Comments -

All karas1's Comments

Showing items 2,791 - 2,800 of 3,100
<<  <  277 278 279 280 281 282 283 >  >>  

STAR TREK (Article) - 5/9/2009 9:49:06 AM

But Hobbs, they used a brand new fresh spanking crew in TNG and DS9 and Voyager and all 3 were tremendously successful.  Each new series went for SEVEN seasons and only ended because the actors' contracts were up and they wanted to move on.  So why wouldn't a movie with a new crew do well?  ESPECIALLY since Abrams is trying to attract new viewers who aren't ST fans and wouldn't know Kirk from a hole in the ground anyway.

The series that didn't do well, Enterprise, had 2 things against it. 

First, Brannon and Braga and the other producers and show runners had been doing ST for 15 or so years and they were, to put it bluntly, out of fresh ideas.  As big a fan of ST as I am, I quit watching Voyager around year 4 because it had gotten boring.  The same 6 ideas were being recycled endlessly and the characters weren't engaging enough to keep me interested anyway.

I never watched Enterprise because the same people who bored me with Voyager were running it. 

Secondly, Enterprise went back in time before Kirk and made a mishmash of the established continuity and I didn't want to see it.  They tried to fix it (I've heard) with a story arc about villians going back in time and screwing up the timeline.  The fans didn't buy it.  It only lasted 4 seasons, which when you think about it, isn't bad for a network TV show.

The fans didn't like timewarp retconning in Enterprise, Why should they like it in this new movie?

And since the viewers that Abrams is trying to attract never watched TOS anyway, why should they be more attracted by Captain Kirk then they would be by Captain Romelovich?  Run a few commercials with clips of a space battle and explosions and a couple of scantily clad green women with bodacious tatas and all your bored twentysomething movie goers who have had nothing better to watch than Fast and Furious since December will be running to the theaters in droves.  And Abrams would have a whole new franchise to play with WITHOUT offending long time fans (we have money too, why alienate us if you don't have to?)  You could even cast the exact same actors and use the flourescent sets and everything.

STAR TREK (Article) - 5/9/2009 7:48:54 AM

< it was just becoming too cumbersome to have to stop the process of storytelling in order to determine if person X was in place Y at such and such time. Imagine how difficult it would be to tell GOOD stories when you're going back to Kirk and Spock in their early years, while having to tiptoe around all the previously established continuity.>

Which is the best reason not to go back in time and tell stories about Kirk and Spock before TOS.  It would have been better to do a movie with different characters that would take place AFTER  Voyager.  Then you could chart your own course and do your own thing and tell your own stories and not have to worry that if you kill off Comodore Decker he won't be around to play his part in The Doomsday Machine episode or whatever.

Now, I haven't seen the film yet (I'm going to tomorrow) but from what I understand, they pull a fast one with a time warp which apparently sets up the crew of the Enterprise to have all new adventures and invalidates 40 years of ST storytelling.  Why?  So they can call their characters Kirk and Spock?  Why not invent all new characters who are similar?  Brash young officers and logical alien scientists must be a dime a dozen in the federation.  The adventures of Captain George Romelovich and his buddies Dr Glasser and Mr Xrughtlyn in the 25th century have a lot more appeal to me than the adventures of Kirk, Spock and McCoy in an alternate dimension with new actors and sets.

And with Paramount's marketing dept it would be all the same to these new potential fans who never watched the old show anyway.  It would be a big summer popcorn flick with space ships and aliens and exploding suns.  All the same people would go to see it.  So I repeat, what is the point?

STAR TREK (Article) - 5/8/2009 11:33:24 AM

Joeybaloney, you are so eloquent.  You said exactly what I've been trying to say.

I get the feeling that Abrams thinks Star Trek is old fashioned and dumb.  So he wants to change it to make it "cool".  What he fails to realize is that the definition of "cool" changes and what looks cool today will look dated and dumb in a few years.  Star Trek has something that has made it popular for 40 years with 5 TV series (six if you count the cartoon), 7 movies and countless tie in novels, toys and games.  There have been hugely popular Star Trek conventions for generations. 

You know, this Star Trek might just have something, some quality that's worth something.  It might be something that Abrams in his quest for cool might not understand or value.  And that would be sad.

BTW, I get the feeling that certain Maniacs might feel that Star Trek is old fashioned and dumb also which is why they are so pumped that it has been reimagined.  If so, you are entitled to that oppinion.  I probably don't like all the franchises that you value either.  But the attitude that those of us who fear that something we love has been tarnished should stop counting rivets and get a life is getting on my nerves.  We have as much right to be nervous as you do to be pumped.

Kara S 

The Best of Star Trek: The Next Generation (Article) - 5/7/2009 12:49:39 PM

My favorite TNG episode, I think it's called Brothers (though I could be wrong) is the one where Data is kidnapped by Dr Soon and then Lore shows up.  I also liked the one where Data had a daughter.

Probably my least favorite was the one where parts of the Enterprise were turning into a stone temple.  And it didn't seem to affect hull integrity.  My second least favorite was the one where the crew were de-evolving.  Did you know that humans evolved from Spiders?  Me neither.

STAR TREK (Article) - 5/7/2009 12:36:04 PM

I'll see the film and who knows, I may like it.  But it's supposed to be "not your father's Star Trek".  And since I'm old enough to be the parent of the new fan that Abrams is courting, he has stated that this is not the film for me.  So what am I supposed to think?

I guess I'll just have to plunk down my money and see you all on Monday to debate the film's merrits.

Kara S

10 Reasons to be Worried About STAR TREK (Article) - 5/7/2009 12:03:48 PM

"Another thing if most of you guys are so smart and talented why are none of you directing or writing Star Trek... None of you are creative enough to pull it off...Could any of you have done any better."

Probably because we are not hollywood writers or directors.  This does not mean we can't have an oppinion about movies.  If I go to a resturant and do not enjoy my meal I don't have to be a professional chef to know the food sucked.  Neither do you.  We just have to be customers who want good value for our money, wether in a meal or a movie.

10 Reasons to be Worried About STAR TREK (Article) - 5/7/2009 4:12:52 AM

>Everybody is a critic. Fanboys bashed the Star Wars prequels and then went to the toy store to compete with kids for the toys.<

Not all of us who hated the Star Wars prequels went to the toy store.  Some of us saw the films, hated them, and then tried to forget we ever saw them because they disgraced the memory of the first 3 films that we loved so much.

As for the new BSG, I liked it and I watched it.  It was a quality show.  But it was so different from the original it could have been a different show.  I wish it HAD been a different show.  If they had done the exact same show but used different names for the characters it would have been just as good.

I still haven't forgiven them for making Starbuck a woman.

And I really don't wat to see these things happening to Star Trek.

Kara S

NBC Announces Pick-ups for 2009-2010 (Article) - 5/5/2009 12:16:03 PM

snallygaster, you are not the only one at Mania who follows Medium.

Dollhouse Hangs up the Barbie Clothes (Article) - 5/5/2009 4:17:20 AM

None of you watch Reaper on Tuesdays?  Why not?

NBC Announces Pick-ups for 2009-2010 (Article) - 5/5/2009 4:07:59 AM


Executive producer Peter Berg (NBC's "Friday Night Lights") delivers "Trauma," the first high-octane medical drama series to live exclusively in the field where the real action is. Like an adrenaline shot to the heart, "Trauma" is an intense, action-packed look at one of the most dangerous medical professions in the world: first responder paramedics.


Does nobody remember the 70's show, Emergency, about paramedics?  As I remember, it was an entertaining show.  But the fact that it exists means that Trauma is not the first.


Date Joined: October 3, 2006