From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: YourName{at}YourISP.com (Your Name)
Subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

In article , "Daniel47{at}teranews.com"
 wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
> > In article , Lance
Corporal Hammer
> > Schultz  wrote:
> >> On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 10:31:10 +1200, Your Name wrote:
> >>
> >>> I've always said the fracnhise can be added to ... as
long as it still
> >>> fits with what's been already established.
> >>
> >> So what do you do with episodes that break previous canon?  Are they
> >> not-Trek to you, too?  Or are you one of those crazy Trek fans who
> >> thinks there is a plausible, coherent timeline with no contradictions?
> >
> > Minor contradictions are bound to happen ocassionally, especially when you
> > have different people writing and making the shows over many years.
> > They're annoyning at worst, but can be lived with.
> >
> > Wholesale changes as found in (and defined by) a
"reboot" means that you
> > end up with a different product ... one that by all common sense reality
> > is not actually part of the same fracnhise (again by definition - they've
> > changed it!). When the people making a "reboot" are
even standing there
> > telling you it's "different", then anyone who still
blindly claims it's
> > part of the same franchise are quite obviously morons who do not under
> > stand the term.
> 
> Your Name, I'll give you that Star Trek and Star Wars are not from the 
> same universe (are they from the same Studios, I wonder??), and, 
> although some might disagree, Galaxy Quest is from neither of the former 
> universes, it doesn't mean they cannot co-exist in "our" universe as 
> pieces of entertainment.

I never even remotely said they couldn't all "co-exist in 'our' universe"
- they are separate franchises with separate names. They don't even
remotely come into the point.




> (And I'd tend to think the original Star Treks' and Star Wars' are 
> better than their later incarnations!)

That's an opinion, and opinions are pointless to argue against. Everyone
has one and they're all different.

I'm talking about the FACT that "reboots" are, by definition and
execution, different products to the original, so re-using the same name
for two different products defies all common sense, intelligence, and
logic from EVERY conceivable angle.

Nobody has ever been able to give a good reason why this happens or is
sensible. None of the supposed reasons ever stack up to a logical
examination. The blind morons usually simply revert to the pointless
opinion-based "I liked it", which completely and utterly misses the point
and doesn't in any way mean it actually fits with the established
franchise.




> How is it, Your Name, that you can accept that ST:NG/ST:DS9/ST:VOY and 
> the first six films are continuations of the ST:TOS universe, but cannot 
> accept ST:2009 or ST:ID as continuations?? Same universe, just different 
> interpretations.

It's an EXTREMELY simple concept.  :-\

A proper franchise is a set of parts that fits together properly and sensibly.

JJ Abrams' movies and the "Enterprise" TV series decided the original
ideas weren't "good enough", and so made lots of ill-fitting changes.
Since they are obviously changed, they are really a different product,
therefore they can't sensibly or logically be part of the same franchise
and shouldn't have the same name.

In the case of JJ Abrams' movies, the half-assed concocted excuse of a
time travel story doesn't work - there are still far too many ill-fitting
and non-sensical changes.

At best these silly "reboots" are a sub-franchise, which in itself is
moronically stupid and just creates a confused mess where nobody really
knows what "Star Trek" is (or "Batman", or
"Battlestar Galacica" or any of
the other franchises ruined by idiotic "reboots" re-using the same name
for a different product).

When even the people making these "reboots" are saying they are different,
you really have to wonder about the brains of some (so-called) "fans" who
continue to blindly claim they're the same thing, let alone the morons in
studio management and marketing that release them under the original's
name.  :-(




> Sure, these later incarnations have different production values compared 
> to ST:TOS, but then ST:NG/ST:DS9/ST:VOY and the films also had different 
> production values compared to ST:TOS.

The original Star Trek, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager,
all fit together without piles of contradictions and changes. Yes, there
are some minor contradictions, but on the whole they do fit together as a
single entity - the real "Star Trek" franchise.
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux