From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos   
   From Address: your.name@isp.com (Your Name)   
   Subject: Re: Abrams' Trek Sequel To Be Released 29 June 2012   
      
   In article <4b4a5a03$0$2481$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, "Jaxtraw"   
    wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   TNG is a contiuation, not a "reboot". Most of what is in TNG, DS9 and Voy   
   fits with what was established in the original series. It's only when you   
   get to "Enterprise" that things go drastically wrong.   
      
      
      
   > 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.   
      
   Oh dear, here we go again ... the old "names are irrelevant" garbage.  :-(   
      
   If names are irrelevant, then EVERY show, and every thing on the planet   
   should simply be called Fred. Then we'd end up talking like Smurfs.   
      
   "Star Trek" is a specific franchise, with specific rules, backstory, etc.   
   You cannot simply disregard what's gone before and blindy believe it is   
   still "Star Trek".   
      
   But believe whatever you want. I won't be bothering to waste any more time   
   going around this same circle.   
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp   
    * Origin: Ihug Ltd (1:2320/105.97)   
   --- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux   
    * Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)