info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
[NEWS] Greatest American Hero reboot :-\
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Your Name
Aug 29, 2014, 6:41:12 PM8/29/14
to
Yet another old favourite gets butchered by the lazy hack generation in
Hollyweird. :-(
From ComingSoon.net ...
Phil Lord and Chris Miller to Reboot
The Greatest American Hero for TV
------------------------------------
"The Greatest American Hero" is headed back to
television with a pilot in the works from the
"21 Jump Street" and "The LEGO Movie" team of
Phil Lord and Chris Miller! Deadline has the
news, reporting that the show is being
developed for FOX as an hourlong series.
Based on the ABC-TV series which ran from 1980
to 1983, "The Greatest American Hero" follows
a nebbishy teacher who becomes a reluctant
superhero after extraterrestrials give him a
special suit with powers he can barely
understand or control when he loses its
instruction manual. The original stars William
Katt, Robert Culp and Connie Sellecca.
Lord and Miller are working alongside Tawnia
McKiernan, the daughter of the original show's
creator, Steven J. Cannell. The pair will
executive produce alongside Seth Cohen and
Rodney Rothman, who is also attached to write.
Dimensional Traveler
Aug 29, 2014, 11:33:01 PM8/29/14
to
--
"The Snark must flow!" - Shaddam Emperor Animfsk the 8th
Your Name
Aug 30, 2014, 2:27:48 AM8/30/14
to
In article <540145d5$0$36572$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Dimensional
There was a previous rumour quite a while back about a new Greatest
American Hero series, but I'm not sure if it was the same guys or if
the previous one got dropped ... hopefully this one will get dropped
before it is made too.
American Hero series, but I'm not sure if it was the same guys or if
the previous one got dropped ... hopefully this one will get dropped
before it is made too.
Azathoth
Aug 31, 2014, 3:18:31 AM8/31/14
to
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 18:27:48 +1200, Your Name wrote:
> There was a previous rumour quite a while back about a new Greatest
> American Hero series, but I'm not sure if it was the same guys or if the
> previous one got dropped ... hopefully this one will get dropped before
> it is made too.
Why "hopefully"? You don't have to watch it if you don't like remakes of
> There was a previous rumour quite a while back about a new Greatest
> American Hero series, but I'm not sure if it was the same guys or if the
> previous one got dropped ... hopefully this one will get dropped before
> it is made too.
things.
Your Name
Aug 31, 2014, 5:21:07 PM8/31/14
to
In article <ltui87$39s$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Azathoth
The idiots making them don't have to re-use the original's name for
what is in reality a very different product. In fact the idiots making
them should stop being lazy, talentless hack and actually come up with
their own ideas, instead of just butchering someone else's hard wok
from the past.
what is in reality a very different product. In fact the idiots making
them should stop being lazy, talentless hack and actually come up with
their own ideas, instead of just butchering someone else's hard wok
from the past.
Azathoth
Aug 31, 2014, 7:06:47 PM8/31/14
to
holding a gun to your head and forcing you to watch it.
Your Name
Aug 31, 2014, 9:07:50 PM8/31/14
to
In article <lu09q7$b0h$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Azathoth
A. Re-using the same name for a very different product is
moronically stupid. NAMES HAVE MEANING.
B. It destroys whatever is left of the original franchise,
including any even remote hope of a getting properly
fitting addition.
C. It's sheer laziness and over-egoed stupidity to
butcher someone else's hard work.
moronically stupid. NAMES HAVE MEANING.
B. It destroys whatever is left of the original franchise,
including any even remote hope of a getting properly
fitting addition.
C. It's sheer laziness and over-egoed stupidity to
butcher someone else's hard work.
anim8rFSK
Aug 31, 2014, 9:52:33 PM8/31/14
to
In article <lu09q7$b0h$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
You can't know that.
--
Wait - are you saying that ClodReamer was wrong, or lying?
--
Wait - are you saying that ClodReamer was wrong, or lying?
David Johnston
Aug 31, 2014, 10:58:20 PM8/31/14
to
Azathoth
Sep 1, 2014, 12:57:25 AM9/1/14
to
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 13:07:50 +1200, Your Name wrote:
>> Again, why do you care what they call it or how original it is?
>> Nobody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to watch it.
>
> A. Re-using the same name for a very different product is
> moronically stupid. NAMES HAVE MEANING.
Again, that's your opinion. If you don't watch it, why does that opinion
>> Again, why do you care what they call it or how original it is?
