Re: Abrams Talks About Trek XI Movie

In article <8dednbzTe7dK15PVnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "Steven
L." <sdlitvin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Stromata wrote:
> > ToolPackinMama wrote:
> >> A Star Trek movie needs to be action-filled and a real adventure. 
TOS
> >> was action-filled.  Captain Kirk was/is an action hero.
> >>
> >> There's never been a Star Trek show or movie that had no explosions.
> >> Even in the hippy trippy ST4 they crash landed their stolen Klingon
> >> ****p into San Francisco Bay!
> >>
> >> FABULOUS!
> >>
> >> That's more like it!
> > 
> > It's "fans" like you that give ST a bad name. ST to me was always
about 
> > strong stories, not explosions. 
> 
> As I said, the limitations on "explosions" were due to *cost*, not to 
> intent.
> 
> Let's remember that TOS was sold to NBC as an *action-adventure* show. 
> The reason there weren't gigantic space battles or fantastically 
> elaborate alien space ****ps or wars depicted among entire civilizations,

> is simply because Roddenberry couldn't afford them on a TV-sized budget.
> 
> Look how action-packed TAS was.  Because it was animated, it didn't cost

> any more to show gigantic explosions or giant space ****ps than to show 
> anything else.   So they showed them.

MacGyver is "action-adventure", but there's few explosions in that
either (with the exception of the opening title). "Action" only equals
"explosions" in the minds of the latest Hollyweird idiots who can't
actually write a two hour movie, so they fill it with explosions, car
chases and *** scenes to simply fill up the empty space ... it's just a
pity someone didn't fill the empty space between their ears.