From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: your.name@isp.com
Subject: Re: Star Trek: Am I the Only One?
"Steven Litvintchouk" wrote in message
news:32B7C2AFC267403C8FDEB52D0655E769@userPC...
> > From: Your Name [mailto:your.name@isp.com]
> > "Steven L." wrote in message
> > news:T4udnZuhIbWoz73WnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> > > On 12/9/2009 4:51 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> > > > Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
> > > >> On Dec 9, 9:34 am, A Watcher wrote:
> > > >>> trag wrote:
> > > >>>> On Dec 9, 9:56 am, "Smokie Darling (Annie)"
> >
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>> I agree with Ted here. The whole Soran plot was just a device
> > > >>>>> (mcguffin, if I may), the real plot was reintroducing all the
> > > >>>>> characters that most ST viewers "know", and the new
> > interactions
> > based
> > > >>>>> on a certain event that occurred.
> > > >>>> That's not the Kirk that I "know".
> > > >>> 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.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> Except, none of them act any differently from the old
> characters.
> > > >> Well, except Uhura, who has a huge schoolgirl crush on Spock.
> > > >> Fascinating.
> > > >>
> > > > And yet most of the complaints include something about how the
> > > > characters act _nothing_ like the previous bearers of those
> names.
> > >
> > > That's right, the critics of the movie fall into two camps: Those
> > who
> > > think the movie was too derivative of past Trek, and those who
> think
> > it
> > > was too different from past Trek.
> > >
> > > My theory is that just the shock of seeing entirely new actors
> > playing
> > > the old familiar parts has unnerved a lot of Trek fans.
> >
> > The shock of having estblished facts simply thrown away has
> "unnerved"
> > a lot
> > of fans.
> >
> > It aint "Star Trek". It's simply a money-grubbing exercise by
> > Hollyweird
> > hiding behind the name of the original ... like all stupid "reboots"
> /
> > "reimaingings" / "remakes". :-(
>
> What "Star Trek" really is, was defined by Gene Roddenberry in the Star
> Trek Writers' Guide given to all the writers of the episodes.
>
> The details in canon we're talking about were NOT in that Writers'
> Guide. It was written in a very general way. Much of what we knew about
> Spock, for example, was *created* by the writers of various episodes.
> Most of that became canon *eventually*.
>
> What canon really was, Roddenberry reserved to himself.
>
> Would you have felt better if the movie had been like ST:TNG or VOY: A
> whole new starship not named "Enterprise," a new captain, and so on?
>
> With today's word processors, it would have taken about 1 minute to
> rename all the characters: James Kirk could become John Smith, young
> Spock could become young Spoork, the Enterprise could be renamed the
> Excalibur, etc.
>
> Would that have satisfied you?
Of course that would have been better (or at least an improvement, I don't
know all the other silly changes they made). It would have been a different
crew and wouldn't have screwed up what has already been established.
--- 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)
|
