From Newsgroup: rec.arts.drwho.moderated
From Address: YourName{at}YourISP.com (Your Name)
Subject: Re: New American series

In article , Daibhid
Ceanaideach  wrote:
> On 07 Oct 2012, Daibhid Ceanaideach  wrote:
> >>
> >> if that chance was virtually zero beforehand. It also makes a
> >> confused mess of the franchise as a whole since nobody knows which
> >> version you're talking about when you say "Star
Trek" - the proper
> >> one, Beavis & Butthead's silly Enterprise, or JJ Abram's
inconsistent
> >> "new Star Trek". 
> > 
> > Wait, why isn't Enterprise proper Trek? It *is* meant to be in the
> > same continuity as the original! (It's a total continuity mess, sure,
> > but how much Doctor Who would survive that argument? Probably only one
> > Gallifrey story, for a start.)
> 
> Point withdrawn, since I've just noticed that I already invited the 
> interpretation of "it's not 'proper X' if it didn't work, even if it's 
> meant to be in continuity" with my dismissal of Galactica 1980...

Galactica 1980 was hopless rubbish because it was an attempt to change the
established ideas - it didn't fit with the previous show.

Whether one of these silly "reboot" / "change" shows /
movies actually
"works" in terms of being successful or popular is completely irrelevant.
The point is that if it doesn't fit with what came before, then it's
obviously not actually part of the same franchise and therefore should
have it's own name and franchise.

The idiocy is compounded by things like the Batman and Superman movies
which are rebooting the franchises almost every year.  :-\

--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux