Argh!!!!!! I HATE REALITY TV!!!!!
From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Martin Baxter Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 6:23 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan (sighing sadly...) ---------[ Received Mail Content ]---------- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan Date : Sun, 17 May 2009 06:08:40 -0700 >From : "Mr. Worf" <hellomahog...@gmail.com> To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Even the cartoon network is doing multiple reality shows starting in June. On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Martin Baxter wrote: > Naught but truth in that, Mr. Worf. Reality TV costs less and makes money. > :-( > > > > > > ---------[ Received Mail Content ]---------- > > Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William > Shatner Or Khan > > Date : Sun, 17 May 2009 05:58:35 -0700 > > From : "Mr. Worf" > > To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com > > > They also don't like to spend money on them. Look at how many scifi shows > that were started and canceled mid-season or after only one season in the > last 4 or 5 years. Some had really good ratings. Out of all of them, Lost > and Heroes, and are the only survivors. > > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 5:54 AM, Martin Baxter wrote: > > > Keith, I really don't think that a series spun off from this movie would > > succeed. (Not me being negative again, folks.) H'Wood has a track record > of > > not following through on series. We can sit here for weeks, rattling off > the > > names of great series that died too soon because the networks that > carried > > them didn't market or back them properly. This Trek is a flash in the > pan. A > > series coming out of it will be the flavor of the week, then become an > > afterthought. And that HURTS the Trek franchise. > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------[ Received Mail Content ]---------- > > > > Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With > William > > Shatner Or Khan > > > > Date : Sun, 17 May 2009 02:55:53 +0000 (UTC) > > > > From : Keith Johnson > > > > To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > The other thing I keep noticing is that people keep talking about the > best > > Trek "movie" either. Would this take, however, generate a longrunning > > series? The magic of Trek has never been the movies. They've always been > > just fun things to make money at the box office. It was the accumulated > > magic and intelligence of the series that made Trek. So in a way this > isn't > > the right argument. I'm sure the movies will be successful, and I will be > > there for all of them. I liked this film. A lot. But do we think that in > a > > few years there'll be anew Trek series on TV, that it will do really > well, > > that it'll last for years and that it will spawn future generations of > fans > > the way the other series did? > > > > That's the question, and I'm not seeig anything here to answer that in > the > > affirmative. > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Bosco Bosco" > > To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 3:33:48 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > > Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William > > Shatner Or Khan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Keith > > > > One of the things I love about this list are your posts. I'm saying that > up > > front because I am gonna respectfully disagree with you.I LOVE the new > Trek > > Film. I will say without question it's the best Trek Film EVER. It's not > > lazy. That's partly because it's Trek and partly because it's not. It's > not > > lazy. It's just not what you want. It's clear that a tremendous amount of > > research, thought and work went into this film. Because Abrams made > choices > > you would not have does not make him a lazy story teller. > > > > I have always loved science fiction because it creates other > possibilities > > and amazing worlds of "what if." The constraints of reality have always > been > > cast away for better story telling. That's exactly what the new Trek film > > DOES WELL!!! > > > > I've also made no secret of late that one of the things I love about the > > new Trek Film is the way it INFURIATES the Trek nerds. It's freakin > awesome > > that it has been so successful, so good and produced a reaction so > strong. > > Indicative, I think, that Abrams got it EXACTLY right in order to breathe > > life into the franchise. Let's face it, it WAS DEAD, Jim. The fact that > some > > of the older generation of Trek fans can't let go of the bloated corpse > of > > what was, simply makes me giggle. I'm sorry for your loss but unless some > > "Trekditionalists" get a bunch of funds together to make another in long > > line of generally subpar science fiction films, it's Abrams world now and > > we're just visiting. Time to find a way to move on. > > > > Bosco > > --- On Sat, 5/16/09, Keith Johnson wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Keith Johnson > > Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William > > Shatner Or Khan > > To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com > > Cc: ggs...@yahoo.com, cinque3...@verizon.net > > Date: Saturday, May 16, 2009, 10:52 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, but every time I listen to Abrams make statements like "The > old > > continuity was restrictive" , it angers me. That's just lazy film making. > > The Trek universe spans five series, ten movies, and --including > > "enterprise" --about two centuries. You're telling me he couldn't find > > something in *all that* to fuel new, action-driven stories? He couldn't > have > > brought together this crew in the movie in any way other than to reset > the > > timeline? Why not just have told the previously untold story of how Kirk > > assembled his crew in the original continuity in this movie? It's not > > exactly as if anyone's ever said there was only one way that could have > been > > done. > > > > My point is there is no reason to change history just to use young cast > > members. Kirk in the movie is about 2 -3 years younger than Kirk was in > the > > original timeline when he became captain, but you can work around that. > We > > don't know the backstories of how Bones, Uhura, and Scotty were brought > to > > the Enterprise, so you can write that story. Just because Chekhov never > > showed up in season one of the OS doesn't mean you can't finesse things a > > bit and bring him in for the movie. Only three of the original five years > of > > Kirk's original mission were shown on TV. Nothing there to mine? > > > > Like them or not, Brannon and Braga jiggered Trek continuity a bit for > > "Enterprise" : the Xindi attack on Earth...the Borg sphere found on Earth > > (something blamed on "First Contact).... And while some of that made some > of > > us howl, as the series got better toward its end, we saw it was okay. > > Indeed, we liked it precisely because it was exploring the themes from > the > > OS that had always been there. So, they changed things a bit, but at > least > > they explored the original universe, and to their credit, when B&B > got > > it right, they did a great job of updating the old, but staying true to > it. > > Thus, we all loved the storyline revealing the secret of the Green Orion > > "slaves"...the Augment storyline, which continued the story of the > Eugenics > > War, and set the stage for Data's creation someday....the study of how > > Vulcan pulled itself back from the brink of becoming violently emotional > > again, to embrace Surak's teachings anew...the dude who was a disciple of > > Colonel Green's xenophobia an! > > d racism-- All good stories, all told in *original* continuity for the > > most part. > > > > I keep struggling to understand why we have to kill Kirk's father--oh, it > > just makes it easy to create a young punk Kirk for contrast with the > later > > hero he'll become...why we had to destroy Vulcan.--oh, I guess it makes > > Spock's feeling of being lost and alone more poignant..why we had to make > > Spock act like he's undergoing ponfar all the time--oh, so we can really > get > > the struggle, as I guess the OS didn't do a good enough job of presenting > > that. > > > > Abrams just didn't like old Trek and he wanted to eliminate it to > recreate > > it. There is no reason at all you can't tell new fresh stories in Trek > > within the original continuity. I have felt all along that we we've had > is a > > guy who thinks Star Wars is superiour to Trek, who comes from the > > hit-you-over- the-head school of filmmaking. Thus he all but destroys the > > Vulcan race and sees it as opening up things, rather than a critical blow > to > > what makes Trek, Trek. > > > > I haven't seen or heard yet one thing to make me understand why you have > to > > destroy the past rather than honor it. Why you tear down the old instead > of > > building upon it. How eliminating forty years of great storytelling is > > liberating. > > Sorry: just lazy filmmaking from guys who just don't get it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds > > > > > > -- > Bringing diversity to perversity for 9 years! > Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/ > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds > -- Bringing diversity to perversity for 9 years! Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds
