From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: epwise{at}yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

YourName{at}YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
news:YourName-2408131031100001{at}203-118-187-72.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz: 

> In article ,
"Daniel47{at}teranews.com"
>  wrote:
> 
>> Your Name wrote:
>> > In article ,
Lance Corporal
>> > Hammer Schultz  wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 18:36:23 +1200, Your Name wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> If I owned the Mona Lisa then I have the
"rights" to draw a
>> >>> moustache and glasses on it because I believe it looks better
>> >>> that way ... that doesn't make it the correct, moral, nor
>> >>> intelligent thing to do. 
>> >>
>> >> Very poor analogy.  Abrams didn't use CGI to add effects to ST:TMP
>> >> and then burn the original negatives.  He made new movies.
>> >>
>> >> Abram's Star Trek movies are imperfect but they are Trek.  Not
>> >> because the studio has the right to use the trademarks; but
>> >> because the stories have the archetypes.
>> >
>> > The "stories" (largely stolen and butchered from
Gene Roddenberry)
>> > don't actually fit with anything in the existing franchise, and so
>> > are not obviously not part of the existing franchise, and therefore
>> > are not actually "Star Trek".
>> 
>> United Federation of Planets    Old - Tick      New - Tick
>> U.S.S. Enterprise       Old - Tick      New - Tick
>> Captain Kirk    Old - Tick      New - Tick
>> Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Chekov     Old - Tick      New - Tick
>> 
>> Yeap, sure seems entirely different to me ... *not*
> 
> Ah, the old pick 'n' choose what you want to see approach.  :-\
> 
> Having the most basic similarities doesn't actually make things the
> same. A tomato and an apple are both round fruits, often red or green,
> with soft centres and small pips ... and yet they're actually
> different and have different names.
> 
> A Ford and a Ferrari both have even more in common: four wheels, an
> engine, a steering wheel, etc., yet they have different names because
> they're different products.
> 
> Names are used for a reason - to distinguish different products/ Using
> the smae name for two different products (and the makers often say
> their version *IS* different) is moronic lunacy that defies all common
> sense and intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> > If they want to make a new show / movie ... then make a NEW show /
>> > movie, with a new name.
>> 
>> They didn't want to make a new show/movie, they just wanted to
>> continue the franchise!!
> 
> Then they should have continued the franchise with something that
> actually fits with everything else (ignoring the idiotic Enterprise
> show), rather than senselessly making something that is in reality a
> different show / movie thanks to all the ill-fitting changes.
> 
> 
> 

Yes, of course, all the old Star Treks should be adhered to...except 
Enterprise!  Because YOUR NAME does not like Enterprise!  All of 
Paramount's decisions should go through YOUR NAME because only his 
opinion matters!

 
> 
>> > If they want to make a "Star Trek" show, then it
MUST fit with what
>> > has come before, and not via same lame, half-assed time travel
>> > excuse that doesn't work thanks to all the other silly changes and
>> > inconsistencies. 
>> 
>> So, obviously then, Your Name, you don't count ST:NG, ST:DS9 or
>> ST:Voy as "Real" Trek, because they are from an entirely different
>> time to ST, different crew, different ships, different enemies!
>> 
>> Oh, hang on, the "Enterprise" used in the original crew
films wasn't
>> the same as for the T.V. series, so you don't count them either, do
>> you, Your Name??
> 
> Geez, from one extreme of pedantic stupidity to the other extreme.
> 
> I've always said the fracnhise can be added to ... as long as it still
> fits with what's been already established. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> > It's an extremely simple and common sense thing to understand.
>> > Unfortuantely most people are apparently even
"simpler" and have no
>> > "common" sense, and most people who claim to be
"fans" only see the
>> > words "Star Trek" and blindly eat it up. :-(
>> 
>> Whilst people like you cannot accept that things cannot change over
>> time. 
> 
> TV shows / movies / comic books / etc. shouldn't "change over time". A
> franchise is meant to be a set of fitting parts that make a whole, not
> a pile of ill-fitting separate entities all simply having the same
> name stuck on the front. Simply calling it "Star Trek: Telly-tubbies"
> and giving them communicators doesn't actually make it part of the
> real "Star Trek" franchise any more than Enterprise or Abrams' silly
> movies are.  :-\ 
> 

How many people have to tell you you're wrong (and childish) before you 
listen?
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux