From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos   
   From Address: Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au   
   Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?   
      
   On Nov 16, 4:50apm, Akira Norimaki  wrote:   
   > Duggy wrote:   
   > [Star Trek XI]   
   > >>>> Agreed, on both. It's a funny ride but the plot is rather pointless.   
   > >>> So it's an action film.   
   > >> Yeah, pretty much. An action movie in space.   
   > > It sells.   
   > I can understand why. It would have been nice to have something more for   
   > this franchise but that's what we have now.   
   Thing is franchises have to be blockbusters these days.   
   You want a quality thoughtful film you're going to need to do a random   
   no-budget film with no franchise attached.   
   Moon, for example.   
   > For someone is better than   
   > nothing for others was better nothing. I'm somewhere in between those   
   > two position, personally. I started to enjoy the movie only after I   
   > realized it is not Star Trek. Not ST as I think it should be, I mean.   
   > And to be totally honest with myself I don't see any the ST movies that   
   > is exactly as I think ST should be, expect Khaaaaaaannnnnn and, maybe,   
   > [slow] Motion Picture.   
   ST was clearly a TOS episode made too long (yes, I know it was the 2-   
   part pilot for Star Trek: "Phase 2" based on an unused "Genesis II"   
   idea) so yeah, it was Trek.  2... yeah, a bit too much action, but   
   very STTOS plot.  5... was a very Star Trek plot... but that doesn't   
   mean it was good.  I think 6 was as well...   
   The first 3 Next Gen films were (in varying ways) very TNG.  Nemesis   
   was a whole lot of different films... including Bond... thrown   
   together.   
   ===   
   = DUG.   
   ===   
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp   
    # Origin: http://groups.google.com (1:2320/105.97)   
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)