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 18, 10:59apm, "Steven L."  wrote:   
   > "Duggy"  wrote in message   
   >   
   > news:7bc5f90e-8d82-4562-8d23-47f5c3f54254@h31g2000pro.googlegroups.com:   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > Not necessarily.   
   >   
   > "Contact" (based on the novel by Carl Sagan) was thoughtful.   
   >   
   > But it didn't skimp on visuals either.   
   >   
   > You make it sound like "thoughtful" means it can't also be visually   
   > appealing or have action. aOf course it can.   
   Did you read the word "blockbuster"?   
   ===   
   = 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)