From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: your.name@isp.com
Subject: Re: Star Trek: Am I the Only One?
"Anim8rFSK" wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-38A69F.10260610122009@news.dc1.easynews.com...
> In article ,
> Merrick Baldelli wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:48:27 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
> > wrote:
> >
> > >If you're going to change the characters and background _that_ _much_,
> > >why not just write something new? It would probably be easier.
> >
> > Not when you're inherently lazy. It's far easier to write
> > something from an established story/plot than it is to come up with
> > something "new".
>
> More importantly, it's easier to sell.
Except that if most people actually had brains, it wouldn't be easier to
sell.
*If* real Star Trek is so bad ly patronised that it's no longer worth making
properly, then common sense would tell you that making a movie called "Star
Trek" isn't going to make any difference whatsoever since people with brains
who don't like Star Trek want bother going to see it. Making a new movie
with a new name and starting a new franchise would be a MUCH more sensible
idea and give a much wider potential audience.
In fact the real reasons so many non-Trek people went to see the movie is
simply because they tagged Abrams name onto it as the latest toy on the
block. People are also becoming more and more stupid - growing numbers of
people simply go to the movies every Friday night to watch ANYTHING, even if
they have zero interest in it and come out complaining about it - it's
simply what they do on Friday nights. Then there are those who claim to be
fans (including some of the fools in Hollyweird making these silly "reboot"
things), but don't really give a damn what happens to the franchise they're
supposedly fans of - anything is fine as long as it still says "Star Trek"
on the tin. :-\
--- 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)
|
