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
(a) I never forgave them for American Imperialism- to whit, expecting us
Brits to pay at the cinema for a TV movie. I have hated all of America ever
since because of this. The previous sentence is just a joke, by the way.
(b) It was hardly a massive success first time around. I think I saw a
couple of episodes. It had a kid, and a dwarf in a dog suit. This isn't
modernising Shakespeare here.
(c) I enjoy the modern series. It's well made, adult, exciting and most of
all
(d) Grace Park is teh hawt.
> 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*?!
> 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.
> "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.
> 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.
> 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*. 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.
Ian
