From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos   
   From Address: YourName@YourISP.com   
   Subject: Re: Kirk and Spock in the news, again (link)   
      
   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-th   
   -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.   
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp   
    * Origin: Aioe.org NNTP Server (1:2320/105.97)   
   --- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux   
    * Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)