>> Nobody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to watch it.
>
> A. Re-using the same name for a very different product is
> moronically stupid. NAMES HAVE MEANING.
matter?
> B. It destroys whatever is left of the original franchise,
Amazing Spider-Man" appeared in theaters, the Tobey Maguire trilogy would
have ceased to exist, but half the cable channels I get keep rerunning
them seemingly every damn weekend, and the copy of 3 I have still is
sitting in my DVD rack. I also have the complete collection of Star Trek:
The Original Series, which I was able to obtain long *after* TNG started
airing back in the 80s.
> including any even remote hope of a getting properly fitting
> addition.
installments of questionable style followed by a better one -- the
silliness factor in Superman III and Superman IV was gone again in
Superman Returns, and lots of people think Man of Steel was as good as
Superman II. And second, if there ever is a "properly fitting addition"
you'll come here and start whining that it "destroyed the franchise" and
"why couldn't they make something *original* for once?"
> C. It's sheer laziness and over-egoed stupidity to
> butcher someone else's hard work.
making something similar but new that stands beside it?
Azathoth
Sep 1, 2014, 12:58:22 AM9/1/14
to
whining to usenet about some old show being remade.
Your Name
Sep 1, 2014, 2:12:00 AM9/1/14
to
In article <lu0ubl$e12$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Azathoth
There is no opinion.
Fact: The reboot re-uses the old name.
Fact: The reboot is (almost always) very different to the original,
in some cases the people making it even say so themselves!
> > B. It destroys whatever is left of the original franchise,
>
> Huh??? You really must be joking. If what you said was true, when "The
> Amazing Spider-Man" appeared in theaters, the Tobey Maguire trilogy would
> have ceased to exist, but half the cable channels I get keep rerunning
> them seemingly every damn weekend, and the copy of 3 I have still is
> sitting in my DVD rack. I also have the complete collection of Star Trek:
> The Original Series, which I was able to obtain long *after* TNG started
> airing back in the 80s.
Where did I say the old material suddenly disappeared??
I said it destroys the franchise. It makes a confused mess of
conflicting versions all with the same name.
> > including any even remote hope of a getting properly fitting
> > addition.
>
> That also doesn't make sense. First of all, you can indeed get
> installments of questionable style followed by a better one -- the
> silliness factor in Superman III and Superman IV was gone again in
> Superman Returns, and lots of people think Man of Steel was as good as
> Superman II. And second, if there ever is a "properly fitting addition"
> you'll come here and start whining that it "destroyed the franchise" and
> "why couldn't they make something *original* for once?"
"Good", there's your pointlessly idiotic opinion.
Whether it's "good" or not isn't relevant to the point. The reboot
version would still be just as "good" if it used a different name and
so didn't pee all over the original.
> > C. It's sheer laziness and over-egoed stupidity to
> > butcher someone else's hard work.
>
> How can you "butcher" something without destroying the original, just by
> making something similar but new that stands beside it?
Whatever you're smoking, you should stop now. It's destroying your
braincells. :-\
<azat...@outer.darkness.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 13:07:50 +1200, Your Name wrote:
>
> >> Again, why do you care what they call it or how original it is?
> >> Nobody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to watch it.
> >
> > A. Re-using the same name for a very different product is
> > moronically stupid. NAMES HAVE MEANING.
>
> Again, that's your opinion. If you don't watch it, why does that opinion
> matter?
Oh God. Here we go again. :-\
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 13:07:50 +1200, Your Name wrote:
>
> >> Again, why do you care what they call it or how original it is?
> >> Nobody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to watch it.
> >
> > A. Re-using the same name for a very different product is
> > moronically stupid. NAMES HAVE MEANING.
>
> Again, that's your opinion. If you don't watch it, why does that opinion
> matter?
There is no opinion.
Fact: The reboot re-uses the old name.
Fact: The reboot is (almost always) very different to the original,
in some cases the people making it even say so themselves!
> > B. It destroys whatever is left of the original franchise,
>
> Huh??? You really must be joking. If what you said was true, when "The
> Amazing Spider-Man" appeared in theaters, the Tobey Maguire trilogy would
> have ceased to exist, but half the cable channels I get keep rerunning
> them seemingly every damn weekend, and the copy of 3 I have still is
> sitting in my DVD rack. I also have the complete collection of Star Trek:
> The Original Series, which I was able to obtain long *after* TNG started
> airing back in the 80s.
I said it destroys the franchise. It makes a confused mess of
conflicting versions all with the same name.
> > including any even remote hope of a getting properly fitting
> > addition.
>
> That also doesn't make sense. First of all, you can indeed get
> installments of questionable style followed by a better one -- the
> silliness factor in Superman III and Superman IV was gone again in
> Superman Returns, and lots of people think Man of Steel was as good as
> Superman II. And second, if there ever is a "properly fitting addition"
> you'll come here and start whining that it "destroyed the franchise" and
> "why couldn't they make something *original* for once?"
Whether it's "good" or not isn't relevant to the point. The reboot
version would still be just as "good" if it used a different name and
so didn't pee all over the original.
> > C. It's sheer laziness and over-egoed stupidity to
> > butcher someone else's hard work.
>
> How can you "butcher" something without destroying the original, just by
> making something similar but new that stands beside it?
braincells. :-\
David Johnston
Sep 1, 2014, 2:20:12 AM9/1/14
to
On 9/1/2014 12:12 AM, Your Name wrote:
>
>>> including any even remote hope of a getting properly fitting
>>> addition.
>>
>> That also doesn't make sense. First of all, you can indeed get
>> installments of questionable style followed by a better one -- the
>> silliness factor in Superman III and Superman IV was gone again in
>> Superman Returns, and lots of people think Man of Steel was as good as
>> Superman II. And second, if there ever is a "properly fitting addition"
>> you'll come here and start whining that it "destroyed the franchise" and
>> "why couldn't they make something *original* for once?"
>
> "Good", there's your pointlessly idiotic opinion.
>
> Whether it's "good" or not isn't relevant to the point. The reboot
> version would still be just as "good" if it used a different name and
> so didn't pee all over the original.
Except for the part where it doesn't get to air.
>
>>> including any even remote hope of a getting properly fitting
>>> addition.
>>
>> That also doesn't make sense. First of all, you can indeed get
>> installments of questionable style followed by a better one -- the
>> silliness factor in Superman III and Superman IV was gone again in
>> Superman Returns, and lots of people think Man of Steel was as good as
>> Superman II. And second, if there ever is a "properly fitting addition"
>> you'll come here and start whining that it "destroyed the franchise" and
>> "why couldn't they make something *original* for once?"
>
> "Good", there's your pointlessly idiotic opinion.
>
> Whether it's "good" or not isn't relevant to the point. The reboot
> version would still be just as "good" if it used a different name and
> so didn't pee all over the original.
Azathoth
Sep 1, 2014, 7:12:13 AM9/1/14
to
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 18:12:00 +1200, Your Name wrote:
> In article <lu0ubl$e12$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Azathoth
> <azat...@outer.darkness.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 13:07:50 +1200, Your Name wrote:
>>
>> >> Again, why do you care what they call it or how original it is?
>> >> Nobody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to watch it.
>> >
>> > A. Re-using the same name for a very different product is
>> > moronically stupid. NAMES HAVE MEANING.
>>
>> Again, that's your opinion. If you don't watch it, why does that
>> opinion matter?
>
> Oh God. Here we go again. :-\
Go where?
> In article <lu0ubl$e12$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Azathoth
> <azat...@outer.darkness.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 13:07:50 +1200, Your Name wrote:
>>
>> >> Again, why do you care what they call it or how original it is?
>> >> Nobody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to watch it.
>> >
>> > A. Re-using the same name for a very different product is
>> > moronically stupid. NAMES HAVE MEANING.
>>
>> Again, that's your opinion. If you don't watch it, why does that
>> opinion matter?
>
> Oh God. Here we go again. :-\
> There is no opinion.
Sure there is. Anytime someone says something is "moronically stupid",
unless he's a qualified professional that just administered an IQ test to
it, he's stating an opinion.
> Fact: The reboot re-uses the old name.
> Fact: The reboot is (almost always) very different to the original,
> in some cases the people making it even say so themselves!
material, in the essentials. For example, Superman always comes from
Krypton, launched in infancy away from the dying planet and landing in
Kansas, and has the particular powers he has, plus a very high moral
standard (very little violence by him and it takes funky forms of
kryptonite or other manipulations to get any kind of dark-side behavior
out of him). Assumes the civilian identity of Clark Kent for non-
superheroic stuff. Etc.
>> > B. It destroys whatever is left of the original franchise,
>>
>> Huh??? You really must be joking. If what you said was true, when "The
>> Amazing Spider-Man" appeared in theaters, the Tobey Maguire trilogy
>> would have ceased to exist, but half the cable channels I get keep
>> rerunning them seemingly every damn weekend, and the copy of 3 I have
>> still is sitting in my DVD rack. I also have the complete collection of
>> Star Trek: The Original Series, which I was able to obtain long *after*
>> TNG started airing back in the 80s.
>
> Where did I say the old material suddenly disappeared??
> I said it destroys the franchise. It makes a confused mess of
> conflicting versions all with the same name.
character like Batman, that's your problem. The rest of the world is not
obliged to limit its entertainment options just to avoid confusing the
easily muddled.
> "Good", there's your [insult deleted] opinion.
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are
at all true.
> Whether it's "good" or not isn't relevant to the point.
> The reboot version would still be just as "good" if it used a different
> name and so didn't pee all over the original.
>> > C. It's sheer laziness and over-egoed stupidity to
>> > butcher someone else's hard work.
>>
>> How can you "butcher" something without destroying the original, just
>> by making something similar but new that stands beside it?
>
> Whatever you're smoking, you should stop now.
> It's [insult deleted] your braincells. :-\
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are
at all true.
Dimensional Traveler
Sep 1, 2014, 2:15:25 PM9/1/14
to
On 8/31/2014 11:12 PM, Your Name wrote:
> In article <lu0ubl$e12$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Azathoth
> <azat...@outer.darkness.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 13:07:50 +1200, Your Name wrote:
>>
>>>> Again, why do you care what they call it or how original it is?
>>>> Nobody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to watch it.
>>>
>>> A. Re-using the same name for a very different product is
>>> moronically stupid. NAMES HAVE MEANING.
>>
>> Again, that's your opinion. If you don't watch it, why does that opinion
>> matter?
>
> Oh God. Here we go again. :-\
>
> There is no opinion.
>
> Fact: The reboot re-uses the old name.
>
> Fact: The reboot is (almost always) very different to the original,
> in some cases the people making it even say so themselves!
>
Doing something completely different is sometimes the reason and point
> In article <lu0ubl$e12$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Azathoth
> <azat...@outer.darkness.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 13:07:50 +1200, Your Name wrote:
>>
>>>> Again, why do you care what they call it or how original it is?
>>>> Nobody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to watch it.
>>>
>>> A. Re-using the same name for a very different product is
>>> moronically stupid. NAMES HAVE MEANING.
>>
>> Again, that's your opinion. If you don't watch it, why does that opinion
>> matter?
>
> Oh God. Here we go again. :-\
>
> There is no opinion.
>
> Fact: The reboot re-uses the old name.
>
> Fact: The reboot is (almost always) very different to the original,
> in some cases the people making it even say so themselves!
>
for those making it.
Also the creative people frequently are forced to use it and alter their
vision to fit when the money people demand they use the old name for the
recognition value.
Dimensional Traveler
Sep 1, 2014, 2:16:48 PM9/1/14
to
with.
anim8rFSK
Sep 1, 2014, 3:06:29 PM9/1/14
to
David Johnston
Sep 1, 2014, 3:50:55 PM9/1/14
to
infinitude
Sep 1, 2014, 3:58:21 PM9/1/14
to
Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> ::
appear not to have destroyed the original Stargate film's
franchise, since Emmerich and Devlin now seem to be
rebooting that. Which suggests nothing can: if people think
they can make money by going back to the source and
continuing in that style (even if SG-1 was vastly more
popular then the original film) the series, they will. It's
just mostly, they don't.
> I said it destroys the franchise. It makes a confused mess of
> conflicting versions all with the same name.
Ten years of SG-1, five of Atlantis, and two of Universe
> conflicting versions all with the same name.
appear not to have destroyed the original Stargate film's
franchise, since Emmerich and Devlin now seem to be
rebooting that. Which suggests nothing can: if people think
they can make money by going back to the source and
continuing in that style (even if SG-1 was vastly more
popular then the original film) the series, they will. It's
just mostly, they don't.
Your Name
Sep 1, 2014, 4:56:04 PM9/1/14
to
In article <lu1kad$3ci$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Azathoth
Whatever sheer stupidity you want to blindly believe. I really can't be
bothered going arounf the same circle yet again with yet another
dimbulb who doesn't understand "same" and "different". Just don't come
crying to me when you buy "Strawberry Jam" at the supermarket to get it
home and find it's really tomato sauce ... hey, they're both red,
sticky semi-liquids, and made from a red fruit, so they must be the
same thing. :-\
bothered going arounf the same circle yet again with yet another
dimbulb who doesn't understand "same" and "different". Just don't come
crying to me when you buy "Strawberry Jam" at the supermarket to get it
home and find it's really tomato sauce ... hey, they're both red,
sticky semi-liquids, and made from a red fruit, so they must be the
same thing. :-\
Your Name
Sep 1, 2014, 5:05:01 PM9/1/14
to
In article <5404b7a3$0$36570$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Dimensional
products have different names.
> Also the creative people frequently are forced to use it and alter their
> vision to fit when the money people demand they use the old name for the
> recognition value.
There is no "recognition value" (except to deaf and blind morons) when
you make lots of changes and make what in reality is a different
product. People who liked the original will be expecting more of the
same. You don't buy a jar of "Strawberry Jam" unless you want
strawberry jam.
If the original is so worthless that they have to make lots of changes,
then why re-use the same name?? People who didn't like the original
would be incredibly stupid to watch something with the same name ...
but then apparently the vast majority of the human race *ARE*
incredibly stupid. You don't buy a jar of "Strawberry Jam" and expect
to get tomato sauce. :-\
The *ONLY* reason for re-using the same name that even remotely
approaches being "sensible" is because the greedy swines simply want to
extend the copyright and stop anyone else making a properly fitting
addition to the franchise.
Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> On 8/31/2014 11:12 PM, Your Name wrote:
> > In article <lu0ubl$e12$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Azathoth
> > <azat...@outer.darkness.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 13:07:50 +1200, Your Name wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Again, why do you care what they call it or how original it is?
> >>>> Nobody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to watch it.
> >>>
> >>> A. Re-using the same name for a very different product is
> >>> moronically stupid. NAMES HAVE MEANING.
> >>
> >> Again, that's your opinion. If you don't watch it, why does that opinion
> >> matter?
> >
> > Oh God. Here we go again. :-\
> >
> > There is no opinion.
> >
> > Fact: The reboot re-uses the old name.
> >
> > Fact: The reboot is (almost always) very different to the original,
> > in some cases the people making it even say so themselves!
> >
> Doing something completely different is sometimes the reason and point
> for those making it.
Then use a different name ... it ain't rocket science: different
> On 8/31/2014 11:12 PM, Your Name wrote:
> > In article <lu0ubl$e12$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Azathoth
> > <azat...@outer.darkness.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 13:07:50 +1200, Your Name wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Again, why do you care what they call it or how original it is?
> >>>> Nobody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to watch it.
> >>>
> >>> A. Re-using the same name for a very different product is
> >>> moronically stupid. NAMES HAVE MEANING.
> >>
> >> Again, that's your opinion. If you don't watch it, why does that opinion
> >> matter?
> >
> > Oh God. Here we go again. :-\
> >
> > There is no opinion.
> >
> > Fact: The reboot re-uses the old name.
> >
> > Fact: The reboot is (almost always) very different to the original,
> > in some cases the people making it even say so themselves!
> >
> Doing something completely different is sometimes the reason and point
> for those making it.
products have different names.
> Also the creative people frequently are forced to use it and alter their
> vision to fit when the money people demand they use the old name for the
> recognition value.
you make lots of changes and make what in reality is a different
product. People who liked the original will be expecting more of the
same. You don't buy a jar of "Strawberry Jam" unless you want
strawberry jam.
If the original is so worthless that they have to make lots of changes,
then why re-use the same name?? People who didn't like the original
would be incredibly stupid to watch something with the same name ...
but then apparently the vast majority of the human race *ARE*
incredibly stupid. You don't buy a jar of "Strawberry Jam" and expect
to get tomato sauce. :-\
The *ONLY* reason for re-using the same name that even remotely
approaches being "sensible" is because the greedy swines simply want to
extend the copyright and stop anyone else making a properly fitting
addition to the franchise.
Your Name
Sep 1, 2014, 5:13:34 PM9/1/14
to
In article <ihj90al1tchr7son4...@4ax.com>, infinitude
(technically three) different versions of "Stargate" ... as I said, it
creates a confused mess. Nobody knows what "Stargate" means or which of
the multiple versions you're talking about ... hence you then need to
go down the silly route of trying to distinguish them by changing their
name unofficially ("Star Trek TOS" / "Star Trek 2012", "Glen Larsen's
Battlestar Galatica" / "Ron Moore's Batlestar Galatica") ... whereas if
they had used some small amount of common sense, the different products
would have had different names.
> if people think they can make money by going back to the source and
> continuing in that style (even if SG-1 was vastly more popular then
> the original film) the series, they will. It's just mostly, they don't.
Then why re-use the name?!? Only a stupid moron who doesn't like
"Stargate" goers to see something called "Stargate" expecting it to be
different ... you don't (usually) get tomato sauce in jars labelled
"Strawberry Jam". :-\
If the product is no longer making enough money for the greedy swines
to fill their pockets, then let the product die and create a *NEW*
franchise complete with a new name. Say it's "based on" the original in
the credits, but keep it separate. It's what almost every other
industry on the planet does.
<not.much@all.> wrote:
> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> ::
> > I said it destroys the franchise. It makes a confused mess of
> > conflicting versions all with the same name.
>
> Ten years of SG-1, five of Atlantis, and two of Universe
> appear not to have destroyed the original Stargate film's
> franchise, since Emmerich and Devlin now seem to be
> rebooting that. Which suggests nothing can:
If those two fools do "reboot" it you'll end up with at least two
> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> ::
> > I said it destroys the franchise. It makes a confused mess of
> > conflicting versions all with the same name.
>
> Ten years of SG-1, five of Atlantis, and two of Universe
> appear not to have destroyed the original Stargate film's
> franchise, since Emmerich and Devlin now seem to be
> rebooting that. Which suggests nothing can:
(technically three) different versions of "Stargate" ... as I said, it
creates a confused mess. Nobody knows what "Stargate" means or which of
the multiple versions you're talking about ... hence you then need to
go down the silly route of trying to distinguish them by changing their
name unofficially ("Star Trek TOS" / "Star Trek 2012", "Glen Larsen's
Battlestar Galatica" / "Ron Moore's Batlestar Galatica") ... whereas if
they had used some small amount of common sense, the different products
would have had different names.
> if people think they can make money by going back to the source and
> continuing in that style (even if SG-1 was vastly more popular then
> the original film) the series, they will. It's just mostly, they don't.
"Stargate" goers to see something called "Stargate" expecting it to be
different ... you don't (usually) get tomato sauce in jars labelled
"Strawberry Jam". :-\
If the product is no longer making enough money for the greedy swines
to fill their pockets, then let the product die and create a *NEW*
franchise complete with a new name. Say it's "based on" the original in
the credits, but keep it separate. It's what almost every other
industry on the planet does.
Azathoth
Sep 1, 2014, 7:23:09 PM9/1/14
to
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 08:56:04 +1200, Your Name wrote:
> Whatever [insult deleted] you want to blindly believe. I really can't be
> bothered going arounf the same circle yet again with yet another [insult
> deleted] who [insult deleted].
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> Whatever [insult deleted] you want to blindly believe. I really can't be
> bothered going arounf the same circle yet again with yet another [insult
> deleted] who [insult deleted].
None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
> Just don't come crying to me when you buy "Strawberry Jam" at the
> supermarket to get it home and find it's really tomato sauce ... hey,
> they're both red, sticky semi-liquids, and made from a red fruit, so
> they must be the same thing.
Non sequitur.
> supermarket to get it home and find it's really tomato sauce ... hey,
> they're both red, sticky semi-liquids, and made from a red fruit, so
> they must be the same thing.
anim8rFSK
Sep 1, 2014, 8:15:31 PM9/1/14
to
In article <020920140913347621%Your...@YourISP.com>,
trout' flavor.
Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> In article <ihj90al1tchr7son4...@4ax.com>, infinitude
> <not.much@all.> wrote:
> > Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> ::
> > > I said it destroys the franchise. It makes a confused mess of
> > > conflicting versions all with the same name.
> >
> > Ten years of SG-1, five of Atlantis, and two of Universe
> > appear not to have destroyed the original Stargate film's
> > franchise, since Emmerich and Devlin now seem to be
> > rebooting that. Which suggests nothing can:
>
> If those two fools do "reboot" it you'll end up with at least two
> (technically three) different versions of "Stargate" ...
We're at 3 now - the movie, and the TV show, in both 'trout' and 'no
> In article <ihj90al1tchr7son4...@4ax.com>, infinitude
> <not.much@all.> wrote:
> > Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> ::
> > > I said it destroys the franchise. It makes a confused mess of
> > > conflicting versions all with the same name.
