They are doing a ghost hunting show, and something similar to survivor. I think that there is one more as well. It may be to get kids interested in things outside of the house though. I just don't want to see them turn into mtv. :(
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Keith Johnson <keithbjohn...@comcast.net>wrote: > > > Say what?? Please elucidate! > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mr. Worf" <hellomahog...@gmail.com> > To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 9:08:40 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William > Shatner Or Khan > > > > Even the cartoon network is doing multiple reality shows starting in June. > > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Martin Baxter > <truthseeker...@lycos.com>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" <hellomahog...@gmail.com> >> >> 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/ > > > > > -- Bringing diversity to perversity for 9 years! Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/
