From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos   
   From Address: jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com   
   Subject: Re: Abrams' Trek Sequel To Be Released 29 June 2012   
      
   Your Name wrote:   
   > "Nightspirit1701"  wrote in message   
   > news:hicacp.2ec.1@news.evilcabal.org...   
   >> "D. Stussy"  Gave a shout out with:   
   >>   
   >>> "Your Name"  wrote in message   
   >>> news:your.name-1001101546110001@203-109-167-101.dial.dyn.ihug.co.nz...   
   >>>> In article ,   
   >>>> Toolpackinmama  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 1/9/2010 9:44 AM, Steven L. wrote:   
   >>>>>> Paramount has announced that "Star Trek 2," the sequel to   
   >>>>>> Abrams' "Star Trek" film, will be released in theaters on 29   
   >>>>>> June 2012.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> That's stupendous news!   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Hmmm ... you seem to have made a typo. You obviously meant "stupid   
   >>>> and ridiculous".  ;-)   
   >>>   
   >>> Obviously, you don't believe in sarcasm.  The 2009 movie was crap   
   >>> and the only reason it was viewed was because it followed pictures   
   >>> that were at least half-decent.  However, as we're on to what   
   >>> Paramount is now doing, I expect that only 10% of the people who   
   >>> took a chance on Star Crap (2009) will try the sequel - before   
   >>> realizing they should get their money back.   
   >>   
   >> Which doesn't explaing the repeat viewing.  Face it they achived   
   >> what they set out to do and that was revive Star Trek.   
   >   
   > They did no such thing.   
   >   
   > What they did do was create "new Star Trek", which is a different   
   > entity altogether. They simply didn't have the brains, balls, nor   
   > talent to actually create a brand new franchise from scratch.   
   >   
   > "Star Trek" as we know it died when Beavis & Butthead decided to make   
   > "Enterprise" a non-Trek Trek show and Abrams put the final nail in the   
   > coffin.  :-(   
      
   Well, by your definition Star Trek died in 1969. "Hollyweird" rebooted it,    
   because they were too stupid to think of anything new, in 1979 with a    
   totally new look. Then they rebooted it, because they were too stupid to    
   think of anything new, in 1987 with TNG. TNG bears but a passing resemblance    
   to the "real" Star Trek of 1966-69. So, Star Trek is long dead.   
      
   Those of us who are happy for the term Star Trek to refer to a general idea    
   which, like many things, is represented in different ways as the real world    
   around it changes with time can just get on with seeing whether we enjoy    
   each variation or not.   
      
   It's just a TV show. What matters is whether it entertains. Sixties Trek    
   wasn't suitable for the late 70s, neither of those fit the 1980s, and 80s    
   Trek no longer suits the 21st century, because people change. Each    
   generation is different in their outlook and expectations to the last, and    
   even those of us who remember the original in its contextual time period are    
   different to how we were 20, 30 or 40 years ago.   
      
   Sometimes the changes don't work, sometimes they do. But change is    
   inevitable. It's always a choice between a different Trek (or any other such    
   story) or no more Trek at all. It's clear that you would prefer no new Trek,    
   but many of the rest of us prefer that it carries on, if it is enjoyable.    
   There is no right and wrong about this. It is a matter of sentiment.   
      
      
   Ian   
      
   --    
   http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com   
   sci-fi comics with shagging in    
      
      
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp   
    * Origin: Zen Internet (1:2320/105.97)   
   --- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux   
    * Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)