Trek XI - The Franchise IS Dead

[Anybody]

AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!! NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Why do the morons in Hollyweird have to try and "reboot" everything?!?
This is going to be one stupid, ill-fitting movie that will finally
kill off Star Trek. X-(


Any chance of William Shatner making an appearance in Star
Trek XI ?

"Absolutely not," an unnamed studio source told the site,
"This is not just another Trek movie but instead a total
reboot, we will see things that are similar to what is
known in the Trek Universe but we will not be held to
every aspect of the last 40 years. We are going to
introduce Star Trek to a whole new generation and many
more generations to come.

[ Exactly the kind of garbage Beavis & Butthead spouted when ]
[ making Enterprise!]

We have total faith that J.J. and company will take Trek
to a whole new level. Trek has been going downhill for
the last 10 years

[ Thanks to morons who have no clue what they're doing, and ]
[ now it looks like more morons have taken over. ]

and if we expect it to be around 20 years from now we
will have to take some bold steps that might be
controversial at first but we are sure to bring new
fans to the dying franchise."

Asked about the existing fans of Trek and if they would
like the direction the new Trek is headed towards, the
source said "Trek fans were not able to keep the last
show (Enterprise) on the air

[ Because it was utter garbage that didn't fit ... just like ]
[ this new movie will apparently be. ]

and we are looking on bringing over Alias and Lost fans
and if the old Trekkies like the new movie great, if not
too bad. We have to boldly go were no Star Trek has gone
before."

[ Yep, completely down the toilet. ]

http://trekweb.com/articles/2006/08/18/Studio-Source-Says-Star-Trek-XI.s
html

[Victor F. Antoine]

The rule of thumb says when you have something that works don't mess with
it. Or in otherwords "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." TNG and DS9 worked.
Voyager was simply filler to completethe trilogy. Enterprise was completely
extranious and were better off without it. Why not continue Exploration
using Jake Sisco and Nog and maybe worke Wesley in or then again maybe not.
Anyway my point is why try to go in a totally different direction when the
direction we were going was correct. After all the Trek continues.

Post by Anybody
AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!! NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Why do the morons in Hollyweird have to try and "reboot" everything?!?
This is going to be one stupid, ill-fitting movie that will finally
kill off Star Trek. X-(
Any chance of William Shatner making an appearance in Star
Trek XI ?
"Absolutely not," an unnamed studio source told the site,
"This is not just another Trek movie but instead a total
reboot, we will see things that are similar to what is
known in the Trek Universe but we will not be held to
every aspect of the last 40 years. We are going to
introduce Star Trek to a whole new generation and many
more generations to come.
[ Exactly the kind of garbage Beavis & Butthead spouted when ]
[ making Enterprise!]
We have total faith that J.J. and company will take Trek
to a whole new level. Trek has been going downhill for
the last 10 years
[ Thanks to morons who have no clue what they're doing, and ]
[ now it looks like more morons have taken over. ]
and if we expect it to be around 20 years from now we
will have to take some bold steps that might be
controversial at first but we are sure to bring new
fans to the dying franchise."
Asked about the existing fans of Trek and if they would
like the direction the new Trek is headed towards, the
source said "Trek fans were not able to keep the last
show (Enterprise) on the air
[ Because it was utter garbage that didn't fit ... just like ]
[ this new movie will apparently be. ]
and we are looking on bringing over Alias and Lost fans
and if the old Trekkies like the new movie great, if not
too bad. We have to boldly go were no Star Trek has gone
before."
[ Yep, completely down the toilet. ]
http://trekweb.com/articles/2006/08/18/Studio-Source-Says-Star-Trek-XI.s
html

[Jaxtraw]

Post by Victor F. Antoine

Post by Anybody
AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!! NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Why do the morons in Hollyweird have to try and "reboot"
everything?!? This is going to be one stupid, ill-fitting movie that
will finally kill off Star Trek. X-(
Any chance of William Shatner making an appearance in Star
Trek XI ?
"Absolutely not," an unnamed studio source told the site,
"This is not just another Trek movie but instead a total
reboot, we will see things that are similar to what is
known in the Trek Universe but we will not be held to
every aspect of the last 40 years. We are going to
introduce Star Trek to a whole new generation and many
more generations to come.
[ Exactly the kind of garbage Beavis & Butthead spouted when ]
[ making Enterprise!]
We have total faith that J.J. and company will take Trek
to a whole new level. Trek has been going downhill for
the last 10 years
[ Thanks to morons who have no clue what they're doing, and ]
[ now it looks like more morons have taken over. ]
and if we expect it to be around 20 years from now we
will have to take some bold steps that might be
controversial at first but we are sure to bring new
fans to the dying franchise."
Asked about the existing fans of Trek and if they would
like the direction the new Trek is headed towards, the
source said "Trek fans were not able to keep the last
show (Enterprise) on the air
[ Because it was utter garbage that didn't fit ... just like ]
[ this new movie will apparently be. ]
and we are looking on bringing over Alias and Lost fans
and if the old Trekkies like the new movie great, if not
too bad. We have to boldly go were no Star Trek has gone
before."
[ Yep, completely down the toilet. ]
http://trekweb.com/articles/2006/08/18/Studio-Source-Says-Star-Trek-XI.s
html

The rule of thumb says when you have something that works don't mess
with it. Or in otherwords "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." TNG and
DS9 worked. Voyager was simply filler to completethe trilogy.
Enterprise was completely extranious and were better off without it.
Why not continue Exploration using Jake Sisco and Nog and maybe worke
Wesley in or then again maybe not. Anyway my point is why try to go
in a totally different direction when the direction we were going was
correct. After all the Trek continues. "Anybody"

The direction "we" were going in was a sausage factory of repetitive,
formulaic, forgettable samey-ness. It wasn't working any more. It *was*
broke.

People eventually get tired of the same old thing. It's much like the
dilemma rock bands face as the years go by- if they keep doing the same,
people get bored and say they've got no ideas. If they do something
different, people complain that the new stuff isn't a patch on the old stuff
and they need to make good music like they used to.

Trek simply had no surprises left. The formula laid down by TNG was
phenomenally restrictive and most notably, despite oodles of "canon" simply
didn't have enough depth as tastes for realism and grit developed in sci-fi-
compare to Babylon 5 or the new Battlestar Galactica. People want
complexity, drama and moral ambiguity and the Trek formula is based on this
fundamental optimistic idea that the future is near perfect, a society that
is creepily certain of its rightness. It's effectively an authoritarian
socialist utopia, which is fine probably if you believe in that sort of
thing but to most people just seems quaint.

That and the reset button, again inherited from a TV style that's now passe
for younger sci-fi fans who expect change, development and long term
stories.

Voyager was a masterclass in the limitations of the franchise. A ship
struggling for survival, but it looks the same every week. Two crews, former
enemies- who get on fine all the time because Star Trek isn't about crews
conflicting with each other. Endless mithering about the Prime Directive,
because Teh Future is an authoritarian "people's dictatorship".

It broke, because the audience changed.


Ian

[RuPEDski]

Post by Jaxtraw

Post by Victor F. Antoine

Post by Anybody
AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!! NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Why do the morons in Hollyweird have to try and "reboot"
everything?!? This is going to be one stupid, ill-fitting movie that
will finally kill off Star Trek. X-(
Any chance of William Shatner making an appearance in Star
Trek XI ?
"Absolutely not," an unnamed studio source told the site,
"This is not just another Trek movie but instead a total
reboot, we will see things that are similar to what is
known in the Trek Universe but we will not be held to
every aspect of the last 40 years. We are going to
introduce Star Trek to a whole new generation and many
more generations to come.
[ Exactly the kind of garbage Beavis & Butthead spouted when ]
[ making Enterprise!]
We have total faith that J.J. and company will take Trek
to a whole new level. Trek has been going downhill for
the last 10 years
[ Thanks to morons who have no clue what they're doing, and ]
[ now it looks like more morons have taken over. ]
and if we expect it to be around 20 years from now we
will have to take some bold steps that might be
controversial at first but we are sure to bring new
fans to the dying franchise."
Asked about the existing fans of Trek and if they would
like the direction the new Trek is headed towards, the
source said "Trek fans were not able to keep the last
show (Enterprise) on the air
[ Because it was utter garbage that didn't fit ... just like ]
[ this new movie will apparently be. ]
and we are looking on bringing over Alias and Lost fans
and if the old Trekkies like the new movie great, if not
too bad. We have to boldly go were no Star Trek has gone
before."
[ Yep, completely down the toilet. ]
http://trekweb.com/articles/2006/08/18/Studio-Source-Says-Star-Trek-XI.s
html

The rule of thumb says when you have something that works don't mess
with it. Or in otherwords "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." TNG and
DS9 worked. Voyager was simply filler to completethe trilogy.
Enterprise was completely extranious and were better off without it.
Why not continue Exploration using Jake Sisco and Nog and maybe worke
Wesley in or then again maybe not. Anyway my point is why try to go
in a totally different direction when the direction we were going was
correct. After all the Trek continues. "Anybody"

The direction "we" were going in was a sausage factory of repetitive,
formulaic, forgettable samey-ness. It wasn't working any more. It *was*
broke.
People eventually get tired of the same old thing. It's much like the
dilemma rock bands face as the years go by- if they keep doing the same,
people get bored and say they've got no ideas. If they do something
different, people complain that the new stuff isn't a patch on the old stuff
and they need to make good music like they used to.
Trek simply had no surprises left. The formula laid down by TNG was
phenomenally restrictive and most notably, despite oodles of "canon" simply
didn't have enough depth as tastes for realism and grit developed in sci-fi-
compare to Babylon 5 or the new Battlestar Galactica. People want
complexity, drama and moral ambiguity and the Trek formula is based on this
fundamental optimistic idea that the future is near perfect, a society that
is creepily certain of its rightness. It's effectively an authoritarian
socialist utopia, which is fine probably if you believe in that sort of
thing but to most people just seems quaint.
That and the reset button, again inherited from a TV style that's now passe
for younger sci-fi fans who expect change, development and long term
stories.
Voyager was a masterclass in the limitations of the franchise. A ship
struggling for survival, but it looks the same every week. Two crews, former
enemies- who get on fine all the time because Star Trek isn't about crews
conflicting with each other. Endless mithering about the Prime Directive,
because Teh Future is an authoritarian "people's dictatorship".

I dont' mind moving forward, though I felt the previous series was fine
(excluding Enterprise because it's the only one I didn't watch). I don't
mind changing the formula a bit either! BUT do it in the future, move
forward! Don't go back in time to retro Trek and certainly DO NOT recast
Kirk and Spock. This is absurd to me. I honestly cannot fathom how anybody
could think this a good idea. This isn't the Brady Bunch! I do hope it turns
out well if that is what's going to be done, but again, this is not a stage
play: the characters have been defined by the actors who originally played
them. i don't want new actors doing their "take" on the character, nor do I
want imitation versions. Geez, Trek is supposed to be the future, moving
forward, imagination, not rehash! The funny thing is that doing early Kirk,
Spock is more restrictive in important ways. It's not like we can even
entertain any jeopardy of them dying.....nor can we stick within canon and
have a radically different environment or feel.

[Daniel]

Post by RuPEDski

Post by Jaxtraw

Post by Victor F. Antoine

Post by Anybody
AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!! NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Why do the morons in Hollyweird have to try and "reboot"
everything?!? This is going to be one stupid, ill-fitting movie that
will finally kill off Star Trek. X-(
Any chance of William Shatner making an appearance in Star
Trek XI ?
"Absolutely not," an unnamed studio source told the site,
"This is not just another Trek movie but instead a total
reboot, we will see things that are similar to what is
known in the Trek Universe but we will not be held to
every aspect of the last 40 years. We are going to
introduce Star Trek to a whole new generation and many
more generations to come.
[ Exactly the kind of garbage Beavis & Butthead spouted when ]
[ making Enterprise!]
We have total faith that J.J. and company will take Trek
to a whole new level. Trek has been going downhill for
the last 10 years
[ Thanks to morons who have no clue what they're doing, and ]
[ now it looks like more morons have taken over. ]
and if we expect it to be around 20 years from now we
will have to take some bold steps that might be
controversial at first but we are sure to bring new
fans to the dying franchise."
Asked about the existing fans of Trek and if they would
like the direction the new Trek is headed towards, the
source said "Trek fans were not able to keep the last
show (Enterprise) on the air
[ Because it was utter garbage that didn't fit ... just like ]
[ this new movie will apparently be. ]
and we are looking on bringing over Alias and Lost fans
and if the old Trekkies like the new movie great, if not
too bad. We have to boldly go were no Star Trek has gone
before."
[ Yep, completely down the toilet. ]
http://trekweb.com/articles/2006/08/18/Studio-Source-Says-Star-Trek-XI.s
html

The rule of thumb says when you have something that works don't mess
with it. Or in otherwords "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." TNG and
DS9 worked. Voyager was simply filler to completethe trilogy.
Enterprise was completely extranious and were better off without it.
Why not continue Exploration using Jake Sisco and Nog and maybe worke
Wesley in or then again maybe not. Anyway my point is why try to go
in a totally different direction when the direction we were going was
correct. After all the Trek continues. "Anybody"

The direction "we" were going in was a sausage factory of repetitive,
formulaic, forgettable samey-ness. It wasn't working any more. It *was*
broke.
People eventually get tired of the same old thing. It's much like the
dilemma rock bands face as the years go by- if they keep doing the same,
people get bored and say they've got no ideas. If they do something
different, people complain that the new stuff isn't a patch on the old stuff
and they need to make good music like they used to.
Trek simply had no surprises left. The formula laid down by TNG was
phenomenally restrictive and most notably, despite oodles of "canon" simply
didn't have enough depth as tastes for realism and grit developed in sci-fi-
compare to Babylon 5 or the new Battlestar Galactica. People want
complexity, drama and moral ambiguity and the Trek formula is based on this
fundamental optimistic idea that the future is near perfect, a society that
is creepily certain of its rightness. It's effectively an authoritarian
socialist utopia, which is fine probably if you believe in that sort of
thing but to most people just seems quaint.
That and the reset button, again inherited from a TV style that's now passe
for younger sci-fi fans who expect change, development and long term
stories.
Voyager was a masterclass in the limitations of the franchise. A ship
struggling for survival, but it looks the same every week. Two crews, former
enemies- who get on fine all the time because Star Trek isn't about crews
conflicting with each other. Endless mithering about the Prime Directive,
because Teh Future is an authoritarian "people's dictatorship".

I dont' mind moving forward, though I felt the previous series was fine
(excluding Enterprise because it's the only one I didn't watch). I don't
mind changing the formula a bit either! BUT do it in the future, move
forward! Don't go back in time to retro Trek and certainly DO NOT recast
Kirk and Spock. This is absurd to me. I honestly cannot fathom how anybody
could think this a good idea. This isn't the Brady Bunch! I do hope it turns
out well if that is what's going to be done, but again, this is not a stage
play: the characters have been defined by the actors who originally played
them. i don't want new actors doing their "take" on the character, nor do I
want imitation versions. Geez, Trek is supposed to be the future, moving
forward, imagination, not rehash! The funny thing is that doing early Kirk,
Spock is more restrictive in important ways. It's not like we can even
entertain any jeopardy of them dying.....nor can we stick within canon and
have a radically different environment or feel.

One problem I can see with re-starting the Universe is that the
Technology of the new film will have to be limited to what we've seen in
ST:TOS and ST I through ST VI. (O.K. maybe a little NCC 1701-B as we saw
in ST:Generations).No holo-decks, no saucer separations, etc., etc..

Daniel

[Lazyike67]

Post by Daniel

Post by RuPEDski

Post by Jaxtraw

Post by Victor F. Antoine

Post by Anybody
AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!! NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Why do the morons in Hollyweird have to try and "reboot"
everything?!? This is going to be one stupid, ill-fitting movie that
will finally kill off Star Trek. X-(
Any chance of William Shatner making an appearance in Star
Trek XI ?
"Absolutely not," an unnamed studio source told the site,
"This is not just another Trek movie but instead a total
reboot, we will see things that are similar to what is
known in the Trek Universe but we will not be held to
every aspect of the last 40 years. We are going to
introduce Star Trek to a whole new generation and many
more generations to come.
[ Exactly the kind of garbage Beavis & Butthead spouted when ]
[ making Enterprise!]
We have total faith that J.J. and company will take Trek
to a whole new level. Trek has been going downhill for
the last 10 years
[ Thanks to morons who have no clue what they're doing, and ]
[ now it looks like more morons have taken over. ]
and if we expect it to be around 20 years from now we
will have to take some bold steps that might be
controversial at first but we are sure to bring new
fans to the dying franchise."
Asked about the existing fans of Trek and if they would
like the direction the new Trek is headed towards, the
source said "Trek fans were not able to keep the last
show (Enterprise) on the air
[ Because it was utter garbage that didn't fit ... just like ]
[ this new movie will apparently be. ]
and we are looking on bringing over Alias and Lost fans
and if the old Trekkies like the new movie great, if not
too bad. We have to boldly go were no Star Trek has gone
before."
[ Yep, completely down the toilet. ]
http://trekweb.com/articles/2006/08/18/Studio-Source-Says-Star-Trek-XI.s
html

The rule of thumb says when you have something that works don't mess
with it. Or in otherwords "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." TNG and
DS9 worked. Voyager was simply filler to completethe trilogy.
Enterprise was completely extranious and were better off without it.
Why not continue Exploration using Jake Sisco and Nog and maybe worke
Wesley in or then again maybe not. Anyway my point is why try to go
in a totally different direction when the direction we were going was
correct. After all the Trek continues. "Anybody"

The direction "we" were going in was a sausage factory of repetitive,
formulaic, forgettable samey-ness. It wasn't working any more. It *was*
broke.
People eventually get tired of the same old thing. It's much like the
dilemma rock bands face as the years go by- if they keep doing the same,
people get bored and say they've got no ideas. If they do something
different, people complain that the new stuff isn't a patch on the old stuff
and they need to make good music like they used to.
Trek simply had no surprises left. The formula laid down by TNG was
phenomenally restrictive and most notably, despite oodles of "canon" simply
didn't have enough depth as tastes for realism and grit developed in sci-fi-
compare to Babylon 5 or the new Battlestar Galactica. People want
complexity, drama and moral ambiguity and the Trek formula is based on this
fundamental optimistic idea that the future is near perfect, a society that
is creepily certain of its rightness. It's effectively an authoritarian
socialist utopia, which is fine probably if you believe in that sort of
thing but to most people just seems quaint.
That and the reset button, again inherited from a TV style that's now passe
for younger sci-fi fans who expect change, development and long term
stories.
Voyager was a masterclass in the limitations of the franchise. A ship
struggling for survival, but it looks the same every week. Two crews, former
enemies- who get on fine all the time because Star Trek isn't about crews
conflicting with each other. Endless mithering about the Prime Directive,
because Teh Future is an authoritarian "people's dictatorship".

I dont' mind moving forward, though I felt the previous series was
fine (excluding Enterprise because it's the only one I didn't watch).
I don't mind changing the formula a bit either! BUT do it in the
future, move forward! Don't go back in time to retro Trek and
certainly DO NOT recast Kirk and Spock. This is absurd to me. I
honestly cannot fathom how anybody could think this a good idea. This
isn't the Brady Bunch! I do hope it turns out well if that is what's
going to be done, but again, this is not a stage play: the characters
have been defined by the actors who originally played them. i don't
want new actors doing their "take" on the character, nor do I want
imitation versions. Geez, Trek is supposed to be the future, moving
forward, imagination, not rehash! The funny thing is that doing early
Kirk, Spock is more restrictive in important ways. It's not like we
can even entertain any jeopardy of them dying.....nor can we stick
within canon and have a radically different environment or feel.

One problem I can see with re-starting the Universe is that the
Technology of the new film will have to be limited to what we've seen in
ST:TOS and ST I through ST VI. (O.K. maybe a little NCC 1701-B as we saw
in ST:Generations).No holo-decks, no saucer separations, etc., etc..
Daniel

Dan,
The saucer separation was not new to TNG but was thought up for TOS.

The ONLY problem I see in a reboot would be a BSG type reboot. I would
have no problem starting with Captain Robert April or even a Daedalus
class ship to start & cover the Earth-Romulan war as well as the Four
Years War between the Klingons & Federation.

Ike

[Jaxtraw]

Post by Lazyike67

Post by Daniel

Post by RuPEDski

Post by Jaxtraw

Post by Victor F. Antoine

Post by Anybody
AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!! NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Why do the morons in Hollyweird have to try and "reboot"
everything?!? This is going to be one stupid, ill-fitting movie
that will finally kill off Star Trek. X-(
Any chance of William Shatner making an appearance in Star
Trek XI ?
"Absolutely not," an unnamed studio source told the site,
"This is not just another Trek movie but instead a total
reboot, we will see things that are similar to what is
known in the Trek Universe but we will not be held to
every aspect of the last 40 years. We are going to
introduce Star Trek to a whole new generation and many
more generations to come.
[ Exactly the kind of garbage Beavis & Butthead spouted when ]
[ making Enterprise!]
We have total faith that J.J. and company will take Trek
to a whole new level. Trek has been going downhill for
the last 10 years
[ Thanks to morons who have no clue what they're doing, and ]
[ now it looks like more morons have taken over. ]
and if we expect it to be around 20 years from now we
will have to take some bold steps that might be
controversial at first but we are sure to bring new
fans to the dying franchise."
Asked about the existing fans of Trek and if they would
like the direction the new Trek is headed towards, the
source said "Trek fans were not able to keep the last
show (Enterprise) on the air
[ Because it was utter garbage that didn't fit ... just like ]
[ this new movie will apparently be. ]
and we are looking on bringing over Alias and Lost fans
and if the old Trekkies like the new movie great, if not
too bad. We have to boldly go were no Star Trek has gone
before."
[ Yep, completely down the toilet. ]

http://trekweb.com/articles/2006/08/18/Studio-Source-Says-Star-Trek-XI.s

Post by Lazyike67

Post by Daniel

Post by RuPEDski

Post by Jaxtraw

Post by Victor F. Antoine

Post by Anybody
html

The rule of thumb says when you have something that works don't
mess with it. Or in otherwords "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
TNG and DS9 worked. Voyager was simply filler to completethe
trilogy. Enterprise was completely extranious and were better off
without it. Why not continue Exploration using Jake Sisco and Nog
and maybe worke Wesley in or then again maybe not. Anyway my
point is why try to go in a totally different direction when the
direction we were going was correct. After all the Trek
continues. "Anybody"

The direction "we" were going in was a sausage factory of
repetitive, formulaic, forgettable samey-ness. It wasn't working
any more. It *was* broke.
People eventually get tired of the same old thing. It's much like
the dilemma rock bands face as the years go by- if they keep doing
the same, people get bored and say they've got no ideas. If they
do something different, people complain that the new stuff isn't a
patch on the
old stuff
and they need to make good music like they used to.
Trek simply had no surprises left. The formula laid down by TNG was
phenomenally restrictive and most notably, despite oodles of "canon" simply
didn't have enough depth as tastes for realism and grit developed in sci-fi-
compare to Babylon 5 or the new Battlestar Galactica. People want
complexity, drama and moral ambiguity and the Trek formula is based on this
fundamental optimistic idea that the future is near perfect, a society that
is creepily certain of its rightness. It's effectively an
authoritarian socialist utopia, which is fine probably if you
believe in that sort of thing but to most people just seems quaint.
That and the reset button, again inherited from a TV style that's now passe
for younger sci-fi fans who expect change, development and long
term stories.
Voyager was a masterclass in the limitations of the franchise. A
ship struggling for survival, but it looks the same every week.
Two crews, former
enemies- who get on fine all the time because Star Trek isn't about crews
conflicting with each other. Endless mithering about the Prime Directive,
because Teh Future is an authoritarian "people's dictatorship".

I dont' mind moving forward, though I felt the previous series was
fine (excluding Enterprise because it's the only one I didn't
watch). I don't mind changing the formula a bit either! BUT do it
in the future, move forward! Don't go back in time to retro Trek and
certainly DO NOT recast Kirk and Spock. This is absurd to me. I
honestly cannot fathom how anybody could think this a good idea.
This isn't the Brady Bunch! I do hope it turns out well if that is
what's going to be done, but again, this is not a stage play: the
characters have been defined by the actors who originally played
them. i don't want new actors doing their "take" on the character,
nor do I want imitation versions. Geez, Trek is supposed to be the
future, moving forward, imagination, not rehash! The funny thing is
that doing early Kirk, Spock is more restrictive in important ways.
It's not like we can even entertain any jeopardy of them
dying.....nor can we stick within canon and have a radically
different environment or feel.

One problem I can see with re-starting the Universe is that the
Technology of the new film will have to be limited to what we've
seen in ST:TOS and ST I through ST VI. (O.K. maybe a little NCC
1701-B as we saw in ST:Generations).No holo-decks, no saucer
separations, etc., etc..
Daniel

Dan,
The saucer separation was not new to TNG but was thought up for TOS.

Roddenberry at one point intended a holodeck in TOS season 3, also.

Other than that, there wasn't really any new technology in TNG, except for
higher arbitrary warp numbers. And a psychotherapist on the bridge (yay
80s).


Ian

[Tim McBride A.K.A "Numan"]

Post by Jaxtraw

Post by Lazyike67
The saucer separation was not new to TNG but was thought up for TOS.

Roddenberry at one point intended a holodeck in TOS season 3, also.
Other than that, there wasn't really any new technology in TNG, except for
higher arbitrary warp numbers. And a psychotherapist on the bridge (yay
80s).
Ian

I think an Empath should be regulation issue for the bridge. Keeps
everyone honest. :-) Boobs showing or not showing is strictly
personal choice.

----------------
Tim McBride A.K.A. "Numan"

[The Merry Piper]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:33:57 -0500, "Tim McBride A.K.A \"Numan\""

Post by Tim McBride A.K.A "Numan"

Post by Jaxtraw

Post by Lazyike67
The saucer separation was not new to TNG but was thought up for TOS.

Roddenberry at one point intended a holodeck in TOS season 3, also.
Other than that, there wasn't really any new technology in TNG, except for
higher arbitrary warp numbers. And a psychotherapist on the bridge (yay
80s).
Ian

I think an Empath should be regulation issue for the bridge. Keeps
everyone honest. :-) Boobs showing or not showing is strictly
personal choice.

I thought the idea of a empathic therapist to be a good one but
thought putting her on the bridge to be rather poorly thought out
idea. Of course, that's just one fan's opinion.

--
The Merry Piper
[http://tmpiper.livejournal.com]
If you want to dance, you'll have to pay ... me!

[Daniel]

<Big Snip>

Post by Lazyike67

Post by Daniel
One problem I can see with re-starting the Universe is that the
Technology of the new film will have to be limited to what we've seen
in ST:TOS and ST I through ST VI. (O.K. maybe a little NCC 1701-B as
we saw in ST:Generations).No holo-decks, no saucer separations, etc.,
etc..
Daniel

Dan,
The saucer separation was not new to TNG but was thought up for TOS.

I cannot recall it being mentioned....any idea what show??

Post by Lazyike67
The ONLY problem I see in a reboot would be a BSG type reboot. I would
have no problem starting with Captain Robert April or even a Daedalus
class ship to start & cover the Earth-Romulan war as well as the Four
Years War between the Klingons & Federation.
Ike

I like the reboot BSG AND I liked the original BSG, but I think Kirk,
Spock, McCoy and Scotty are all too iconic to stand re-casting.

Daniel

[Anybody]

In article <4626aef5$0$16405$***@free.teranews.com>, Daniel
<***@spam.albury.net.au> wrote:

<snip>

but I think Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Scotty are all too iconic to stand
re-casting.

Nothing is sacred to Hollyweird ... as long as there's a possible
potential to they make a buck they'll remake anything and recast
anyone. :-(

[ravenlynne]

Post by Daniel
<Big Snip>

Post by Lazyike67

Post by Daniel
One problem I can see with re-starting the Universe is that the
Technology of the new film will have to be limited to what we've seen
in ST:TOS and ST I through ST VI. (O.K. maybe a little NCC 1701-B as
we saw in ST:Generations).No holo-decks, no saucer separations, etc.,
etc..
Daniel

Dan,
The saucer separation was not new to TNG but was thought up for TOS.

I cannot recall it being mentioned....any idea what show??

Post by Lazyike67
The ONLY problem I see in a reboot would be a BSG type reboot. I would
have no problem starting with Captain Robert April or even a Daedalus
class ship to start & cover the Earth-Romulan war as well as the Four
Years War between the Klingons & Federation.
Ike

I like the reboot BSG AND I liked the original BSG, but I think Kirk,
Spock, McCoy and Scotty are all too iconic to stand re-casting.
Daniel

Especially when they're being recast by big name stars.

[The Merry Piper]

Post by Daniel
I like the reboot BSG AND I liked the original BSG, but I think Kirk,
Spock, McCoy and Scotty are all too iconic to stand re-casting.

I disagree. It has worked with other big name franchises and I
believe it will work with trek. Of course, to me "Star Trek" is just
a television show. A show I enjoyed very much, but still just a show.

--
The Merry Piper
[http://tmpiper.livejournal.com]
If you want to dance, you'll have to pay ... me!

[Daniel]

Post by The Merry Piper

Post by Daniel
I like the reboot BSG AND I liked the original BSG, but I think Kirk,
Spock, McCoy and Scotty are all too iconic to stand re-casting.

I disagree. It has worked with other big name franchises and I
believe it will work with trek. Of course, to me "Star Trek" is just
a television show. A show I enjoyed very much, but still just a show.

James Bond 007 is the only other franchise that springs to mind that has
recast the star/s and its worked. BSG is virtually a totally new show,
different cast, different storyline, different story feel!

And I'm not sure I agree with your "Of course, to me "Star Trek" is just
a television show."! Sure, it's a show, but not JUST a show!!

Daniel

[Anybody]

Post by Daniel

Post by The Merry Piper

Post by Daniel
I like the reboot BSG AND I liked the original BSG, but I think Kirk,
Spock, McCoy and Scotty are all too iconic to stand re-casting.

I disagree. It has worked with other big name franchises and I
believe it will work with trek. Of course, to me "Star Trek" is just
a television show. A show I enjoyed very much, but still just a show.

James Bond 007 is the only other franchise that springs to mind that has
recast the star/s and its worked.

James Bond and Dr Who are the two title that people usually spout as
"proof" that re-casting works. In reality each actor creates their own
version of Bond / the Doctor, so what you get is a different character
and a different feel to the show / movie ... and that DIFFERENCE is
exactly the point that means re-casting does not work.

Post by Daniel
BSG is virtually a totally new show, different cast, different storyline,
different story feel!

Yet far too many idiots can't see that it's a different show. :-\
And as a different show, it should also have had a different name to
distinguish it from the original, and only real, "Battlestar
Galactica".

Post by Daniel
And I'm not sure I agree with your "Of course, to me "Star Trek" is just
a television show."! Sure, it's a show, but not JUST a show!!

They're all "just" shows, but some are more "just" than others. ;-)

[Daniel]

Post by Anybody

Post by Daniel

Post by The Merry Piper

Post by Daniel
I like the reboot BSG AND I liked the original BSG, but I think Kirk,
Spock, McCoy and Scotty are all too iconic to stand re-casting.

I disagree. It has worked with other big name franchises and I
believe it will work with trek. Of course, to me "Star Trek" is just
a television show. A show I enjoyed very much, but still just a show.

James Bond 007 is the only other franchise that springs to mind that has
recast the star/s and its worked.

James Bond and Dr Who are the two title that people usually spout as
"proof" that re-casting works. In reality each actor creates their own
version of Bond / the Doctor, so what you get is a different character
and a different feel to the show / movie ... and that DIFFERENCE is
exactly the point that means re-casting does not work.

How could I forget The Doctor! Does each actor create their version or
is the change forced onto them from the writers/directors? In Doctor
Who, the writers were smart enough to give themselves an out ...
re-generation. With James Bond, they've just ignored the actor change
... to the extent that in the remake of Casino Royale, the producers
have stuffed it up.

Post by Anybody

Post by Daniel
BSG is virtually a totally new show, different cast, different storyline,
different story feel!

Yet far too many idiots can't see that it's a different show. :-\
And as a different show, it should also have had a different name to
distinguish it from the original, and only real, "Battlestar
Galactica".

What was the name of that other Battlestar they met along the way, maybe
they could have called the series after that!

Post by Anybody

Post by Daniel
And I'm not sure I agree with your "Of course, to me "Star Trek" is just
a television show."! Sure, it's a show, but not JUST a show!!

They're all "just" shows, but some are more "just" than others. ;-)

So when you type "just" are you being derogatory or not?

Daniel

[Anybody]

Post by Daniel

Post by Anybody

Post by Daniel

Post by The Merry Piper

Post by Daniel
I like the reboot BSG AND I liked the original BSG, but I think Kirk,
Spock, McCoy and Scotty are all too iconic to stand re-casting.

I disagree. It has worked with other big name franchises and I
believe it will work with trek. Of course, to me "Star Trek" is just
a television show. A show I enjoyed very much, but still just a show.

James Bond 007 is the only other franchise that springs to mind that has
recast the star/s and its worked.

James Bond and Dr Who are the two title that people usually spout as
"proof" that re-casting works. In reality each actor creates their own
version of Bond / the Doctor, so what you get is a different character
and a different feel to the show / movie ... and that DIFFERENCE is
exactly the point that means re-casting does not work.

How could I forget The Doctor! Does each actor create their version or
is the change forced onto them from the writers/directors? In Doctor
Who, the writers were smart enough to give themselves an out ...
re-generation. With James Bond, they've just ignored the actor change
... to the extent that in the remake of Casino Royale, the producers
have stuffed it up.

That's because Casino Royale is a silly "remake" / "reboot". They are
purposely different and therefore illfitting with what has gone before
... the precise reason many of us do not want a "rebooted" Star Trek
(something they have already basically tried and failed to do with
Enterprise).

Using the name of an old show / movie on a new different version is
simply a con job. It SUPPOSEDLY gives them an "in-built" audience, but
fans of the original usually know better. Whether or not they like the
new version, they know it IS a "new" version and not truely "Star Trek"
(in this case).

Post by Daniel

Post by Anybody

Post by Daniel
BSG is virtually a totally new show, different cast, different storyline,
different story feel!

Yet far too many idiots can't see that it's a different show. :-\
And as a different show, it should also have had a different name to
distinguish it from the original, and only real, "Battlestar
Galactica".

What was the name of that other Battlestar they met along the way, maybe
they could have called the series after that!

That would have meant they couldn't do a "remake" that the idiots in
charge wanted. It also means that Ron Moore would have had to have some
actual creativity instead of just butchering the scripts of the old
shows and shovelling in bits from almost every other sci-fi show there
is. The mostt obvious example being the bimbo eye-candy Six (of Twelve)
copied almost directly from Voyager's bimbo eye-candy Seven of Nine.

Post by Daniel

Post by Anybody

Post by Daniel
And I'm not sure I agree with your "Of course, to me "Star Trek" is just
a television show."! Sure, it's a show, but not JUST a show!!

They're all "just" shows, but some are more "just" than others. ;-)

So when you type "just" are you being derogatory or not?

Some are just brilliant, just great, etc. while others are just garbage
or just nonsense. ;-)

[The Merry Piper]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:27:19 +1200, Anybody

Post by Anybody
James Bond and Dr Who are the two title that people usually spout as
"proof" that re-casting works. In reality each actor creates their own

Not so much proof as examples where recasting has worked.

Post by Anybody
version of Bond / the Doctor, so what you get is a different character
and a different feel to the show / movie ... and that DIFFERENCE is
exactly the point that means re-casting does not work.

In your opinion recasting does not work.

Post by Anybody
Yet far too many idiots can't see that it's a different show. :-\

I can't conceive of anyone who was viewed one episode of each show not
knowing they are different shows. You're going to have to give me
some kind of proof for this one.

Post by Anybody
And as a different show, it should also have had a different name to
distinguish it from the original, and only real, "Battlestar
Galactica".

Battlestar Galactica as a title for a show in the late 1970s and a
show in 2007 works just fine for me. I have no trouble telling them
apart at all.


--
The Merry Piper
[http://tmpiper.livejournal.com]
If you want to dance, you'll have to pay ... me!

[Anybody]

Post by The Merry Piper
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:27:19 +1200, Anybody

Post by Anybody
James Bond and Dr Who are the two title that people usually spout as
"proof" that re-casting works. In reality each actor creates their own

Not so much proof as examples where recasting has worked.

"Worked" finanacially and popularity wise, yes, in some cases.

"Worked" in the sense of continuity of the character and series, nope.

The Doctor Who case actually is slightly different since each new actor
IS actually a different (regenerated) character. Similarly, you could
even argue that "James Bond" is the cover name for any spy that has
been given the 007 number, meaning different people can have the same
name.

It gets more difficult in other circumstances though. One great recent
example, in an Australian soap a blonde actress took leave because she
had got married (I can't remember if she was having a baby or not) and
she was replaced by a shorter red-head who looked completely different
and acted very differently ... of course, being a soap they simply
ignored the change.

Post by The Merry Piper

Post by Anybody
version of Bond / the Doctor, so what you get is a different character
and a different feel to the show / movie ... and that DIFFERENCE is
exactly the point that means re-casting does not work.

In your opinion recasting does not work.

Mine and many other people.

Post by The Merry Piper

Post by Anybody
Yet far too many idiots can't see that it's a different show. :-\

I can't conceive of anyone who was viewed one episode of each show not
knowing they are different shows. You're going to have to give me
some kind of proof for this one.

Neither can I, but there are apparently many idiots who think they're
both the same show. :-\

Post by The Merry Piper

Post by Anybody
And as a different show, it should also have had a different name to
distinguish it from the original, and only real, "Battlestar
Galactica".

Battlestar Galactica as a title for a show in the late 1970s and a
show in 2007 works just fine for me. I have no trouble telling them
apart at all.

OK, so we'll start selling orange juice but call it "Coca Cola" ...
you'll have no trouble telling them apart, so why bother using a
different name. Hell, let's go the whole hog and call every liquid
drink "Coca Cola". :-\

To tell the difference, the ORIGINAL Battlestar Galactica now has to be
relabelled "Classic" on the books. Why should the original have to
change it's name?? Surely it makes MUCH more sense for the new upstart
should have the new name. The same happened with the Thunderbirds
material after Jonathan Frakes different (and hopeless) movie version
was released.

[The Merry Piper]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:12:34 +1200, Anybody

Post by Anybody

Post by The Merry Piper
In your opinion recasting does not work.

Mine and many other people.

Not as many as you apparently think.

Post by Anybody

Post by The Merry Piper
Battlestar Galactica as a title for a show in the late 1970s and a
show in 2007 works just fine for me. I have no trouble telling them
apart at all.

OK, so we'll start selling orange juice but call it "Coca Cola" ...
you'll have no trouble telling them apart, so why bother using a
different name. Hell, let's go the whole hog and call every liquid
drink "Coca Cola". :-\

I don't mean to be rude but this is a rather silly reduction of my
point.

Post by Anybody
To tell the difference, the ORIGINAL Battlestar Galactica now has to be
relabelled "Classic" on the books. Why should the original have to
change it's name??

The same reason we have Star Trek and Star Trek: TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT. I
can think of myriad other examples but I think you catch my drift.


--
The Merry Piper
[http://tmpiper.livejournal.com]
If you want to dance, you'll have to pay ... me!

[Anybody]

Post by The Merry Piper
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:12:34 +1200, Anybody

Post by Anybody

Post by The Merry Piper
In your opinion recasting does not work.

Mine and many other people.

Not as many as you apparently think.

Maybe, but also probably more than you think.

And even those that may like the recasted character almost always still
have a prefference for one actor (or two) in particular that they
consider is the definitive "Bond", "Docotor Who", whatever.

Post by The Merry Piper

Post by Anybody

Post by The Merry Piper
Battlestar Galactica as a title for a show in the late 1970s and a
show in 2007 works just fine for me. I have no trouble telling them
apart at all.

OK, so we'll start selling orange juice but call it "Coca Cola" ...
you'll have no trouble telling them apart, so why bother using a
different name. Hell, let's go the whole hog and call every liquid
drink "Coca Cola". :-\

I don't mean to be rude but this is a rather silly reduction of my
point.

Why?!?1 You're still re-using the name of one product on another
different product. According to you and some others it makes no
difference. We may as well delete all names from all languages and
simply call everything and everyone "Whosamawotsit". :-\
(In fact The Smurfs characters already do something very similar.)

Post by The Merry Piper

Post by Anybody
To tell the difference, the ORIGINAL Battlestar Galactica now has to be
relabelled "Classic" on the books. Why should the original have to
change it's name??

The same reason we have Star Trek and Star Trek: TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT. I
can think of myriad other examples but I think you catch my drift.

Yes, but officially the original is still named just "Star Trek",
although people unofficially add "TOS" to that to make it 100% clear
which version / series they're talking about. There's also the fact
that all of the shows (with the exception of Enterprise) are "Star
Trek" shows - very similar in ideas, etc. that (usually) fit together
well.

That's the point. The new version(s) should be the ones being given a
new name, not simply stealing the old name. Plus the new versions are
usually very different and illfitting with what has come before.

[The Merry Piper]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:44:32 +1200, Anybody

Post by Anybody

Post by The Merry Piper
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:12:34 +1200, Anybody

Post by Anybody

Post by The Merry Piper
In your opinion recasting does not work.

Mine and many other people.

Not as many as you apparently think.

Maybe, but also probably more than you think.

I think not. The fans I know in real life are all rather curious
about the recast and think Paramount is taking a big chance but
overall are still looking forward to the film. The only really
negative buzz I've heard has been here.

Post by Anybody
And even those that may like the recasted character almost always still
have a prefference for one actor (or two) in particular that they
consider is the definitive "Bond", "Docotor Who", whatever.

There's a whole lot of difference between preferring one version of a
character over another and hating any version of the character who
isn't your particular favorite.

Post by Anybody

Post by The Merry Piper
I don't mean to be rude but this is a rather silly reduction of my
point.

Why?!?1 You're still re-using the name of one product on another

Oh, please.

Post by Anybody

Post by The Merry Piper
The same reason we have Star Trek and Star Trek: TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT. I
can think of myriad other examples but I think you catch my drift.

Yes, but officially the original is still named just "Star Trek",
although people unofficially add "TOS" to that to make it 100% clear
which version / series they're talking about. There's also the fact
that all of the shows (with the exception of Enterprise) are "Star
Trek" shows - very similar in ideas, etc. that (usually) fit together
well.
That's the point. The new version(s) should be the ones being given a
new name, not simply stealing the old name. Plus the new versions are
usually very different and illfitting with what has come before.

It's not stealing and "should be" is whatever the owners of the
license decide.

--
The Merry Piper
[http://tmpiper.livejournal.com]
If you want to dance, you'll have to pay ... me!

[Anybody]

Post by The Merry Piper
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:44:32 +1200, Anybody

Post by Anybody

Post by The Merry Piper
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:12:34 +1200, Anybody
The same reason we have Star Trek and Star Trek: TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT. I
can think of myriad other examples but I think you catch my drift.

Yes, but officially the original is still named just "Star Trek",
although people unofficially add "TOS" to that to make it 100% clear
which version / series they're talking about. There's also the fact
that all of the shows (with the exception of Enterprise) are "Star
Trek" shows - very similar in ideas, etc. that (usually) fit together
well.
That's the point. The new version(s) should be the ones being given a
new name, not simply stealing the old name. Plus the new versions are
usually very different and illfitting with what has come before.

It's not stealing and "should be" is whatever the owners of the
license decide.

So, if the Coca-Cola decided to sell orange juice in the same bottle
with the same name (removing Coca-Cola from sale) you wouldn't have a
problem .. the fans of Coca-Cola wouldn't have a problem ... yeah,
right. There would be a worldwide stink about it for years and
Coca-Cola's sales would likely plummet. :-\

The exact same thing happens with "reimagined" shows and recasted
characters ... MOST of them are dismal failures with the fools in
Hollyweird shaking their heads in surprise, or greedily rubbing their
hands over the piles of initial money and not giving a damn about what
happens next.

[The Merry Piper]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 09:31:38 +1200, Anybody

Post by Anybody
So, if the Coca-Cola decided to sell orange juice in the same bottle
with the same name (removing Coca-Cola from sale) you wouldn't have a

I don't follow your chain of logic.

Post by Anybody
The exact same thing happens with "reimagined" shows and recasted

It is nothing even close to the same and "exact" same thing stretches
all bound of credulity.

Post by Anybody
characters ... MOST of them are dismal failures with the fools in
Hollyweird shaking their heads in surprise, or greedily rubbing their
hands over the piles of initial money and not giving a damn about what
happens next.

I don't know where you get this information but I am going to regard
it as highly suspect unless proven otherwise.

--
The Merry Piper
[http://tmpiper.livejournal.com]
If you want to dance, you'll have to pay ... me!

[Anybody]

Post by The Merry Piper
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 09:31:38 +1200, Anybody

Post by Anybody
So, if the Coca-Cola decided to sell orange juice in the same bottle
with the same name (removing Coca-Cola from sale) you wouldn't have a

I don't follow your chain of logic.

Post by Anybody
The exact same thing happens with "reimagined" shows and recasted

It is nothing even close to the same and "exact" same thing stretches
all bound of credulity.

Post by Anybody
characters ... MOST of them are dismal failures with the fools in
Hollyweird shaking their heads in surprise, or greedily rubbing their
hands over the piles of initial money and not giving a damn about what
happens next.

I don't know where you get this information but I am going to regard
it as highly suspect unless proven otherwise.

Whatever. It's no wonder we end up with so much garbage stealing the
name of older shows. :-\

[The Merry Piper]

Post by Daniel
James Bond 007 is the only other franchise that springs to mind that has
recast the star/s and its worked. BSG is virtually a totally new show,
different cast, different storyline, different story feel!

Superman, Batman, and Dr. Who are a few examples that spring to mind.

Post by Daniel
And I'm not sure I agree with your "Of course, to me "Star Trek" is just
a television show."! Sure, it's a show, but not JUST a show!!

[chuckle] Yeah, I think I know what you mean.

--
The Merry Piper
[http://tmpiper.livejournal.com]
If you want to dance, you'll have to pay ... me!

[Lazyike67]

Post by RuPEDski

Post by Jaxtraw

Post by Victor F. Antoine

Post by Anybody
AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!! NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Why do the morons in Hollyweird have to try and "reboot"
everything?!? This is going to be one stupid, ill-fitting movie that
will finally kill off Star Trek. X-(
Any chance of William Shatner making an appearance in Star
Trek XI ?
"Absolutely not," an unnamed studio source told the site,
"This is not just another Trek movie but instead a total
reboot, we will see things that are similar to what is
known in the Trek Universe but we will not be held to
every aspect of the last 40 years. We are going to
introduce Star Trek to a whole new generation and many
more generations to come.
[ Exactly the kind of garbage Beavis & Butthead spouted when ]
[ making Enterprise!]
We have total faith that J.J. and company will take Trek
to a whole new level. Trek has been going downhill for
the last 10 years
[ Thanks to morons who have no clue what they're doing, and ]
[ now it looks like more morons have taken over. ]
and if we expect it to be around 20 years from now we
will have to take some bold steps that might be
controversial at first but we are sure to bring new
fans to the dying franchise."
Asked about the existing fans of Trek and if they would
like the direction the new Trek is headed towards, the
source said "Trek fans were not able to keep the last
show (Enterprise) on the air
[ Because it was utter garbage that didn't fit ... just like ]
[ this new movie will apparently be. ]
and we are looking on bringing over Alias and Lost fans
and if the old Trekkies like the new movie great, if not
too bad. We have to boldly go were no Star Trek has gone
before."
[ Yep, completely down the toilet. ]
http://trekweb.com/articles/2006/08/18/Studio-Source-Says-Star-Trek-XI.s
html

The rule of thumb says when you have something that works don't mess
with it. Or in otherwords "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." TNG and
DS9 worked. Voyager was simply filler to completethe trilogy.
Enterprise was completely extranious and were better off without it.
Why not continue Exploration using Jake Sisco and Nog and maybe worke
Wesley in or then again maybe not. Anyway my point is why try to go
in a totally different direction when the direction we were going was
correct. After all the Trek continues. "Anybody"

The direction "we" were going in was a sausage factory of repetitive,
formulaic, forgettable samey-ness. It wasn't working any more. It *was*
broke.
People eventually get tired of the same old thing. It's much like the
dilemma rock bands face as the years go by- if they keep doing the same,
people get bored and say they've got no ideas. If they do something
different, people complain that the new stuff isn't a patch on the old stuff
and they need to make good music like they used to.
Trek simply had no surprises left. The formula laid down by TNG was
phenomenally restrictive and most notably, despite oodles of "canon" simply
didn't have enough depth as tastes for realism and grit developed in sci-fi-
compare to Babylon 5 or the new Battlestar Galactica. People want
complexity, drama and moral ambiguity and the Trek formula is based on this
fundamental optimistic idea that the future is near perfect, a society that
is creepily certain of its rightness. It's effectively an authoritarian
socialist utopia, which is fine probably if you believe in that sort of
thing but to most people just seems quaint.
That and the reset button, again inherited from a TV style that's now passe
for younger sci-fi fans who expect change, development and long term
stories.
Voyager was a masterclass in the limitations of the franchise. A ship
struggling for survival, but it looks the same every week. Two crews, former
enemies- who get on fine all the time because Star Trek isn't about crews
conflicting with each other. Endless mithering about the Prime Directive,
because Teh Future is an authoritarian "people's dictatorship".

I dont' mind moving forward, though I felt the previous series was fine
(excluding Enterprise because it's the only one I didn't watch). I don't
mind changing the formula a bit either! BUT do it in the future, move
forward! Don't go back in time to retro Trek and certainly DO NOT recast
Kirk and Spock. This is absurd to me. I honestly cannot fathom how anybody
could think this a good idea. This isn't the Brady Bunch! I do hope it turns
out well if that is what's going to be done, but again, this is not a stage
play: the characters have been defined by the actors who originally played
them. i don't want new actors doing their "take" on the character, nor do I
want imitation versions. Geez, Trek is supposed to be the future, moving
forward, imagination, not rehash! The funny thing is that doing early Kirk,
Spock is more restrictive in important ways. It's not like we can even
entertain any jeopardy of them dying.....nor can we stick within canon and
have a radically different environment or feel.

There is ALLOT of Trek never done from the Earth Romulan war (What
Enterprise should have dealt with) to the Voyages of Captains April &
Pike. Then we have the Excelsior , Enterprise B & C, The First
Encounter with the Klingons & the war that followed.

I do agree Trek SHOULD be rebooted. But I think it should be done with
a Roddenberry at the helm.

Ike

[Anybody]

Post by Lazyike67

Post by RuPEDski

Post by Jaxtraw

Post by Victor F. Antoine

Post by Anybody
AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!! NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Why do the morons in Hollyweird have to try and "reboot"
everything?!? This is going to be one stupid, ill-fitting movie that
will finally kill off Star Trek. X-(
Any chance of William Shatner making an appearance in Star
Trek XI ?
"Absolutely not," an unnamed studio source told the site,
"This is not just another Trek movie but instead a total
reboot, we will see things that are similar to what is
known in the Trek Universe but we will not be held to
every aspect of the last 40 years. We are going to
introduce Star Trek to a whole new generation and many
more generations to come.
[ Exactly the kind of garbage Beavis & Butthead spouted when ]
[ making Enterprise!]
We have total faith that J.J. and company will take Trek
to a whole new level. Trek has been going downhill for
the last 10 years
[ Thanks to morons who have no clue what they're doing, and ]
[ now it looks like more morons have taken over. ]
and if we expect it to be around 20 years from now we
will have to take some bold steps that might be
controversial at first but we are sure to bring new
fans to the dying franchise."
Asked about the existing fans of Trek and if they would
like the direction the new Trek is headed towards, the
source said "Trek fans were not able to keep the last
show (Enterprise) on the air
[ Because it was utter garbage that didn't fit ... just like ]
[ this new movie will apparently be. ]
and we are looking on bringing over Alias and Lost fans
and if the old Trekkies like the new movie great, if not
too bad. We have to boldly go were no Star Trek has gone
before."
[ Yep, completely down the toilet. ]
http://trekweb.com/articles/2006/08/18/Studio-Source-Says-Star-Trek-XI.s
html

The rule of thumb says when you have something that works don't mess
with it. Or in otherwords "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." TNG and
DS9 worked. Voyager was simply filler to completethe trilogy.
Enterprise was completely extranious and were better off without it.
Why not continue Exploration using Jake Sisco and Nog and maybe worke
Wesley in or then again maybe not. Anyway my point is why try to go
in a totally different direction when the direction we were going was
correct. After all the Trek continues. "Anybody"

The direction "we" were going in was a sausage factory of repetitive,
formulaic, forgettable samey-ness. It wasn't working any more. It *was*
broke.
People eventually get tired of the same old thing. It's much like the
dilemma rock bands face as the years go by- if they keep doing the same,
people get bored and say they've got no ideas. If they do something
different, people complain that the new stuff isn't a patch on the old stuff
and they need to make good music like they used to.
Trek simply had no surprises left. The formula laid down by TNG was
phenomenally restrictive and most notably, despite oodles of "canon" simply
didn't have enough depth as tastes for realism and grit developed in sci-fi-
compare to Babylon 5 or the new Battlestar Galactica. People want
complexity, drama and moral ambiguity and the Trek formula is based on this
fundamental optimistic idea that the future is near perfect, a society that
is creepily certain of its rightness. It's effectively an authoritarian
socialist utopia, which is fine probably if you believe in that sort of
thing but to most people just seems quaint.
That and the reset button, again inherited from a TV style that's now passe
for younger sci-fi fans who expect change, development and long term
stories.
Voyager was a masterclass in the limitations of the franchise. A ship
struggling for survival, but it looks the same every week. Two crews, former
enemies- who get on fine all the time because Star Trek isn't about crews
conflicting with each other. Endless mithering about the Prime Directive,
because Teh Future is an authoritarian "people's dictatorship".

I dont' mind moving forward, though I felt the previous series was fine
(excluding Enterprise because it's the only one I didn't watch). I don't
mind changing the formula a bit either! BUT do it in the future, move
forward! Don't go back in time to retro Trek and certainly DO NOT recast
Kirk and Spock. This is absurd to me. I honestly cannot fathom how anybody
could think this a good idea. This isn't the Brady Bunch! I do hope it turns
out well if that is what's going to be done, but again, this is not a stage
play: the characters have been defined by the actors who originally played
them. i don't want new actors doing their "take" on the character, nor do I
want imitation versions. Geez, Trek is supposed to be the future, moving
forward, imagination, not rehash! The funny thing is that doing early Kirk,
Spock is more restrictive in important ways. It's not like we can even
entertain any jeopardy of them dying.....nor can we stick within canon and
have a radically different environment or feel.

There is ALLOT of Trek never done from the Earth Romulan war (What
Enterprise should have dealt with) to the Voyages of Captains April &
Pike. Then we have the Excelsior , Enterprise B & C, The First
Encounter with the Klingons & the war that followed.
I do agree Trek SHOULD be rebooted. But I think it should be done with
a Roddenberry at the helm.

"A" Roddenberry?!? What makes you think that anyone other than Gene
himself knows what "Star Trek" actually is?? There's been a few sons /
daughters that have tried to continue their father's work (Dune and
Tolkien's latest "unfinished" story spring to mind), but they usually
turn out to really be different beasties to the original because by
necessity they use someone else's ideas, not the original creator's.

[Victor F. Antoine]

OK, Star trek does need to be readjusted, but not retooled to the extent of
reinvented as Enterprise tried to do at times. I agree that a new Trek
installment should keep the franchise going forward, not backward as
Enterprise did or back to K/S/M academy days. While it might be interesting
for an episode or two the restrictions would be prohibitive.If the
DS9/frontier outpost theme has been exhausted then perhaps we could explore
an aliens' perspective and have flashbacks explaining why the aliens
like/dislike the federation/starfleet. I refuse to believe that the
franchise is dead when there is still so much story to tell.

Post by Jaxtraw

Post by Victor F. Antoine

Post by Anybody
AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!! NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Why do the morons in Hollyweird have to try and "reboot"
everything?!? This is going to be one stupid, ill-fitting movie that
will finally kill off Star Trek. X-(
Any chance of William Shatner making an appearance in Star
Trek XI ?
"Absolutely not," an unnamed studio source told the site,
"This is not just another Trek movie but instead a total
reboot, we will see things that are similar to what is
known in the Trek Universe but we will not be held to
every aspect of the last 40 years. We are going to
introduce Star Trek to a whole new generation and many
more generations to come.
[ Exactly the kind of garbage Beavis & Butthead spouted when ]
[ making Enterprise!]
We have total faith that J.J. and company will take Trek
to a whole new level. Trek has been going downhill for
the last 10 years
[ Thanks to morons who have no clue what they're doing, and ]
[ now it looks like more morons have taken over. ]
and if we expect it to be around 20 years from now we
will have to take some bold steps that might be
controversial at first but we are sure to bring new
fans to the dying franchise."
Asked about the existing fans of Trek and if they would
like the direction the new Trek is headed towards, the
source said "Trek fans were not able to keep the last
show (Enterprise) on the air
[ Because it was utter garbage that didn't fit ... just like ]
[ this new movie will apparently be. ]
and we are looking on bringing over Alias and Lost fans
and if the old Trekkies like the new movie great, if not
too bad. We have to boldly go were no Star Trek has gone
before."
[ Yep, completely down the toilet. ]
http://trekweb.com/articles/2006/08/18/Studio-Source-Says-Star-Trek-XI.s
html

The rule of thumb says when you have something that works don't mess
with it. Or in otherwords "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." TNG and
DS9 worked. Voyager was simply filler to completethe trilogy.
Enterprise was completely extranious and were better off without it.
Why not continue Exploration using Jake Sisco and Nog and maybe worke
Wesley in or then again maybe not. Anyway my point is why try to go
in a totally different direction when the direction we were going was
correct. After all the Trek continues. "Anybody"

The direction "we" were going in was a sausage factory of repetitive,
formulaic, forgettable samey-ness. It wasn't working any more. It *was*
broke.
People eventually get tired of the same old thing. It's much like the
dilemma rock bands face as the years go by- if they keep doing the same,
people get bored and say they've got no ideas. If they do something
different, people complain that the new stuff isn't a patch on the old stuff
and they need to make good music like they used to.
Trek simply had no surprises left. The formula laid down by TNG was
phenomenally restrictive and most notably, despite oodles of "canon" simply
didn't have enough depth as tastes for realism and grit developed in sci-fi-
compare to Babylon 5 or the new Battlestar Galactica. People want
complexity, drama and moral ambiguity and the Trek formula is based on this
fundamental optimistic idea that the future is near perfect, a society that
is creepily certain of its rightness. It's effectively an authoritarian
socialist utopia, which is fine probably if you believe in that sort of
thing but to most people just seems quaint.
That and the reset button, again inherited from a TV style that's now passe
for younger sci-fi fans who expect change, development and long term
stories.
Voyager was a masterclass in the limitations of the franchise. A ship
struggling for survival, but it looks the same every week. Two crews, former
enemies- who get on fine all the time because Star Trek isn't about crews
conflicting with each other. Endless mithering about the Prime Directive,
because Teh Future is an authoritarian "people's dictatorship".
It broke, because the audience changed.
Ian
--
www.jaxtrawstudios.com
science fiction comics with shagging in

[Benjamin Pavsner]

Ya know what: if the Trek XI were the second coming of "King Lear," purists
would STILL be cheesed off if they did a "reboot" movie. Purists are cheesed
at "Battlestar Galactica" because it's not enough like the original despite
it being a superior show. Purists complain that Daniel Craig doesn't have a
dark enough complexion to play Bond despite critics saying "Casino Royale"
is arguably the best Bond film since Connery left the franchise (which
confuses the heck out of me that they don't complain about M being played by
a WOMAN).

Post by Victor F. Antoine
The rule of thumb says when you have something that works don't mess with
it. Or in otherwords "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." TNG and DS9
worked. Voyager was simply filler to completethe trilogy. Enterprise was
completely extranious and were better off without it. Why not continue
Exploration using Jake Sisco and Nog and maybe worke Wesley in or then
again maybe not. Anyway my point is why try to go in a totally different
direction when the direction we were going was correct. After all the Trek
continues.

Post by Anybody
AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!! NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Why do the morons in Hollyweird have to try and "reboot" everything?!?
This is going to be one stupid, ill-fitting movie that will finally
kill off Star Trek. X-(
Any chance of William Shatner making an appearance in Star
Trek XI ?
"Absolutely not," an unnamed studio source told the site,
"This is not just another Trek movie but instead a total
reboot, we will see things that are similar to what is
known in the Trek Universe but we will not be held to
every aspect of the last 40 years. We are going to
introduce Star Trek to a whole new generation and many
more generations to come.
[ Exactly the kind of garbage Beavis & Butthead spouted when ]
[ making Enterprise!]
We have total faith that J.J. and company will take Trek
to a whole new level. Trek has been going downhill for
the last 10 years
[ Thanks to morons who have no clue what they're doing, and ]
[ now it looks like more morons have taken over. ]
and if we expect it to be around 20 years from now we
will have to take some bold steps that might be
controversial at first but we are sure to bring new
fans to the dying franchise."
Asked about the existing fans of Trek and if they would
like the direction the new Trek is headed towards, the
source said "Trek fans were not able to keep the last
show (Enterprise) on the air
[ Because it was utter garbage that didn't fit ... just like ]
[ this new movie will apparently be. ]
and we are looking on bringing over Alias and Lost fans
and if the old Trekkies like the new movie great, if not
too bad. We have to boldly go were no Star Trek has gone
before."
[ Yep, completely down the toilet. ]
http://trekweb.com/articles/2006/08/18/Studio-Source-Says-Star-Trek-XI.s
html

[George Peatty]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 18:10:01 -0500, "Benjamin Pavsner"

Post by Benjamin Pavsner
(which
confuses the heck out of me that they don't complain about M being played by
a WOMAN).

Well, Dame Judi is one helluva woman ..

[Daniel]

Post by Benjamin Pavsner
Ya know what: if the Trek XI were the second coming of "King Lear," purists
would STILL be cheesed off if they did a "reboot" movie. Purists are cheesed
at "Battlestar Galactica" because it's not enough like the original despite
it being a superior show. Purists complain that Daniel Craig doesn't have a
dark enough complexion to play Bond despite critics saying "Casino Royale"
is arguably the best Bond film since Connery left the franchise (which
confuses the heck out of me that they don't complain about M being played by
a WOMAN).

Between films, M had a sex change operation. Nothing wrong with that, is
there???

Daniel

[Snake]

Post by Benjamin Pavsner
Ya know what: if the Trek XI were the second coming of "King Lear,"
purists would STILL be cheesed off if they did a "reboot" movie. Purists
are cheesed at "Battlestar Galactica" because it's not enough like the
original despite it being a superior show.

No, I'm "cheesed" because the too much of the show's driving premise is the
too-common sex driven character drivel that all too many American television
productions fall back to.

The beginning was great...but then they wrote themselves into the all-too
typical corner.

So...add sex!! Works every time, right??

So what if some of the premise is unbelievable? Most people will be too
blinded by the sex to notice the plot holes big enough to fly a Galactic
battlestar through (I do LOVE the 18th & 19th century wood furnishings and
non-filtered cigarettes, 1/2 a galaxy away, though...)

[Anybody]

Post by Benjamin Pavsner
Ya know what: if the Trek XI were the second coming of "King Lear," purists
would STILL be cheesed off if they did a "reboot" movie. Purists are cheesed
at "Battlestar Galactica" because it's not enough like the original despite
it being a superior show.

It may or may not be a "superior show" (that's personal opinion), but
the fact is that thanks to all the changes it's not actually
"Battlestar Galactica" any more - it's Starship Troopers meets Space:
Above & Beyond.

Whether it's "Battlestar Galactica", "Star Trek", "Knight Rider", "The
Smurfs", or whatever, a show is way more than just the basic core idea.
It's also the characters, the themes, the style and the time it was
made - all of those combine to make the show what it was and what the
fans of the original actually liked and actually want to see in any
show or movie using the same name. Once you butcher those to make a
"new version" then you've created just that: a NEW version that's no
longer the show it was and it makes zero sense to pretend it is by
re-using the same name. It's like Coca-Cola trying to sell the same
shaped bottle with the same label of "Coca-Cola", but which actually
contains orange juice or tap water - yes, it's a drink and a fluid, but
it's definitely not "Coca-Cola" by any stretch of the imagination.

The same WILL happen if these fools try to "reboot" Star Trek - You get
a version of "Star Trek", but it won't be the "Star Trek" most of us
are actually fans of. Beavis & Butthead already tried to change it to
their own silly ideas, and that UNsurprisingly went down like a lead
balloon. No doubt some fnas will like or prefer the new version, no
doubt some new fans will join in ... but by making changes the idiots
in charge are basically slapping the original fans in the face saying
"sod you, we want more money in our pockets".

Post by Benjamin Pavsner
Purists complain that Daniel Craig doesn't have a
dark enough complexion to play Bond despite critics saying "Casino Royale"
is arguably the best Bond film since Connery left the franchise (which
confuses the heck out of me that they don't complain about M being played by
a WOMAN).

Technically "M" is simply whoever happens to be in the big-cheese
chair, so that could well be a woman at some stage ... although when
you're supposed to be making a movie of a book you should stay the same
as that book ... again, if you make changes, then you're creating
something different.

[Daniel]

Post by Anybody

Post by Benjamin Pavsner
Ya know what: if the Trek XI were the second coming of "King Lear," purists
would STILL be cheesed off if they did a "reboot" movie. Purists are cheesed
at "Battlestar Galactica" because it's not enough like the original despite
it being a superior show.

It may or may not be a "superior show" (that's personal opinion), but
the fact is that thanks to all the changes it's not actually
Above & Beyond.
Whether it's "Battlestar Galactica", "Star Trek", "Knight Rider", "The
Smurfs", or whatever, a show is way more than just the basic core idea.
It's also the characters, the themes, the style and the time it was
made - all of those combine to make the show what it was and what the
fans of the original actually liked and actually want to see in any
show or movie using the same name.

I can relate to what you're saying here. I've just finished watching the
DVD's of the original series of Battlestar Galactica (c 1980). I'm sure
I enjoyed it back then, but now, well, it's very cheesy and trying to
recreate it, in that style, today would not work.. But, then again,
there is "That 80's show", who's whole basis is to produce a, comedy,
series today that is portraying life as it was then.

<<SNIP>>

Daniel

[Anybody]

Post by Daniel

Post by Anybody

Post by Benjamin Pavsner
Ya know what: if the Trek XI were the second coming of "King Lear," purists
would STILL be cheesed off if they did a "reboot" movie. Purists are cheesed
at "Battlestar Galactica" because it's not enough like the original despite
it being a superior show.

It may or may not be a "superior show" (that's personal opinion), but
the fact is that thanks to all the changes it's not actually
Above & Beyond.
Whether it's "Battlestar Galactica", "Star Trek", "Knight Rider", "The
Smurfs", or whatever, a show is way more than just the basic core idea.
It's also the characters, the themes, the style and the time it was
made - all of those combine to make the show what it was and what the
fans of the original actually liked and actually want to see in any
show or movie using the same name.

I can relate to what you're saying here. I've just finished watching the
DVD's of the original series of Battlestar Galactica (c 1980). I'm sure
I enjoyed it back then, but now, well, it's very cheesy and trying to
recreate it, in that style, today would not work..

It would work for the fans of the original ... but the fact is you
can't recapture that magic. Times have changed, and even if you use all
the same actors, writers, etc. they have also grown older and changed.

Therefore the idiots in Hollyweird simply steal the name and vague idea
of the original, make lots of changes and create something new. This
NEW show should therefore have a NEW name since it's barely anything
like the original. If they want to create a new show, simply call it
something else with no connection to the established franchises.

Therein lies the entire problem with the whole silly "remake" /
"reimagine" / "reboot" / "upodate" silliness coming out of Hollyweird
in recent years - it makes no sense at all. Even from the supposed
financial angle, it makes more sense to simply use a new name.

The only way these make sense is when you realise that Hollyweird these
days simply has no creativity of their own. All the latest batch of
fools can do is butcher someone else's old idea.

