From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos   
   From Address: dxmm@albury.nospam.net.au   
   Subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness   
      
   Your Name wrote:   
   > In article , "Daniel47@teranews.com"   
   >  wrote:   
      
      
      
   >> (And I'd tend to think the original Star Treks' and Star Wars' are   
   >> better than their later incarnations!)   
   >   
   > That's an opinion, and opinions are pointless to argue against. Everyone   
   > has one and they're all different.   
      
   Sorry, my "opinions are pointless to argue against", but your opinions    
   *have to be agreed with*!!   
      
   Does the term "egotistical" apply here??   
      
   > I'm talking about the FACT that "reboots" are, by definition and   
   > execution, different products to the original,   
      
   So ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:VOY are all parts of a re-boot, i.e. *Not* part of    
   ST:TOS, so, to be true to yourself, you must hate them as well!!   
      
   >                                               so re-using the same name   
   > for two different products defies all common sense, intelligence, and   
   > logic from EVERY conceivable angle.   
      
   See my para just above!!   
      
   > Nobody has ever been able to give a good reason why this happens or is   
   > sensible. None of the supposed reasons ever stack up to a logical   
   > examination. The blind morons usually simply revert to the pointless   
   > opinion-based "I liked it", which completely and utterly misses the point   
   > and doesn't in any way mean it actually fits with the established   
   > franchise.   
      
   And Your Name usually simply reverts to the pointless opinion-based "I    
   don't like it", which completely and utterly misses the point and    
   doesn't in any way mean it actually mis-fits with the established franchise.   
      
   >> How is it, Your Name, that you can accept that ST:NG/ST:DS9/ST:VOY and   
   >> the first six films are continuations of the ST:TOS universe, but cannot   
   >> accept ST:2009 or ST:ID as continuations?? Same universe, just different   
   >> interpretations.   
   >   
   > It's an EXTREMELY simple concept.  :-\   
   >   
   > A proper franchise is a set of parts that fits together properly and   
   sensibly.   
      
   Yes, so either ST:2009 and ST:ID do form part of this "proper franchise"    
   or ST:NG, ST:DS9, ST:VOY don't!!   
      
   > JJ Abrams' movies and the "Enterprise" TV series decided the original   
   > ideas weren't "good enough", and so made lots of ill-fitting changes.   
      
   So say you, and it would appear, you alone!   
      
   > Since they are obviously changed, they are really a different product,   
      
   So say you, and it would appear, you alone!   
      
   > therefore they can't sensibly or logically be part of the same franchise   
   > and shouldn't have the same name.   
      
   So say you, and it would appear, you alone!   
   (Oh, look!! I'm repeating myself in an effort to  make a point ... just    
   like Your Name does!!)   
      
   > In the case of JJ Abrams' movies, the half-assed concocted excuse of a   
   > time travel story doesn't work   
      
   So say you, and it would appear, you alone!   
      
   >                                - there are still far too many ill-fitting   
   > and non-sensical changes.   
   >   
   > At best these silly "reboots" are a sub-franchise, which in itself is   
   > moronically stupid and just creates a confused mess where nobody really   
   > knows what "Star Trek"   
      
   Including, you, Your Name!!   
      
   >                        is (or "Batman", or "Battlestar Galacica" or any of   
   > the other franchises ruined by idiotic "reboots" re-using the same name   
   > for a different product).   
   >   
   > When even the people making these "reboots" are saying they are different,   
   > you really have to wonder about the brains of some (so-called) "fans" who   
   > continue to blindly claim they're the same thing, let alone the morons in   
   > studio management and marketing that release them under the original's   
   > name.  :-(   
      
   But you say they are different, Your Name!!   
      
   >> Sure, these later incarnations have different production values compared   
   >> to ST:TOS, but then ST:NG/ST:DS9/ST:VOY and the films also had different   
   >> production values compared to ST:TOS.   
   >   
   > The original Star Trek, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager,   
   > all fit together without piles of contradictions and changes. Yes, there   
   > are some minor contradictions, but on the whole they do fit together as a   
   > single entity - the real "Star Trek" franchise.   
      
   As does, in the opinion of most of those here abouts, ST:Ent, ST:2009    
   and ST:ID also fit together in this single "Star Trek" franchise!   
      
   Live with it!   
      
   Daniel   
      
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp   
    * Origin: TeraNews.com (1:2320/105.97)   
   --- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux   
    * Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)