Just a sample of the Echomail archive
Cooperative anarchy at its finest, still active today. Darkrealms is the Zone 1 Hub.
|    TREK    |    Star Trek General Discussions    |    20,898 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 18,955 of 20,898    |
|    Wickeddoll to All    |
|    Re: Star Trek: Am I the Only One?    |
|    09 Dec 09 17:48:17    |
      From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos       From Address: not@chance.dude       Subject: Re: Star Trek: Am I the Only One?              Steven L. wrote:        GeneK wrote:       >> "A Watcher" wrote in message       >>> Isn't a point of the latest movie? Changing their past changed the       >>> characters we knew in the original ST. Now they can go on and make new       >>> movies based on these different characters. There's no end to it.       >>>       >>> Of course that will confuse the casual viewers who are really into ST.       >>       >> It's THE point of the movie, i.e., "this is why our new Trek is different       >> from the old Trek but still fits into canon." But casual viewers couldn't       >> care less about canon, and for longtime viewers, "this is a reimagining       >> of Trek with a new canon" would be probably be explanation enough       >> for a good film and "fitting into canon" won't redeem a bad one.       >> GeneK       >        > This movie vindicated MY position on the future of Trek, which I had        > stated here before (check the Google archive):       >        > Star Trek does NOT require the original actors, nor the original sets,        > nor the original ship models, nor the original props. The basic concept        > would work with any actors and any type of ship (as long as it was large        > enough to hold a varied crew).       >        > Critics have to deal with the passage of time: James Doohan is gone,        > DeForest Kelley is gone, and the other actors are quite old now--too old        > for any more swashbuckling derring-do. If a TOS-type series is to have        > ANY future, it HAS to be rebooted from a new cast of actors. Otherwise        > the only other alternative is to let Star Trek die off once and for all.       >        > I doubt that Abrams' critics would be happy about that. If production        > of the movie had fallen through for any reason, they would be the first        > ones lamenting that "TOS is dead, too bad."       >        >        >        > --        > Steven L.       >        >               They're *still* saying it's dead.              May they grieve in peace, cuz I'm looking forward to the next film.              Natalie       --        "Wicked little doll, you have no soul"       (David Byrne, 1997)       http://www.supernaturalusa.net       --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp       --- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux        * Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca