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-2508131032200001{at}203-118-187-228.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz: 

> 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.
> 
> 

Why? It's so obvious.  Because a Star Trek movie done in the style of 
the TOS or TNG movies would fail, like Nemesis.  Today's audiences want 
a different type of entertainment.  And since Star Trek is not a 
religion (although fanatics like Your Name worship it as such) or a 
public service BUT a business meant to make MONEY, the product will be 
tailored to fit that audience.  You don't have to like it.  Nobody in 
the whole world cares if you like it.  But stop acting like whiny 
asshole three-year old expecting everyone to care what you think, agree 
with you and dislike anything and everything you don't like.
GROW THE FUCK UP.

If it's made by Paramount it's official.  This includes the animated 
series, Star Trek Enterprise and the new movies.  DEAL WITH IT.  
  
> 
> 
>> 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