|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: KweegKweeg Date: Jan 15, 2007 17:02
"David Johnston" block.net> wrote in message
news:ga2oq2p45akp1lddq70u8ov3i8lga5sjo7@4ax.com...> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:34:09 +1300, Anybody
> anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
>
>>>Where exactly did I say they *had* to "produce TV shows and movies to
>>satisfy a few fans"????
>>
>>What I have said all along is that if a franchise isn't "popular
>>enough" (by whatever silly system they want to use), then you do NOT
>>try to "remake" / "reboot" the franchise,
>
> Why not?
Indeed. Three words "The Next Generation" if that was not a remake / reboot
of the franchise I dono (by "Anybody's logic) what was.
--
|
| Show full article (0.83Kb) |
|
| | 49 Comments |
|
|
Author: Flip WilsonFlip Wilson Date: Jan 15, 2007 18:32
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 01:02:54 +0000, Kweeg wrote:
>
> Indeed. Three words "The Next Generation" if that was not a remake / reboot
> of the franchise I dono (by "Anybody's logic) what was.
I would say it's more of an extension of the franchise, not a remake.
After all, this was not adventures of Kirk & Spock we were seeing. This
was a new crew in a new time period. TNG didn't wipe out what happened
before. It didn't (intentionally) try to change or invalidate what already
happened. TNG blazed it's own path.
This, on the other hand is a reboot/remake/reimagining or whatever they
want to call it. I'm sure Kirk and Spock are the most recogniseable names
in Trek. A high Q rating does not necessarily lead to "I'd sure pay $9 to
see that in a theater". I'd also have to say that the characters are
popular in no small part because of the actors who played them, which are
now being replaced.
At any rate, this is crap. I'll probably not be seeing this movie.
|
| |
|
| | 45 Comments |
|
|
Author: AnybodyAnybody Date: Jan 16, 2007 12:23
In article comcast.com>,
ToolPackinMama lauragoodwin.org> wrote:
> Anybody wrote:
>> In article comcast.com>,
>> ToolPackinMama lauragoodwin.org> wrote:
>> >>> Flip Wilson wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 01:02:54 +0000...
|
| Show full article (2.09Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: AnybodyAnybody Date: Jan 16, 2007 12:25
In article <_Z-dnRtKOLeE4zHYnZ2dnUVZ_ujinZ2d@ comcast.com>,
ToolPackinMama lauragoodwin.org> wrote:
> Kweeg wrote:
>
>> But you and "Anybody" are probably right, we should keep our minds closed to
>> new ideas (and any new Trek) and especially jump to conclusions on little or
>> no information.
>
> I hope that you can all tell that he's being sarcastic.
If you mean me, then no I'm not.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: George PeattyGeorge Peatty Date: Jan 17, 2007 06:20
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 23:48:38 -0600, stephenj cox.net> wrote:
>of course chemistry isn't everything. 'firefly' had it in spades and
>lasted about 10 episodes. you need the name, the finances, etc. ENT had
>all that, but ...
I think the fact that Firefly only lasted ten episodes belies your claim
about the chemistry of its characters. I found them very dull .. You know
there's a problem when the audience is sitting there wanting to know more
about the Empire than this ragtag bunch of ne'er-do-wells ..
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: GeneKGeneK Date: Oct 15, 2006 11:58
> Mystery writers say the proper technique is to *start* with the
> solution to the puzzle then work backwards creating the clues to the
> puzzle. That way you have an internally consistent narrative. The way
> the "Lost" writers seem to have done things is to have thrown out a
> bunch of apparently unconnected clues. And now they seem to be stuck
> having to create a structure that's consistent with all of the clues.
OTOH, one of the most successful series of the 60's, "The Fugitive,"
started out with a really flimsy plot turn (Kimble sees a one-armed
man fleeing the scene of the crime), then went on for years before
telling us whether said one-armed man was the killer, a witness who
could ID the killer or a figment of Kimble's imagination. I'm not
watching "Lost," but based on the descriptions posted by others it
seems to me that it'd be easy enough to pick a solution that is
supported by some of the clues and then just have whoever turns
out to be the bad guy have a good laugh over how much fun he had
watching the heroes puzzling over all the false leads he'd laid down
for them.
GeneK
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Oct 30, 2006 19:00
> ToolPackinMama wrote:
>
>> Everybody: please remember that no matter how Kirk looks to us from our
>> vantage point, that he was respected by the people of his (fictional) day
>> as a role model, and his Starfleet superiors regarded him to be an
>> exemplary officer - and furthermore, virtually everyone in Kirk's
>> universe liked him as a person.
>
> And in you're micro-universe he and Spock also bugger each other.
>
> Tell me, what color is Vulcan spunk?
Blue, of course. What other color would it be???
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Elvis GumpElvis Gump Date: Nov 1, 2006 02:51
ToolPackinMama wrote:
> Elvis Gump wrote:
>
>> Well, maybe I'm a bad spiller
>
> MAYBE?
Took u that long to know tees?
>> but your still a weird post-menopausal
>
> You're, not your.
>
> Elvis, maybe I'm a lingual snob, but I'm not cowed nor swayed by critics
> who ~can't construct a proper English sentence~.
Write! An your knot some obsessive no-it-awl!
Did it sting so hard that it ate away at you that you had to turn it
into THREE reply posts? I must have hit some nerve!
|
| Show full article (0.74Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Elvis GumpElvis Gump Date: Nov 3, 2006 17:27
GeneK wrote:
> "Elvis Gump" wrote...
>> Well hold your breath and stamp your little footsies. If that doesn't
>> work click your heels together three times and say whatever the hell
>> you want.
>>
>> ENT aside, it's stupid to expect that a secret like Pon Farr could
>> stay a secret long. Humans would gossip about every instance of some
>> Vulcan going AWOL or nutsy fagan and that would be all it would take.
>> That there's not even apocryphal stories about Vulcans and sex
>> floating around would be unreasonable. That Bones and Kirk were both
>> clueless as to what was happening to Spock I think is silly. Bones
>> should at least know that whatever passes for testosterone in his
>> blood workups was off the charts.
>>
>> It's bad TOS writing.
>
> Oh sure, it's all Ted Sturgeon's fault for not being able to predict
> that other people would ignore the precedent set by his writing
> after he was gone. ...
|
| Show full article (2.43Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: AnybodyAnybody Date: Nov 3, 2006 17:27
In article <8p6dnTwd7PogQNbYnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@ comcast.com>,
ToolPackinMama lauragoodwin.org> wrote:
> Therefore I say that the Pon Farr related episodes of ENT ~must~ be
> dismissed as _anti-canonical_.
The entire Enterprise show needs to be forgotten about and left in the
bin alongside other awful nonsense like Galactica 1980, Team Knight
Rider, and the Star Wars Holiday Special.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
