>
> --
> Star Trek 09:
>
> No Shat, No Show.
Guess what....there is no Shat, and there is a show! May 2009.
