[scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan
Well put Bosco. I could not have said it better. There were choices that were made that I did not agree with, but that did not take away from the story. These were his choices to make and his story to tell. He told HIS story well. I remember being in this place with Battlestar and their decision to make Starbuck a woman and Tigh White. While I still think that moore has some issues with Blacks and screwed up the finale, he told his story well and the casting decisions proved to good ones. I think Abrams bristles at some of the hardcore trekkers/trekkies reactions and sometimes goes out of his way to alienate them in his interviews and some of the marketing. I also think that some of that dynamic in going on with his bizarro relationship with Shatner. I like Shatner, but he sometimes does appear to have some type of Star Trek god complex going on. If Abrams is the type of person who does not brush off his shoulders when outsiders tell him they think he is wrong, then that might explain some of his actions. I think Shatner going public with his crusade to be on the show, guaranteed his fate. It was tacky and idiotic to take the casting issue to the public. I too found that a tremendous amount of work and care went into breathing life into a dying franchise, by evolving it into something new, a wonderful hybrid of new and old,while staying true to some many of the aspects that are important to trekkies. I was home again. I saw flaws, but overall after years of missteps with Trek films over the last decade or so, (First Contact being the exception) Abrams delivered the goods. I also saw improvements. In my mind, I hated that Uhuru, Sulu, Scotty and Chekov were glorified extras. I see potential for more character development with their characters. In a way, there was more character development for them in two hours than in the entire three years the series was on. Showing more of the internal batter with being both human and vulcan was also an interesting move in my opinion. Just remember, two years ago, we did not know if or when there would be a new trek film or show. Now, thanks to Abrams, we have Trekkers 2.0 with new fans that are hooked on the Trek mythology. We are likely to have guaranteed at least a decade of trek films and there is a Trek series in the works with a really good producer with great scifi production credentials. we also will likely see even more scifi movie productions. With all the money that will be made, if there are ways to keep production casts down, networks will open up again to more scifi series. The man gave us a gift. --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Bosco Bosco wrote: > > 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...@..., cinque3...@... > 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 coul
[scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan
I don't have a problem with them creating a new reality for Trek if they stick with the new canon. If they are going to reach over into the old universe to pick up William Shatner--what was the point of abandoning it? I always like new takes on stories. But I don't want to see the new darker Batman contend with the TV Batman that I grew up with; and I don't William Shatner in this new universe. I wish they would go forward with a new canon and see what they come up with.
[scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan
I think being the "best reality show" is akin to being the "biggest midget" and I, personally, find "The Amazing Race" no more redeeming than say, "The Biggest Loser." But, I am an inveterate channel surfer and I always stop for black people - so I saw some of this year's "Amazing Race." Those sisters were cut throat (and I mean that in "good" way)! Of course, this also lead to them, black women, being cast as the villians of the piece but even (warning: Amos 'n' Andy reference up ahead) Sapphire shines. ~rave! --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Keith Johnson wrote: > > That is a trip! On Tom Joyner's show, she said the finish line was farther > away than people might think, and that she simply couldn't make it. Still, I > might have wet myself for that prize money! > > - Original Message - > From: wlro...@... > To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 5:53:53 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William > Shatner Or Khan > > > > > > > > > > Yea I was watching Amazing Race and yelling at the screen, as if she could > hear me, that she should just pee at the matt. But just think she could not > tell anyone until the show aired. Imagine sitting in the room and having the > crowd or family asking or saying what in the heck were you saying. > --Lavender > > > > > From: Keith Johnson > Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 6:20 PM > To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William > Shatner Or Khan > > > The only reality show that's consistently given rave reviews by critics and > fans is "The Amazing Race". I've watched very little of it, but it's more > fun, more intelligent, and more "real" seeming by far, due to its treasure > hunter nature. > > And something I find very intriguing about "The Amazing Race": I believe that > two of its million-dollar winners have been teams of black people. That is > something rarely seen in reality TV, and I've been puzzling what that means. > It's got a more open structure, one less based on silly cabals and > backstabbing like "Survivor", and not on dumb projects and godlike judgements > a la "The Apprenctice". Yeah it's got its "eat the frog's testicles and > bull's brains" foolishness. But it's also won by people who can hustle, > decipher clues, adapt quickly to new environments, and really work well with > a partner. In that way it reminds me of rally racing. > > And I understand this last contest possibly could have been won by two > Sisters, but one of them had to take a bathroom break--just as her team was > entering a stadium where a few hundred yard run could have given them the > prize! It was the butt of jokes recently: how a lady's "small bladder" cost > her team a million bucks! > > - Original Message - > From: "Tracey de Morsella" > To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:11:19 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: RE: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William > Shatner Or Khan > > > > > > > > > > > > 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" > 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 tha
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan
Aaaaggg! No there's no reason for me to say anything else. I am undone! (Sniff!) :) I hear what you are saying and agree a lot. But like Sincere--the only other person here who's made this point--I simply don't see why "reinvigorating" meant "rewriting history". I still feel you can explore Spock's struggle without destroying Vulcan, making him someone who gropes his girl in public, or putting Kirk on the ship as captain after only three years in Academy and one rushed mission. And my other real problem is what do we do with the other series--TNG, DS9, Voyager--and movies. I find it unnecessary to have two parallet realities when Abrams could simply have told a boatload of new stories in the first few years of the original continuity. - Original Message - From: "tdemorsella" To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 7:52:42 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan Well put Bosco. I could not have said it better. There were choices that were made that I did not agree with, but that did not take away from the story. These were his choices to make and his story to tell. He told HIS story well. I remember being in this place with Battlestar and their decision to make Starbuck a woman and Tigh White. While I still think that moore has some issues with Blacks and screwed up the finale, he told his story well and the casting decisions proved to good ones. I think Abrams bristles at some of the hardcore trekkers/trekkies reactions and sometimes goes out of his way to alienate them in his interviews and some of the marketing. I also think that some of that dynamic in going on with his bizarro relationship with Shatner. I like Shatner, but he sometimes does appear to have some type of Star Trek god complex going on. If Abrams is the type of person who does not brush off his shoulders when outsiders tell him they think he is wrong, then that might explain some of his actions. I think Shatner going public with his crusade to be on the show, guaranteed his fate. It was tacky and idiotic to take the casting issue to the public. I too found that a tremendous amount of work and care went into breathing life into a dying franchise, by evolving it into something new, a wonderful hybrid of new and old,while staying true to some many of the aspects that are important to trekkies. I was home again. I saw flaws, but overall after years of missteps with Trek films over the last decade or so, (First Contact being the exception) Abrams delivered the goods. I also saw improvements. In my mind, I hated that Uhuru, Sulu, Scotty and Chekov were glorified extras. I see potential for more character development with their characters. In a way, there was more character development for them in two hours than in the entire three years the series was on. Showing more of the internal batter with being both human and vulcan was also an interesting move in my opinion. Just remember, two years ago, we did not know if or when there would be a new trek film or show. Now, thanks to Abrams, we have Trekkers 2.0 with new fans that are hooked on the Trek mythology. We are likely to have guaranteed at least a decade of trek films and there is a Trek series in the works with a really good producer with great scifi production credentials. we also will likely see even more scifi movie productions. With all the money that will be made, if there are ways to keep production casts down, networks will open up again to more scifi series. The man gave us a gift. --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com , Bosco Bosco wrote: > > 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 o
RE: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan
...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Keith Johnson Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 8:18 PM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Aaaaggg! No there's no reason for me to say anything else. I am undone! (Sniff!):) I hear what you are saying and agree a lot. But like Sincere--the only other person here who's made this point--I simply don't see why "reinvigorating" meant "rewriting history". I still feel you can explore Spock's struggle without destroying Vulcan, making him someone who gropes his girl in public, or putting Kirk on the ship as captain after only three years in Academy and one rushed mission. And my other real problem is what do we do with the other series--TNG, DS9, Voyager--and movies. I find it unnecessary to have two parallet realities when Abrams could simply have told a boatload of new stories in the first few years of the original continuity. - Original Message - From: "tdemorsella" To: scifinoi r...@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 7:52:42 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan Well put Bosco. I could not have said it better. There were choices that were made that I did not agree with, but that did not take away from the story. These were his choices to make and his story to tell. He told HIS story well. I remember being in this place with Battlestar and their decision to make Starbuck a woman and Tigh White. While I still think that moore has some issues with Blacks and screwed up the finale, he told his story well and the casting decisions proved to good ones. I think Abrams bristles at some of the hardcore trekkers/trekkies reactions and sometimes goes out of his way to alienate them in his interviews and some of the marketing. I also think that some of that dynamic in going on with his bizarro relationship with Shatner. I like Shatner, but he sometimes does appear to have some type of Star Trek god complex going on. If Abrams is the type of person who does not brush off his shoulders when outsiders tell him they think he is wrong, then that might explain some of his actions. I think Shatner going public with his crusade to be on the show, guaranteed his fate. It was tacky and idiotic to take the casting issue to the public. I too found that a tremendous amount of work and care went into breathing life into a dying franchise, by evolving it into something new, a wonderful hybrid of new and old,while staying true to some many of the aspects that are important to trekkies. I was home again. I saw flaws, but overall after years of missteps with Trek films over the last decade or so, (First Contact being the exception) Abrams delivered the goods. I also saw improvements. In my mind, I hated that Uhuru, Sulu, Scotty and Chekov were glorified extras. I see potential for more character development with their characters. In a way, there was more character development for them in two hours than in the entire three years the series was on. Showing more of the internal batter with being both human and vulcan was also an interesting move in my opinion. Just remember, two years ago, we did not know if or when there would be a new trek film or show. Now, thanks to Abrams, we have Trekkers 2.0 with new fans that are hooked on the Trek mythology. We are likely to have guaranteed at least a decade of trek films and there is a Trek series in the works with a really good producer with great scifi production credentials. we also will likely see even more scifi movie productions. With all the money that will be made, if there are ways to keep production casts down, networks will open up again to more scifi series. The man gave us a gift. --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:scifinoir2%40yahoogroups.com> , Bosco Bosco wrote: > > 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 t
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan
Keith, I'm with you all the way on this. These days, H'Wood seems to be fixated on remaking the classics with an eye toward "re-invigoration", making the subject matter more relevant to the fans of today (read people 16-25, who buy the lion's share of tickets). In pandering to them, yes, they make money. They also lose pieces of the core audiences of those works being remade. They think that it's clever filmmaking when, as you yourself said in an earlier post, it's just lazy. The art of innovation's been lost. Trek might be a great movie to lose myself in, but I won't be doing it, because I'm too emotionally invested in the canon, would flinch at every deviation from it I saw. There are other movies I can lose myself in just as easily, and not feel torn or betrayed. -[ Received Mail Content ]------ Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan Date : Sun, 17 May 2009 03:17:49 + (UTC) From : Keith Johnson To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Aaaaggg! No there's no reason for me to say anything else. I am undone! (Sniff!) :) I hear what you are saying and agree a lot. But like Sincere--the only other person here who's made this point--I simply don't see why "reinvigorating" meant "rewriting history". I still feel you can explore Spock's struggle without destroying Vulcan, making him someone who gropes his girl in public, or putting Kirk on the ship as captain after only three years in Academy and one rushed mission. And my other real problem is what do we do with the other series--TNG, DS9, Voyager--and movies. I find it unnecessary to have two parallet realities when Abrams could simply have told a boatload of new stories in the first few years of the original continuity. - Original Message - From: "tdemorsella" To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 7:52:42 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan Well put Bosco. I could not have said it better. There were choices that were made that I did not agree with, but that did not take away from the story. These were his choices to make and his story to tell. He told HIS story well. I remember being in this place with Battlestar and their decision to make Starbuck a woman and Tigh White. While I still think that moore has some issues with Blacks and screwed up the finale, he told his story well and the casting decisions proved to good ones. I think Abrams bristles at some of the hardcore trekkers/trekkies reactions and sometimes goes out of his way to alienate them in his interviews and some of the marketing. I also think that some of that dynamic in going on with his bizarro relationship with Shatner. I like Shatner, but he sometimes does appear to have some type of Star Trek god complex going on. If Abrams is the type of person who does not brush off his shoulders when outsiders tell him they think he is wrong, then that might explain some of his actions. I think Shatner going public with his crusade to be on the show, guaranteed his fate. It was tacky and idiotic to take the casting issue to the public. I too found that a tremendous amount of work and care went into breathing life into a dying franchise, by evolving it into something new, a wonderful hybrid of new and old,while staying true to some many of the aspects that are important to trekkies. I was home again. I saw flaws, but overall after years of missteps with Trek films over the last decade or so, (First Contact being the exception) Abrams delivered the goods. I also saw improvements. In my mind, I hated that Uhuru, Sulu, Scotty and Chekov were glorified extras. I see potential for more character development with their characters. In a way, there was more character development for them in two hours than in the entire three years the series was on. Showing more of the internal batter with being both human and vulcan was also an interesting move in my opinion. Just remember, two years ago, we did not know if or when there would be a new trek film or show. Now, thanks to Abrams, we have Trekkers 2.0 with new fans that are hooked on the Trek mythology. We are likely to have guaranteed at least a decade of trek films and there is a Trek series in the works with a really good producer with great scifi production credentials. we also will likely see even more scifi movie productions. With all the money that will be made, if there are ways to keep production casts down, networks will open up again to more scifi series. The man gave us a gift. --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com , Bosco Bosco wrote: > > Keith > > One of the things I love about this list are your posts. I'm saying that up > front because I a
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan
Folks balked at a Battlestar Galactica remake. --- On Sat, 5/16/09, tdemorsella wrote: From: tdemorsella Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, May 16, 2009, 7:52 PM Well put Bosco. I could not have said it better. There were choices that were made that I did not agree with, but that did not take away from the story. These were his choices to make and his story to tell. He told HIS story well. I remember being in this place with Battlestar and their decision to make Starbuck a woman and Tigh White. While I still think that moore has some issues with Blacks and screwed up the finale, he told his story well and the casting decisions proved to good ones. I think Abrams bristles at some of the hardcore trekkers/trekkies reactions and sometimes goes out of his way to alienate them in his interviews and some of the marketing. I also think that some of that dynamic in going on with his bizarro relationship with Shatner. I like Shatner, but he sometimes does appear to have some type of Star Trek god complex going on. If Abrams is the type of person who does not brush off his shoulders when outsiders tell him they think he is wrong, then that might explain some of his actions. I think Shatner going public with his crusade to be on the show, guaranteed his fate. It was tacky and idiotic to take the casting issue to the public. I too found that a tremendous amount of work and care went into breathing life into a dying franchise, by evolving it into something new, a wonderful hybrid of new and old,while staying true to some many of the aspects that are important to trekkies. I was home again. I saw flaws, but overall after years of missteps with Trek films over the last decade or so, (First Contact being the exception) Abrams delivered the goods. I also saw improvements. In my mind, I hated that Uhuru, Sulu, Scotty and Chekov were glorified extras. I see potential for more character development with their characters. In a way, there was more character development for them in two hours than in the entire three years the series was on. Showing more of the internal batter with being both human and vulcan was also an interesting move in my opinion. Just remember, two years ago, we did not know if or when there would be a new trek film or show. Now, thanks to Abrams, we have Trekkers 2.0 with new fans that are hooked on the Trek mythology. We are likely to have guaranteed at least a decade of trek films and there is a Trek series in the works with a really good producer with great scifi production credentials. we also will likely see even more scifi movie productions. With all the money that will be made, if there are ways to keep production casts down, networks will open up again to more scifi series. The man gave us a gift. --- In scifino...@yahoogro ups.com, Bosco Bosco wrote: > > 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 >
RE: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan
I know. This is very similar, only the fan base in more dedicated, much larger and has over 30 years of creative source material. So the resistance should not be that shocking From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of George Arterberry Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 9:08 AM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan Folks balked at a Battlestar Galactica remake. --- On Sat, 5/16/09, tdemorsella wrote: From: tdemorsella Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, May 16, 2009, 7:52 PM Well put Bosco. I could not have said it better. There were choices that were made that I did not agree with, but that did not take away from the story. These were his choices to make and his story to tell. He told HIS story well. I remember being in this place with Battlestar and their decision to make Starbuck a woman and Tigh White. While I still think that moore has some issues with Blacks and screwed up the finale, he told his story well and the casting decisions proved to good ones. I think Abrams bristles at some of the hardcore trekkers/trekkies reactions and sometimes goes out of his way to alienate them in his interviews and some of the marketing. I also think that some of that dynamic in going on with his bizarro relationship with Shatner. I like Shatner, but he sometimes does appear to have some type of Star Trek god complex going on. If Abrams is the type of person who does not brush off his shoulders when outsiders tell him they think he is wrong, then that might explain some of his actions. I think Shatner going public with his crusade to be on the show, guaranteed his fate. It was tacky and idiotic to take the casting issue to the public. I too found that a tremendous amount of work and care went into breathing life into a dying franchise, by evolving it into something new, a wonderful hybrid of new and old,while staying true to some many of the aspects that are important to trekkies. I was home again. I saw flaws, but overall after years of missteps with Trek films over the last decade or so, (First Contact being the exception) Abrams delivered the goods. I also saw improvements. In my mind, I hated that Uhuru, Sulu, Scotty and Chekov were glorified extras. I see potential for more character development with their characters. In a way, there was more character development for them in two hours than in the entire three years the series was on. Showing more of the internal batter with being both human and vulcan was also an interesting move in my opinion. Just remember, two years ago, we did not know if or when there would be a new trek film or show. Now, thanks to Abrams, we have Trekkers 2.0 with new fans that are hooked on the Trek mythology. We are likely to have guaranteed at least a decade of trek films and there is a Trek series in the works with a really good producer with great scifi production credentials. we also will likely see even more scifi movie productions. With all the money that will be made, if there are ways to keep production casts down, networks will open up again to more scifi series. The man gave us a gift. --- In scifino...@yahoogro ups.com, Bosco Bosco wrote: > > 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.
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan
I think BSG isn't a good example, because it's a solid 70s franchise that had only a small cult following. Even hardcore scifi fans like me weren't invested in BSG. It hadn't spawned several series, movies, hundreds of books, etc. It wasn't in the cultural zeitgeist like Trek. And as I pointed out earlier, it can be argued that Ron Moore actually *acted* layers of complexity to the BSG universe, not cut them away in order to make things easier. The best example of this would be if someone rewrote "Star Wars" right now, updating it and changing key plot points. Oh the hue and cry there'd be if that were done! Heck , they can't forgive Lucas for the "Han fired first" redo! - Original Message - From: "George Arterberry" To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 12:07:51 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan Folks balked at a Battlestar Galactica remake. --- On Sat, 5/16/09, tdemorsella wrote: From: tdemorsella Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, May 16, 2009, 7:52 PM Well put Bosco. I could not have said it better. There were choices that were made that I did not agree with, but that did not take away from the story. These were his choices to make and his story to tell. He told HIS story well. I remember being in this place with Battlestar and their decision to make Starbuck a woman and Tigh White. While I still think that moore has some issues with Blacks and screwed up the finale, he told his story well and the casting decisions proved to good ones. I think Abrams bristles at some of the hardcore trekkers/trekkies reactions and sometimes goes out of his way to alienate them in his interviews and some of the marketing. I also think that some of that dynamic in going on with his bizarro relationship with Shatner. I like Shatner, but he sometimes does appear to have some type of Star Trek god complex going on. If Abrams is the type of person who does not brush off his shoulders when outsiders tell him they think he is wrong, then that might explain some of his actions. I think Shatner going public with his crusade to be on the show, guaranteed his fate. It was tacky and idiotic to take the casting issue to the public. I too found that a tremendous amount of work and care went into breathing life into a dying franchise, by evolving it into something new, a wonderful hybrid of new and old,while staying true to some many of the aspects that are important to trekkies. I was home again. I saw flaws, but overall after years of missteps with Trek films over the last decade or so, (First Contact being the exception) Abrams delivered the goods. I also saw improvements. In my mind, I hated that Uhuru, Sulu, Scotty and Chekov were glorified extras. I see potential for more character development with their characters. In a way, there was more character development for them in two hours than in the entire three years the series was on. Showing more of the internal batter with being both human and vulcan was also an interesting move in my opinion. Just remember, two years ago, we did not know if or when there would be a new trek film or show. Now, thanks to Abrams, we have Trekkers 2.0 with new fans that are hooked on the Trek mythology. We are likely to have guaranteed at least a decade of trek films and there is a Trek series in the works with a really good producer with great scifi production credentials. we also will likely see even more scifi movie productions. With all the money that will be made, if there are ways to keep production casts down, networks will open up again to more scifi series. The man gave us a gift. --- In scifino...@yahoogro ups.com , Bosco Bosco wrote: > > 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 abou
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan
(standing ovation) -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan Date : Sun, 17 May 2009 22:06:11 + (UTC) From : Keith Johnson To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com I think BSG isn't a good example, because it's a solid 70s franchise that had only a small cult following. Even hardcore scifi fans like me weren't invested in BSG. It hadn't spawned several series, movies, hundreds of books, etc. It wasn't in the cultural zeitgeist like Trek. And as I pointed out earlier, it can be argued that Ron Moore actually *acted* layers of complexity to the BSG universe, not cut them away in order to make things easier. The best example of this would be if someone rewrote "Star Wars" right now, updating it and changing key plot points. Oh the hue and cry there'd be if that were done! Heck , they can't forgive Lucas for the "Han fired first" redo! - Original Message - From: "George Arterberry" To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 12:07:51 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan Folks balked at a Battlestar Galactica remake. --- On Sat, 5/16/09, tdemorsella wrote: From: tdemorsella Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, May 16, 2009, 7:52 PM Well put Bosco. I could not have said it better. There were choices that were made that I did not agree with, but that did not take away from the story. These were his choices to make and his story to tell. He told HIS story well. I remember being in this place with Battlestar and their decision to make Starbuck a woman and Tigh White. While I still think that moore has some issues with Blacks and screwed up the finale, he told his story well and the casting decisions proved to good ones. I think Abrams bristles at some of the hardcore trekkers/trekkies reactions and sometimes goes out of his way to alienate them in his interviews and some of the marketing. I also think that some of that dynamic in going on with his bizarro relationship with Shatner. I like Shatner, but he sometimes does appear to have some type of Star Trek god complex going on. If Abrams is the type of person who does not brush off his shoulders when outsiders tell him they think he is wrong, then that might explain some of his actions. I think Shatner going public with his crusade to be on the show, guaranteed his fate. It was tacky and idiotic to take the casting issue to the public. I too found that a tremendous amount of work and care went into breathing life into a dying franchise, by evolving it into something new, a wonderful hybrid of new and old,while staying true to some many of the aspects that are important to trekkies. I was home again. I saw flaws, but overall after years of missteps with Trek films over the last decade or so, (First Contact being the exception) Abrams delivered the goods. I also saw improvements. In my mind, I hated that Uhuru, Sulu, Scotty and Chekov were glorified extras. I see potential for more character development with their characters. In a way, there was more character development for them in two hours than in the entire three years the series was on. Showing more of the internal batter with being both human and vulcan was also an interesting move in my opinion. Just remember, two years ago, we did not know if or when there would be a new trek film or show. Now, thanks to Abrams, we have Trekkers 2.0 with new fans that are hooked on the Trek mythology. We are likely to have guaranteed at least a decade of trek films and there is a Trek series in the works with a really good producer with great scifi production credentials. we also will likely see even more scifi movie productions. With all the money that will be made, if there are ways to keep production casts down, networks will open up again to more scifi series. The man gave us a gift. --- In scifino...@yahoogro ups.com , Bosco Bosco wrote: > > 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 &g
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan
I agree with you, I think he did what he thought was best for the series to bring more people to view it. I am sure all the other movies needed was good writers that could have saved it. Now on the flip side of all of this--if a new show was to spun from the movie or future movies perhaps it will not go on UPN, which proved the death of Voyager and Enterprise. Which based on some, was already dying just had Scotty to squeeze a little more time out of it. Perhaps Sci-fi channel will adapt it. --Lavender -- From: "tdemorsella" Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 7:52 PM To: Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan > Well put Bosco. I could not have said it better. There were choices that > were made that I did not agree with, but that did not take away from the > story. These were his choices to make and his story to tell. He told HIS > story well. I remember being in this place with Battlestar and their > decision to make Starbuck a woman and Tigh White. While I still think > that moore has some issues with Blacks and screwed up the finale, he told > his story well and the casting decisions proved to good ones. > > I think Abrams bristles at some of the hardcore trekkers/trekkies > reactions and sometimes goes out of his way to alienate them in his > interviews and some of the marketing. I also think that some of that > dynamic in going on with his bizarro relationship with Shatner. I like > Shatner, but he sometimes does appear to have some type of Star Trek god > complex going on. If Abrams is the type of person who does not brush off > his shoulders when outsiders tell him they think he is wrong, then that > might explain some of his actions. I think Shatner going public with his > crusade to be on the show, guaranteed his fate. It was tacky and idiotic > to take the casting issue to the public. > > I too found that a tremendous amount of work and care went into breathing > life into a dying franchise, by evolving it into something new, a > wonderful hybrid of new and old,while staying true to some many of the > aspects that are important to trekkies. I was home again. I saw flaws, > but overall after years of missteps with Trek films over the last decade > or so, (First Contact being the exception) Abrams delivered the goods. I > also saw improvements. In my mind, I hated that Uhuru, Sulu, Scotty and > Chekov were glorified extras. I see potential for more character > development with their characters. In a way, there was more character > development for them in two hours than in the entire three years the > series was on. Showing more of the internal batter with being both human > and vulcan was also an interesting move in my opinion. > > Just remember, two years ago, we did not know if or when there would be a > new trek film or show. Now, thanks to Abrams, we have Trekkers 2.0 with > new fans that are hooked on the Trek mythology. We are likely to have > guaranteed at least a decade of trek films and there is a Trek series in > the works with a really good producer with great scifi production > credentials. we also will likely see even more scifi movie productions. > > With all the money that will be made, if there are ways to keep production > casts down, networks will open up again to more scifi series. > > The man gave us a gift. > > --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Bosco Bosco wrote: >> >> 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 th
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan
The scifi channel has picked up a few good series like that. I don't know what their budget situation is right now, but I'm sure that they aren't doing much except for the stargate series and ghost hunter shows. On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 12:33 PM, wrote: > I agree with you, I think he did what he thought was best for the series to > bring more people to view it. I am sure all the other movies needed was > good > writers that could have saved it. Now on the flip side of all of this--if a > new show was to spun from the movie or future movies perhaps it will not go > on UPN, which proved the death of Voyager and Enterprise. Which based on > some, was already dying just had Scotty to squeeze a little more time out > of > it. Perhaps Sci-fi channel will adapt it. > --Lavender > > -- > From: "tdemorsella" > Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 7:52 PM > To: > Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William > Shatner Or Khan > > > Well put Bosco. I could not have said it better. There were choices > that > > were made that I did not agree with, but that did not take away from the > > story. These were his choices to make and his story to tell. He told > HIS > > story well. I remember being in this place with Battlestar and their > > decision to make Starbuck a woman and Tigh White. While I still think > > that moore has some issues with Blacks and screwed up the finale, he > told > > his story well and the casting decisions proved to good ones. > > > > I think Abrams bristles at some of the hardcore trekkers/trekkies > > reactions and sometimes goes out of his way to alienate them in his > > interviews and some of the marketing. I also think that some of that > > dynamic in going on with his bizarro relationship with Shatner. I like > > Shatner, but he sometimes does appear to have some type of Star Trek god > > complex going on. If Abrams is the type of person who does not brush off > > his shoulders when outsiders tell him they think he is wrong, then that > > might explain some of his actions. I think Shatner going public with his > > crusade to be on the show, guaranteed his fate. It was tacky and idiotic > > to take the casting issue to the public. > > > > I too found that a tremendous amount of work and care went into breathing > > life into a dying franchise, by evolving it into something new, a > > wonderful hybrid of new and old,while staying true to some many of the > > aspects that are important to trekkies. I was home again. I saw flaws, > > but overall after years of missteps with Trek films over the last decade > > or so, (First Contact being the exception) Abrams delivered the goods. I > > also saw improvements. In my mind, I hated that Uhuru, Sulu, Scotty and > > Chekov were glorified extras. I see potential for more character > > development with their characters. In a way, there was more character > > development for them in two hours than in the entire three years the > > series was on. Showing more of the internal batter with being both human > > and vulcan was also an interesting move in my opinion. > > > > Just remember, two years ago, we did not know if or when there would be a > > new trek film or show. Now, thanks to Abrams, we have Trekkers 2.0 with > > new fans that are hooked on the Trek mythology. We are likely to have > > guaranteed at least a decade of trek films and there is a Trek series in > > the works with a really good producer with great scifi production > > credentials. we also will likely see even more scifi movie productions. > > > > With all the money that will be made, if there are ways to keep > production > > casts down, networks will open up again to more scifi series. > > > > The man gave us a gift. > > > > --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Bosco Bosco wrote: > >> > >> 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 fictio
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan
Can't really argue with that. I'm not a reality series fan either. - Original Message - From: "ravenadal" To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:40:21 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William Shatner Or Khan I think being the "best reality show" is akin to being the "biggest midget" and I, personally, find "The Amazing Race" no more redeeming than say, "The Biggest Loser." But, I am an inveterate channel surfer and I always stop for black people - so I saw some of this year's "Amazing Race." Those sisters were cut throat (and I mean that in "good" way)! Of course, this also lead to them, black women, being cast as the villians of the piece but even (warning: Amos 'n' Andy reference up ahead) Sapphire shines. ~rave! --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com , Keith Johnson wrote: > > That is a trip! On Tom Joyner's show, she said the finish line was farther > away than people might think, and that she simply couldn't make it. Still, I > might have wet myself for that prize money! > > - Original Message - > From: wlro...@... > To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 5:53:53 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William > Shatner Or Khan > > > > > > > > > > Yea I was watching Amazing Race and yelling at the screen, as if she could > hear me, that she should just pee at the matt. But just think she could not > tell anyone until the show aired. Imagine sitting in the room and having the > crowd or family asking or saying what in the heck were you saying. > --Lavender > > > > > From: Keith Johnson > Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 6:20 PM > To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William > Shatner Or Khan > > > The only reality show that's consistently given rave reviews by critics and > fans is "The Amazing Race". I've watched very little of it, but it's more > fun, more intelligent, and more "real" seeming by far, due to its treasure > hunter nature. > > And something I find very intriguing about "The Amazing Race": I believe that > two of its million-dollar winners have been teams of black people. That is > something rarely seen in reality TV, and I've been puzzling what that means. > It's got a more open structure, one less based on silly cabals and > backstabbing like "Survivor", and not on dumb projects and godlike judgements > a la "The Apprenctice". Yeah it's got its "eat the frog's testicles and > bull's brains" foolishness. But it's also won by people who can hustle, > decipher clues, adapt quickly to new environments, and really work well with > a partner. In that way it reminds me of rally racing. > > And I understand this last contest possibly could have been won by two > Sisters, but one of them had to take a bathroom break--just as her team was > entering a stadium where a few hundred yard run could have given them the > prize! It was the butt of jokes recently: how a lady's "small bladder" cost > her team a million bucks! > > - Original Message - > From: "Tracey de Morsella" > To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:11:19 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: RE: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William > Shatner Or Khan > > > > > > > > > > > > Argh!! I HATE REALITY TV! > > > > > > From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto: scifinoir2@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" > 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. > > :-(