Almost all of these "remakes" / "updates" are basically failures at the
box office - largely because people expect one thing and get something
very different. Thankfully this silly fad is now fading out and many of
the rumoured "remakes" / "updates" are falling by the wayside and won't
ever be made.

The unfortunate thing is that the silly "rebooting" of Star Trek
currently is still going ahead and WILL be a dismal failure for the
true fans. Whether or not it's financially succesful is irrelevant - it
definitely won't be "Star Trek" as we know it, so why bother re-using
the name.

Post by Daniel
But, then again,
there is "That 80's show", who's whole basis is to produce a, comedy,
series today that is portraying life as it was then.

The original show, "That 70's Show" was better. As usual, Hollyweird
latched onto a good idea and took it too far. "That 80's Show" was a
bit of a failure that quickly got cancelled. Most people have simply
had enough of this silly nostalgia fad which is part of the cause of
the even sillier "remake" fad.

[Jaxtraw]

Post by Anybody

Post by Daniel

Post by Anybody

Post by Benjamin Pavsner
Ya know what: if the Trek XI were the second coming of "King Lear," purists
would STILL be cheesed off if they did a "reboot" movie. Purists are cheesed
at "Battlestar Galactica" because it's not enough like the original despite
it being a superior show.

It may or may not be a "superior show" (that's personal opinion),
but the fact is that thanks to all the changes it's not actually
"Battlestar Galactica" any more - it's Starship Troopers meets
Space: Above & Beyond.
Whether it's "Battlestar Galactica", "Star Trek", "Knight Rider",
"The Smurfs", or whatever, a show is way more than just the basic
core idea. It's also the characters, the themes, the style and the
time it was made - all of those combine to make the show what it
was and what the fans of the original actually liked and actually
want to see in any show or movie using the same name.

I can relate to what you're saying here. I've just finished watching
the DVD's of the original series of Battlestar Galactica (c 1980).
I'm sure I enjoyed it back then, but now, well, it's very cheesy and
trying to recreate it, in that style, today would not work..

It would work for the fans of the original ... but the fact is you
can't recapture that magic. Times have changed, and even if you use
all the same actors, writers, etc. they have also grown older and
changed.
Therefore the idiots in Hollyweird simply steal the name and vague
idea of the original, make lots of changes and create something new.
This NEW show should therefore have a NEW name since it's barely
anything like the original. If they want to create a new show, simply
call it something else with no connection to the established
franchises.
Therein lies the entire problem with the whole silly "remake" /
"reimagine" / "reboot" / "upodate" silliness coming out of Hollyweird
in recent years - it makes no sense at all. Even from the supposed
financial angle, it makes more sense to simply use a new name.
The only way these make sense is when you realise that Hollyweird
these days simply has no creativity of their own. All the latest
batch of fools can do is butcher someone else's old idea.
Almost all of these "remakes" / "updates" are basically failures at
the box office - largely because people expect one thing and get
something very different. Thankfully this silly fad is now fading out
and many of the rumoured "remakes" / "updates" are falling by the
wayside and won't ever be made.
The unfortunate thing is that the silly "rebooting" of Star Trek
currently is still going ahead and WILL be a dismal failure for the
true fans. Whether or not it's financially succesful is irrelevant -
it definitely won't be "Star Trek" as we know it, so why bother
re-using the name.

Post by Daniel
But, then again,
there is "That 80's show", who's whole basis is to produce a, comedy,
series today that is portraying life as it was then.

The original show, "That 70's Show" was better. As usual, Hollyweird
latched onto a good idea and took it too far. "That 80's Show" was a
bit of a failure that quickly got cancelled. Most people have simply
had enough of this silly nostalgia fad which is part of the cause of
the even sillier "remake" fad.

Nostalgia never goes out of fashion. In the 70s, 50s nostalgia was en vogue.
The general trend is to be nostalgic for whatever time people who are
currently middle aged were kids. So, for instance, Happy Days evoked an
imagined 1950s that never really happened, for the benefit of the people who
in the 70s wanted to believe that that was how things were when they were
kids in the 1950s.

I think that made sense.

There will always be remakes anyway, because there aren't enough brand new
ideas to fill up the schedules. There always have been, and always will be,
until the TV/movie fad passes on. TV may be heading into the twilight
already. The idea of "channels" with sequential programming and scheduling,
which means shedloads of content are required to fill them, is an artifact
of the technology. If and when we shit to a more "on demand" paradigm, one
can at least hope that there will be less stuff, but of higher quality.
There's not much point in filler when there's no channel to fill.

Also, I'd just like to say I like the new BSG a lot, but I agree it doesn't
really bear any relation to the original except a few names and the brand
itself. It's more an extemporisation on the basic concept. I don't know
whether that's a good or bad thing. Using an existing brand probably made it
an easier sell for the producers to the TV company. Also, if they'd called
it something else, it would have gotten slagged off for being a rip-off. I
guess.


Ian

[Anybody]

Post by Jaxtraw
Nostalgia never goes out of fashion. In the 70s, 50s nostalgia was en vogue.
The general trend is to be nostalgic for whatever time people who are
currently middle aged were kids. So, for instance, Happy Days evoked an
imagined 1950s that never really happened, for the benefit of the people who
in the 70s wanted to believe that that was how things were when they were
kids in the 1950s.
I think that made sense.

To a point that's true, there will always be a nostalgic element to
life, but at the moment we're sufferring a bad fad (thankfully
dwindling) of trying to recreate everything from the past, and it's not
just Hollyweird with their "remakes" / "updates", we've also had things
like the Rubick's puzzles make a reappearance.

Post by Jaxtraw
There will always be remakes anyway, because there aren't enough brand new
ideas to fill up the schedules. There always have been, and always will be,
until the TV/movie fad passes on. TV may be heading into the twilight
already. The idea of "channels" with sequential programming and scheduling,
which means shedloads of content are required to fill them, is an artifact
of the technology. If and when we shit to a more "on demand" paradigm, one
can at least hope that there will be less stuff, but of higher quality.
There's not much point in filler when there's no channel to fill.
Also, I'd just like to say I like the new BSG a lot, but I agree it doesn't
really bear any relation to the original except a few names and the brand
itself. It's more an extemporisation on the basic concept. I don't know
whether that's a good or bad thing. Using an existing brand probably made it
an easier sell for the producers to the TV company. Also, if they'd called
it something else, it would have gotten slagged off for being a rip-off. I
guess.

It doesn't matter whether they had called it "Battlestar Galactica",
"Starship Humungous" or "lakjdfhlasgjya" ... it's still re-uising a few
of the basic ideas with lots of changes, so it *IS* a rip-off of the
original. All they really had to do was put "based on Battlestar
Galactica" in the credits and since it's the some studio making it
there's no legal tangles to worry about.

Ron Moore calls his new version a "reimagining" of the original. The
people at Paramount are calling there's a "reboot" of Star Trek ...
same thing and extremely silly.

Re-using the name is a bad thing - in fact it's downright idiotic and
makes no real sense. At the very least it splits the franchise and
causes confusion - if I start talking about "Battlestar Galactica" you
have no idea which one I'm talking about. The books, for example, based
on the original are now being sold as "Battlestar Galactica - Classic",
similarly there's "Gerry Anderson's Thunderbirds" to get past Jonathan
Frakes' awful mess of a movie that re-used the name. Another good
example is "Superman" - there's now so many different versions that
nobody knows what "Superman" really means.

[Daniel]

Post by Anybody
Re-using the name is a bad thing - in fact it's downright idiotic and
makes no real sense. At the very least it splits the franchise and
causes confusion - if I start talking about "Battlestar Galactica" you
have no idea which one I'm talking about. The books, for example, based
on the original are now being sold as "Battlestar Galactica - Classic",
similarly there's "Gerry Anderson's Thunderbirds" to get past Jonathan
Frakes' awful mess of a movie that re-used the name. Another good
example is "Superman" - there's now so many different versions that
nobody knows what "Superman" really means.

I can relate to what you're saying, here, in these NG's, where people
talk about Startrek - TOS. There never was a Startrek TOS.

There was Startrek, Startrek Next Gen, etc.. I don't know what the
animated series was actually called, but there never was Startrek - TOS.

Daniel

[Anybody]

Post by Daniel

Post by Anybody
Re-using the name is a bad thing - in fact it's downright idiotic and
makes no real sense. At the very least it splits the franchise and
causes confusion - if I start talking about "Battlestar Galactica" you
have no idea which one I'm talking about. The books, for example, based
on the original are now being sold as "Battlestar Galactica - Classic",
similarly there's "Gerry Anderson's Thunderbirds" to get past Jonathan
Frakes' awful mess of a movie that re-used the name. Another good
example is "Superman" - there's now so many different versions that
nobody knows what "Superman" really means.

I can relate to what you're saying, here, in these NG's, where people
talk about Startrek - TOS. There never was a Startrek TOS.
There was Startrek, Startrek Next Gen, etc.. I don't know what the
animated series was actually called, but there never was Startrek - TOS.

Actually, there was never any of those shows since the franchise title
is two words "Star Trek". ;-)

[Daniel]

Post by Anybody

Post by Daniel

Post by Anybody
Re-using the name is a bad thing - in fact it's downright idiotic and
makes no real sense. At the very least it splits the franchise and
causes confusion - if I start talking about "Battlestar Galactica" you
have no idea which one I'm talking about. The books, for example, based
on the original are now being sold as "Battlestar Galactica - Classic",
similarly there's "Gerry Anderson's Thunderbirds" to get past Jonathan
Frakes' awful mess of a movie that re-used the name. Another good
example is "Superman" - there's now so many different versions that
nobody knows what "Superman" really means.

I can relate to what you're saying, here, in these NG's, where people
talk about Startrek - TOS. There never was a Startrek TOS.
There was Startrek, Startrek Next Gen, etc.. I don't know what the
animated series was actually called, but there never was Startrek - TOS.

Actually, there was never any of those shows since the franchise title
is two words "Star Trek". ;-)

Picky Picky!

Daniel