"Kweeg" wrote in message
news:Mesgk.81656$kx.57283@pd7urf3no...
>> On Jul 19, 4:21 pm, "Kweeg" wrote:
>>> "Brenda"
wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:g5ss86.30g.1@news.evilcabal.org...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> "Kweeg" wrote in message
>>>>news:Bc4gk.78839$kx.43589@pd7urf3no...
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> Sure there were contradictions. It's impossible for many authors to
>>>> pen a
>>>> series and there NOT be some
>>>> contradictions. But there's a difference between that and blatently
>>>> ignoring what's been written before.
>>>> It's like someone who tries to rewrite history. Seeing that doesn't
>>>> make
>>>> me a "fangirl" and ignoring that
>>>> doesn't make a new trek series good. It may be, but there's every
>>>> chance
>>>> it won't be as well. I dislike prequels to begin with and definitely
>>>> have
>>>> a distaste for wanting to keep the fans and ignore the very medium
>>>> that
>>>> *makes* them fans.
>>>
>>>> We shall see. I keep my skepticism.
>>>
>>> Sure, but when has there been this "blatantly ignoring what's been
>>> written
>>> before," other thanTOS.
>>
>> Dude. Enterprise.
>
> Like? Canon examples please not FANon.
>
> --
>
> 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!"
>
>
>
Wouldn't do any good to say more to you, Kweeg. You will call any example
baseless
and then resort to insults. Nope. Not up for it.
You have a right to your damn opinion but not agreeing with you doesn't make
me stupid, ignorant, a fangirl, a retard or any of the other slams you've so
generously spewed.
