Message from discussion Classical SF query
Received: by 10.224.213.1 with SMTP id gu1mr9848824qab.7.1349554733094;
Sat, 06 Oct 2012 13:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.156.115 with SMTP id wd19mr2146622vdb.2.1349554733052; Sat,
06 Oct 2012 13:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2012 13:18:52 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=188.8.131.52;
References: <email@example.com> <M0ubs.firstname.lastname@example.org>
<email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <adbbgqFhmvpU1@mid.individual.net>
Subject: Re: Classical SF query
From: Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 20:18:53 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Saturday, October 6, 2012 7:27:41 PM UTC+1, Greg Goss wrote:
> "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"Brian M. Scott" wrote
> >On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:29:14 +1200, Your Name
> >> Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >>> On 10/5/2012 1:58 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> >>>> But it IS Star Trek. It's an excellent version of Trek, a
> >>>> reimagining
> >>> *BZZZZ* That right there makes it "Not Trek".
> This whole subthread is attached to the wrong part of the "new trek"
> topic. DT was making a simple throw-away joke that if it's
> "excellent" then it's not authentic Star Trek.
> All these comments for and against the new movie seem to have missed
> that point.
Well - I think DT was declaring that "a reimagining" = "Not Trek",
rather than saying that "excellent" is the difficulty. Since the quote
ends abruptly on "the r word".
I haven't seen the latest film, and what I've heard about it
troubles me. I expect someday it'll show up on TV and I'll have
the time, or of course there's be another re-re-imagining,
or I'll die and get cryogenically frozen and wake up with
Deforest Kelley or Gates McFadden or New Guy grating pepper on
my re-animated being and can decide for myself.