Re: Abrams Talks About Trek XI Movie

In article <Xns9A88F12C13FE8epwiseyahoocom@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 Wiseguy <epwise@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in news:ANIM8Rfsk-
> 94EAB3.21202822042008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> > In article <Xns9A8886A4DE21epwiseyahoocom@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >  Wiseguy <epwise@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > 
> >> "Kweeg" <kweeg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> >> news:u8dPj.211035$pM4.164649@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
> >> 
> >> > "mrpemstar" <mrpemstar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> >> > news:fdaf70c0-9579-49c8-a714-19c8313a5617
> >> @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > .. 
> >> >>> >> If abrams is suggesting that he's going to do the same
> >> >>> >> thing to Star Trek that he did to MI, i.e., turn a series
> >> >>> >> whose plots involved complex intrigue into a slam-
> >> >>> >> bang action pic with lots of big explosions, then this
> >> >>> >> is *really* not encouraging.
> >> >>
> >> >>> > Why? TOS got sold to NBC as action-adventure. Any limitations 
> on
> >> >>> > action were not due to writing but due to cost. Roddenberry 
> didn't
> >> >>> > have the budget to show entire civilizations or wars between 
> whole
> >> >>> > civilizations,
> >> >>> > so the scripts were written to have a few token alien 
> characters
> >> >>> > stand there and explain what was going on (e.g., "Let That Be 
> Your
> >> >>> > Last Battlefield").
> >> >>
> >> >>> Indeed. All these people that moan on about "Roddenberry wouldn't
> >> >>> have done
> >> >>> that." Well Roddenberry did have the vision, but as far as a 
> writer
> >> >>> or producer goes he was mediocre at best. GR didn't give a damn
> >> >>> about continuity (or canon) in his own ST universe, if it would 
> make
> >> >>> money (or he
> >> >>> thought it was a good idea) he'd do it. One just has to look at 
> TMP
> >> >>> and the
> >> >>> first season of TNG to see that.
> >> >>> Lucas is also a good example of how to ruin one's own franchise.
> >> > 
> >> >>You are wrong on 2 points.
> >> >>1. This was not a venture about MONEY.
> >> > 
> >> > Since when has the entertainment industry been *not* a money making
> >> > venture? 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> >>This was a life long dream of
> >> >>Gene's, he was inspired by many s/f writers and had input from many

> of
> >> >>them in the 60's. So if you are gonna blame bad writing solely on
> >> >>Gene, you are mistaken.
> >> > 
> >> > Did Gene produce anything else that was successful? (err the anser 
> is
> >> > no) 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> >>2. Yes he DID CARE about his Star Trek universe, there were many
> >> >>copywrite lawsuits when he was alive of people infringing on HIS
> >> >>CREATION. There are many "unabridged" novels about Star Trek and 
> Gene
> >> >>made sure they were noted as so...
> >> > 
> >> > hmm litigation is about making money. GR didn't persue lawsuits
> >> > (usually against the very fans that made ST popular) Paramount (who
> >> > *own* the rights) did.
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> >>I suggest watching "city on the edge of forever" again, it almost 
> won
> >> >>a EMMY and was good writing to boot.
> >> > 
> >> > Indeed it was and BTW it *won* a Hugo Award. Gene didn't write it. 
> See
> >> > "Harlan Edison."
> >> > http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_City_on_the_Edge_of_Forever
> >> 
> >> But Roddenberry re-wrote it which caused the Ellison-Rodenberry feud 
> >> which continues to this day even with Roddenberry dead.
> >> 
> >> Harlan Edison invented the light bulb?
> >>  
> >> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**
> > 
> > Roddenberry didn't rewrite City.  DC Fontana did.
> > 
> 
> Even if he didn't do it himself, it was his decision.

Sure.  And he was right.

-- 
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.
http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg