Subj : Re: Kirk and Spock in the news, again (link) To : All From : Wiseguy Date : Mon Jun 16 2014 01:50:40 From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos From Address: epwise@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Kirk and Spock in the news, again (link) Your Name wrote in news:150620141008481100%YourName@YourISP.com: > In article , Daniel > wrote: >> On 14/06/14 17:29, Wouter Valentijn wrote: >> > Your Name schreef op 14-6-2014 00:05: >> >> In article <539af9f9$0$2964$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl>, Wouter >> >> Valentijn wrote: >> >>> Your Name schreef op 13-6-2014 08:12: >> >>>> In article , ToolPackinMama >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> http://www.cnet.com/news/americans-think-star-trek-is-the- future >> >>>>> -not-sta r-wars-study-says/ >> >>>> >> >>>> Well, DUH! >> >>>> Star Wars is set "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away". >> >>>> Star Trek is set in Earth's near-ish future. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> ROFL >> >>> >> >>> I'd take Star Trek over Star Wars any day. >> >>> >> >>> Not that I'm totally anti Star Wars. I liked Star Wars (IV) and >> >>> TESB very much. ROTJ was a lesser movie and the prequels... Never >> >>> mind them. >> >> >> >> The only real issue with Star Wars is that there was such a long >> >> time between the trilogies, meaning they look quite different due >> >> to technology improvements, differeing style, over-the-top fight >> >> scenes, etc. Many of the later additions to the Original Trilogy >> >> look out of place with the older film quality / style. If all six >> >> (and soon a ridiculously tacked-on third Trilogy) had been made >> >> continuously like "Harry Potter", for example, then those >> >> differences would have been much less noticeable. >> >> >> > >> > "Improvements"... Not a word I'd use. :-) >> > Nah, I think the stories themselves took a nose dive. They became >> > more 'kiddiefied'. >> > I'd keep 'Star Wars' and "The Empire Stikes Back', but the rest.... >> > >> Seems to me, George Lucas, originally, made the discussion to produce >> Star Wars (i.e. chapter 4 in his original nine part storyline), >> whoever was able to convince him, much, much later, that parts one >> through three were worthwhile .... THAT PERSON SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN >> OUT THE BACK AND SHOT!! >> >> If they went anywhere, after 4, 5 and 6, it should have been 7 then!! > > There was never nine movies (nor 12 as in some reports) actually > planned. > > Originally there was a *ROUGH* story outline that *MIGHT* have made > nine or 12 movies, but that storyline was altered and squashed as the > full story was written. At one early point the mythical third Trilogy > was to be about Luke going off to find his sister (who was not then > Leia), and both coming back to defeat the Emperor. > > With the storyline there is now, the Saga finishes properly with the > death of the Emperor, the redemption of Anakin, and the "happily ever > after" ending. Tacking on a third Trilogy is nothing but pure > senseless money-grubbing and the idiotic current Hollyweird fad to > resurrect everything from the past because they simply don't have any > real ideas of their own (a fad probably started by George Lucas making > the Prequel Trilogy). > > If they want to make more movies in the Star Wars universe, then more > spin-off movies is fine (if done properly), but there's no need to add > more Episodes to the Saga itself. Perhaps we should start calling New Zealand "New Zealotland." --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp * Origin: TeraNews.com (1:2320/105.97) --- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux * Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1) .