Subj : Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to
To   : All
From : Duggy
Date : Fri Nov 18 2011 17:29:40

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." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Duggy" <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
>
> news:7bc5f90e-8d82-4562-8d23-47f5c3f54254@h31g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 4:50apm, Akira Norimaki <diotona...@gmail.com> 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)

.