Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion Classical SF query
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Will in New Haven  
View profile  
 More options Oct 8 2012, 10:28 am
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv, rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.tv
From: Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 07:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Mon, Oct 8 2012 10:28 am
Subject: Re: Classical SF query
On Oct 5, 9:48 pm, Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:

> On 10/5/2012 1:58 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:

> > On 10/5/12 5:41 PM, Your Name wrote:

> >> Whether the movie (and it's inevitable sequels) was any good in it's own
> >> right isn't really relevant ... the problem is they aren't actually "Star
> >> Trek", and never will be.

> >      But it IS Star Trek. It's an excellent version of Trek, a
> > reimagining

> *BZZZZ*  That right there makes it "Not Trek".

Does being "Not Trek" make it bad? Considering that the best Trek is
mediocre, why is being "Not Trek" such a big deal?

--
Will in New Haven


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.