In article <457dd61a$0$2432$db0fefd9@
news.zen.co.uk>, "Jaxtraw"
knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote:
> Anybody wrote:
>> In article <457d4563$0$32022$fa0fcedb@
news.zen.co.uk>, "Jaxtraw"
>>
knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote:
>>>>> PW wrote:
>>>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS OF NEW JAMES BOND MOVIE "CASINO ROYALE"
>>>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS OF NEW JAMES BOND MOVIE "CASINO ROYALE"
>>>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS OF NEW JAMES BOND MOVIE "CASINO ROYALE"
>>>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS OF NEW JAMES BOND MOVIE "CASINO ROYALE"
>>>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS OF NEW JAMES BOND MOVIE "CASINO ROYALE"
>>>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS OF NEW JAMES BOND MOVIE "CASINO ROYALE"
>>>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS OF NEW JAMES BOND MOVIE "CASINO ROYALE"
>>>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS OF NEW JAMES BOND MOVIE "CASINO ROYALE"
>>>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS OF NEW JAMES BOND MOVIE "CASINO ROYALE"
>>>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS OF NEW JAMES BOND MOVIE "CASINO ROYALE"
>>>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS OF NEW JAMES BOND MOVIE "CASINO ROYALE"
>>>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS OF NEW JAMES BOND MOVIE "CASINO ROYALE"
>>>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS OF NEW JAMES BOND MOVIE "CASINO ROYALE"
>>>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS OF NEW JAMES BOND MOVIE "CASINO ROYALE"
>>>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS OF NEW JAMES BOND MOVIE "CASINO ROYALE"
>>>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS OF NEW JAMES BOND MOVIE "CASINO ROYALE"
>>>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS OF NEW JAMES BOND MOVIE "CASINO ROYALE"
>>>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS OF NEW JAMES BOND MOVIE "CASINO ROYALE"
>>>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS OF NEW JAMES BOND MOVIE "CASINO ROYALE"
>>>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS OF NEW JAMES BOND MOVIE "CASINO ROYALE"
>>>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS OF NEW JAMES BOND MOVIE "CASINO ROYALE"
>>>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS OF NEW JAMES BOND MOVIE "CASINO ROYALE"
>>>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS OF NEW JAMES BOND MOVIE "CASINO ROYALE"
>>>> POSSIBLE SPOILERS OF NEW JAMES BOND MOVIE "CASINO ROYALE"
>>>>
>>>> "Anybody"
anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:111220061840123723%%%%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...>>>>>> I've been googling for Trek and all I seem to really find are
>>>>>> video games.
>>>>>> Somebody give me a clue.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a new movie coming, Star Trek XI, probably in 2008. It's
>>>>> being done by JJ Abrams (the guy who created Lost and Alias) ...
>>>>> but before you get too excited, this is going to be a ridiculous
>>>>> "reboot" movie where whenever they want to they will ignore
>>>>> anything already established by the other shows / movies (rather
>>>>> than just ignoring the garbage called "Enterprise). :-(
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Anybody" mentioned that Star Trek XI will be a ridiculous "reboot"
>>>> movie.
>>>>
>>>> I went to see "Casino Royale" last weekend, and it was a good movie,
>>>> in fact I believe its 2nd only to Sean Connery, but its early days
>>>> and my opinion might change.
>>>>
>>>> My point is ... Casino Royale was one of the early James Bond
>>>> movies, but in the new version they treat James Bond as if he has
>>>> just become a double-O agent. However, its set in a comtemporary
>>>> scene. I kept getting confused as to whether this was a
>>>> retrospective or an all new episode. They literally rebooted James
>>>> Bond !!
>>>>
>>>> So my main point is ... is this how the next Star Trek movie may be
>>>> treated ??? If so, are we restarting the ST universe from brand new
>>>> ? I've never seen a movie like Casino Royale where such a genre of
>>>> movie history was, as "Anybody" said, literally rebooted !!!
>>>
>>> Batman Begins?
>>
>> The new "Battlestar Galactica". There's quite a few of these
>> ridiculous things called "remake", "reimagining", "reboot", and even
>> more when you include the "rip-off" and "parody" ones as well.
>
> I like the new Battlestar Galactica. In that case, I don't care personally
> if it's very different to the original because.
Whether the newer versions are any good or not as themselves isn't
relevant, the fact is that they're different and therefore not really
"Battlestar Galactica" (or "Star Trek" or "Batman" or...) in anything
but name and, if you're lucky, VERY basic idea.
>> ALL of them are AWFUL and have little resemblance to the original,
>
> How many drugs do you have to be on to think Batman Begins is awful? What
> "original" are we referring to here? The cheesy TV show, or Burton's
> over-rated self-adoration fest, the one about the Joker with that little guy
> in a rubber suit who couldn't even speak properly let alone move due to the
> sheer weight of rubber in which he was encased? The one with the scene where
> the baddies dance to *Prince*?!
As above, it's awful in the sense that it buggers up any established
version of the story, solely for the sake of making more money for the
fools in Hollyweird and sod the fans of the originals.
>> which makes it a waste of time creating something that uses nothing
>> but the same name and a few basic ideas - you may as well let the
>> original "tired" franchise die and make a brand new one.
>
> Except in the case of BSG, if they'd made this one and called it something
> else, with different character names, the net would be alight with people
> calling it a rip-off of BSG.
It's not the original, so it's already a rip-off ... it's just one
hiding behind the same name.
>> "Star Trek" is not just "spaceships flying through space". You don't
>> simply make Kirk an Asian woman and expect people to seriously believe
>> it's actually "Star Trek" in anything except name, and therefore as
>> equally ill-fitting and ridiculous to the "Star Trek" franchise as
>> Enterprise was.
>
> The key word in there is "franchise".
>
> I don't mind reboots, as long as it's well done. If a story is to survive,
> it has to change to modern tastes. Peoples expectations change with time. It
> can be done badly, or done well, and there needs to be a hunger for it,
> which for what it's worth is why I think this new Trek movie is going to
> suck donkey balls, as the saying goes. I think it's ill-judged to do it this
> soon. You need to let the dust settle.
The only real way to do a "remake" is to wait until all the fans of the
original version are long dead. That way they can't piss off anyone
with their inanely silly ideas that make it a completely different show
/ movie.
>> Whether it's any good or not, a silly "reboot" will certainly NEVER be
>> "Star Trek" as we know it ... it will obviously be "Star Trek 2.0", a
>> completely different version.
>
> I think that's the point. Anyway, we've had 2 effective reboots already. The
> TOS movies were fundamentally different to the series. Different technology
> and those God-awful parade of uniforms, and so on. Then we had the
> deliberate reset, if not reboot, of TNG. Which let's be honest here is not
> aging half as well as TOS, not least because history will always remember
> the 60s as being cool, whereas the 80s were naff.
TNG wasn't really a re-boot. It was almost the same show, modernised
slightly. In fact TNG is one of the few "update" efforts out of
Hollyweird that does work properly and shows how it should be done,
rather than creating some totally new version that doesn't remotely fit
with anything that's gone before it.
>> I've never followed James Bond, but I believe (and could easily be
>> wrong) that's slightly different. The original "Casino Royale" movie
>> was more of a parody whereas the new version takes it more seriously
>> and closer to the rest of the franchise. Technically it's also the
>> movie version of the first book where James Bond has only just become
>> "007", and that makes it more of a prequel to the other movies rather
>> than an actual "reboot" ... although it is of course still a "remake"
>> of the original movie as well.
>
> Again, I've no idea what you're comparing the current reboot *too*.
"Casino Royale" is a remake of an older movie.
> There
> have been about 70 different actors in the part, and the "originals" went
> from being colourful spy thrillers (Connery) to comedy pastiche (Moore) to
> films about a man that never looks quite like his suit fits properly
> (Brosnan), and few of them bear much relation to the source books. You can
> hardly call it a remake of the previous Casino Royale, considering that was
> a kind of comedy/parody stuck together from 5 sections starring 5 different
> actors with psychedelic glue. Although it has to be said it had the most
> attractive female cast of any Bond movie evar. That's why people love the
> 60s, and why they hate the 80s- because the 60s had gorgeous women in
> mini-skirts, and the 80s had ugly men in mini-skirts and attractive women in
> weired unflattering jumpsuits, and their hair tied in a bun.
>
> I'll give this movie a chance, but I fully expect it to be utterly dire,
> personally. But then I thought Generations was going to be shit, and I
> actually quite enjoyed it. At the time, I even admired them for daring to
> give Kirk an understated, pointless death, which I thought was quite
> profound, though in retrospect I now realise that that also sucked donkey
> balls.
James Bond is a good example of how not to do things. There's been so
many different Bonds that nobody now knows what it is ... and that's
half the reason they decided to try and "reinvent" him in this new
movie. The franchise is a mish-mashed mess that you have to look at as
half-a-dozen different versions. One of the main reasons I've never
really bothered to watch any of it.