> >
> > Ten years of SG-1, five of Atlantis, and two of Universe
> > appear not to have destroyed the original Stargate film's
> > franchise, since Emmerich and Devlin now seem to be
> > rebooting that. Which suggests nothing can:
>
> If those two fools do "reboot" it you'll end up with at least two
> (technically three) different versions of "Stargate" ...
trout' flavor.
Your Name
Sep 1, 2014, 9:38:20 PM9/1/14
to
In article <lu2v4s$m4h$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Azathoth
Gee, why am I not surprised you don't get that either. :-\
Dimensional Traveler
Sep 1, 2014, 10:32:20 PM9/1/14
to
As for the strawberry jam analogy, the tomato sauce makers are
deliberately trying to trick people into buying their product by
labeling it "Strawberry Jam". Yes, its stupid but the studio execs only
care about money and do think the public is stupid. Unfortunately there
is a significant segment of the public that continues to act as evidence
supporting that view. (For example, the two latest "Star Trek" movies.)
Dimensional Traveler
Sep 1, 2014, 10:34:06 PM9/1/14
to
anim8rFSK
Sep 1, 2014, 10:41:52 PM9/1/14
to
In article <54052c84$0$36537$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
Yah, about 3/4 of the way, they went into the past, and the original
characters died and new alternate universe ones took over, the most
obvious difference being that the pond at Jack's cabin never had trout
before, and in the new Stargateverse, it did ... all the episodes after
that are in a different reality.
characters died and new alternate universe ones took over, the most
obvious difference being that the pond at Jack's cabin never had trout
before, and in the new Stargateverse, it did ... all the episodes after
that are in a different reality.
Your Name
Sep 2, 2014, 12:21:42 AM9/2/14
to
In article <54052c1a$0$36537$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Dimensional
More like the Strawberry Jam makers deciding not "enough" people like
the current strawberry jam, so they change the recipe to something very
different and expect everyone to blindly believe it's the same thing
... and unfortunately most people are apparently stupid enough to do
so. :-(
And yet weirdly, so many people kicked up a stink when Coca Cola tried
to make changes that it had to be changed back. Same with Cadbury
chocolate here in New Zealand.
> Yes, its stupid but the studio execs only
> care about money and do think the public is stupid. Unfortunately there
> is a significant segment of the public that continues to act as evidence
> supporting that view. (For example, the two latest "Star Trek" movies.)
I know their brainless management's reasons for doing it, none of which
actually make any sense when you actually look at them.
It's not only management though. Sometimes it is the creative people
who have such massive egos that they believe they know better than the
person who actually had the talent to create the franchise. Some of
these fools often claim to be fans of the original, and then still
butcher it beyond any senislbe recognition ... and they almost make
even the worst fan fiction porn drivel look briliantly fitting.
the current strawberry jam, so they change the recipe to something very
different and expect everyone to blindly believe it's the same thing
... and unfortunately most people are apparently stupid enough to do
so. :-(
And yet weirdly, so many people kicked up a stink when Coca Cola tried
to make changes that it had to be changed back. Same with Cadbury
chocolate here in New Zealand.
> Yes, its stupid but the studio execs only
> care about money and do think the public is stupid. Unfortunately there
> is a significant segment of the public that continues to act as evidence
> supporting that view. (For example, the two latest "Star Trek" movies.)
actually make any sense when you actually look at them.
It's not only management though. Sometimes it is the creative people
who have such massive egos that they believe they know better than the
person who actually had the talent to create the franchise. Some of
these fools often claim to be fans of the original, and then still
butcher it beyond any senislbe recognition ... and they almost make
even the worst fan fiction porn drivel look briliantly fitting.
Your Name
Sep 2, 2014, 12:22:35 AM9/2/14
to
Your Name
Sep 2, 2014, 12:23:57 AM9/2/14
to
In article <anim8rfsk-975DE...@news.easynews.com>,
There's also the animated series which is set a little in the future of
SG1, but I never saw enough episodes to judge whether that fitted or
not with (almost) everything else.
SG1, but I never saw enough episodes to judge whether that fitted or
not with (almost) everything else.
anim8rFSK
Sep 2, 2014, 12:29:26 AM9/2/14
to
In article <020920141623573736%Your...@YourISP.com>,
Yeah, I skipped that, 'cause I never saw it, and when I asked somebody
who did watch it if it was in continuity with SG1 they said they had no
idea.
who did watch it if it was in continuity with SG1 they said they had no
idea.
Azathoth
Sep 2, 2014, 12:39:25 AM9/2/14
to
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 13:38:20 +1200, Your Name wrote:
>> > Just don't come crying to me when you buy "Strawberry Jam" at the
>> > supermarket to get it home and find it's really tomato sauce ... hey,
>> > they're both red, sticky semi-liquids, and made from a red fruit, so
>> > they must be the same thing.
>>
>> Non sequitur.
>
> Gee, why am I not surprised you [insult deleted]
>> > Just don't come crying to me when you buy "Strawberry Jam" at the
>> > supermarket to get it home and find it's really tomato sauce ... hey,
>> > they're both red, sticky semi-liquids, and made from a red fruit, so
>> > they must be the same thing.
>>
>> Non sequitur.
>
No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are
at all true.
Your Name
Sep 2, 2014, 2:30:05 AM9/2/14
to
In article <anim8rfsk-447EA...@news.easynews.com>,
Because it was set in the future of the live-action shows, it didn't
have any physical connection other than using Stargates to hop from
planet to planet (in a "we're lost and want to get home" Voyager / Lost
in Space style). No doubt the alien planets and aliens they visited
were all new, so it may easily have fitted with what came before and
after it as a separate entity and without causing any issues.
have any physical connection other than using Stargates to hop from
planet to planet (in a "we're lost and want to get home" Voyager / Lost
in Space style). No doubt the alien planets and aliens they visited
were all new, so it may easily have fitted with what came before and
after it as a separate entity and without causing any issues.
Your Name
Sep 2, 2014, 2:30:43 AM9/2/14
to
Azathoth
Sep 2, 2014, 3:46:41 AM9/2/14
to
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 18:30:43 +1200, Your Name wrote:
> Another [insult deleted]
> Another [insult deleted]
anim8rFSK
Sep 2, 2014, 11:12:00 AM9/2/14
to
In article <020920141830052101%Your...@YourISP.com>,
roger that. TY.
Dimensional Traveler
Sep 2, 2014, 11:13:24 PM9/2/14
to
Quantum Mirror thingie led to different realities. I also seem to
recall there were other episodes that clearly established that the SG-1
timeline/reality was perhaps the luckiest one of a really large number
of alternatives in a three or four axis matrix of universes.
anim8rFSK
Sep 2, 2014, 11:48:40 PM9/2/14
to
In article <54068737$0$36590$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
Yeah, I didn't get into that, because they didn't end up in any of
those, but they did end up in a different timeline, and somewhere one
presumes their original timeline exists without them.
those, but they did end up in a different timeline, and somewhere one
presumes their original timeline exists without them.
Dimensional Traveler
Sep 4, 2014, 12:32:30 AM9/4/14
to
sending a message back in time to warn themselves about that "friendly"
race that sterilized the human race the first time they met them.So
there are at least two "original" timelines running loose in the multiverse.
Also as I recall that trip back to ancient Egypt the end result was that
the team never had to go back in time. Ironically because they already
had. So I think what actually happened is that a second SG-1 team
spontaneously appeared in ancient Egypt, did what they did to leave a
ZPM for the future and then lived out their lives in Egypt while the
"original" team stayed in their own time. And Jack was just not
interested enough in actually catching fish to realize there actually
were fish there in the first place. :D
anim8rFSK
Sep 4, 2014, 1:48:11 AM9/4/14
to
In article <5407eb44$0$36606$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
Good point. They all died in that one, too. :)
>
> Also as I recall that trip back to ancient Egypt the end result was that
> the team never had to go back in time. Ironically because they already
> had. So I think what actually happened is that a second SG-1 team
> spontaneously appeared in ancient Egypt, did what they did to leave a
> ZPM for the future and then lived out their lives in Egypt while the
> "original" team stayed in their own time. And Jack was just not
> interested enough in actually catching fish to realize there actually
> were fish there in the first place. :D
hah
> Also as I recall that trip back to ancient Egypt the end result was that
> the team never had to go back in time. Ironically because they already
> had. So I think what actually happened is that a second SG-1 team
> spontaneously appeared in ancient Egypt, did what they did to leave a
> ZPM for the future and then lived out their lives in Egypt while the
> "original" team stayed in their own time. And Jack was just not
> interested enough in actually catching fish to realize there actually
> were fish there in the first place. :D
Your Name
Sep 4, 2014, 2:15:40 AM9/4/14
to
In article <anim8rfsk-DF1AD...@news.easynews.com>,
Putting the fish in the pond was just Teal'c's idea for an April Fool's
joke. ;-)
joke. ;-)
0 new messages