From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos   
   From Address: epwise@yahoo.com   
   Subject: Re: Kirk and Spock in the news, again (link)   
      
   Your Name  wrote in   
   news:150620141008481100%YourName@YourISP.com:    
      
   > In article , Daniel   
   >  wrote:   
   >> On 14/06/14 17:29, Wouter Valentijn wrote:   
   >> > Your Name schreef op 14-6-2014 00:05:   
   >> >> In article <539af9f9$0$2964$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl>, Wouter   
   >> >> Valentijn  wrote:   
   >> >>> Your Name schreef op 13-6-2014 08:12:   
   >> >>>> In article , ToolPackinMama   
   >> >>>>  wrote:   
   >> >>>>>   
   >> >>>>> http://www.cnet.com/news/americans-think-star-trek-is-the-   
   future   
   >> >>>>> -not-sta r-wars-study-says/   
   >> >>>>   
   >> >>>> Well, DUH!   
   >> >>>> Star Wars is set "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away".   
   >> >>>> Star Trek is set in Earth's near-ish future.   
   >> >>>>   
   >> >>>   
   >> >>> ROFL   
   >> >>>   
   >> >>> I'd take Star Trek over Star Wars any day.   
   >> >>>   
   >> >>> Not that I'm totally anti Star Wars. I liked Star Wars (IV) and   
   >> >>> TESB very much. ROTJ was a lesser movie and the prequels... Never   
   >> >>> mind them.    
   >> >>   
   >> >> The only real issue with Star Wars is that there was such a long   
   >> >> time between the trilogies, meaning they look quite different due   
   >> >> to technology improvements, differeing style, over-the-top fight   
   >> >> scenes, etc. Many of the later additions to the Original Trilogy   
   >> >> look out of place with the older film quality / style. If all six   
   >> >> (and soon a ridiculously tacked-on third Trilogy) had been made   
   >> >> continuously like "Harry Potter", for example, then those   
   >> >> differences would have been much less noticeable.   
   >> >>   
   >> >   
   >> > "Improvements"... Not a word I'd use. :-)   
   >> > Nah, I think the stories themselves took a nose dive. They became   
   >> > more 'kiddiefied'.   
   >> > I'd keep 'Star Wars' and "The Empire Stikes Back', but the rest....   
   >> >   
   >> Seems to me, George Lucas, originally, made the discussion to produce   
   >> Star Wars (i.e. chapter 4 in his original nine part storyline),   
   >> whoever was able to convince him, much, much later, that parts one   
   >> through three were worthwhile .... THAT PERSON SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN   
   >> OUT THE BACK AND SHOT!!   
   >>    
   >> If they went anywhere, after 4, 5 and 6, it should have been 7 then!!   
   >    
   > There was never nine movies (nor 12 as in some reports) actually   
   > planned.   
   >    
   > Originally there was a *ROUGH* story outline that *MIGHT* have made   
   > nine or 12 movies, but that storyline was altered and squashed as the   
   > full story was written. At one early point the mythical third Trilogy   
   > was to be about Luke going off to find his sister (who was not then   
   > Leia), and both coming back to defeat the Emperor.   
   >    
   > With the storyline there is now, the Saga finishes properly with the   
   > death of the Emperor, the redemption of Anakin, and the "happily ever   
   > after" ending. Tacking on a third Trilogy is nothing but pure   
   > senseless money-grubbing and the idiotic current Hollyweird fad to   
   > resurrect everything from the past because they simply don't have any   
   > real ideas of their own (a fad probably started by George Lucas making   
   > the Prequel Trilogy).   
   >    
   > If they want to make more movies in the Star Wars universe, then more   
   > spin-off movies is fine (if done properly), but there's no need to add   
   > more Episodes to the Saga itself.   
      
   Perhaps we should start calling New Zealand "New Zealotland."   
   --- 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)