from variety

'Star Trek' pushed back to 2009
Paramount shuffles major releases
By PAMELA MCCLINTOCK

Paramount is pushing back the release of "Star Trek" from Dec. 15 to
May 8, 2009.

Move was part of a major reshuffling to the studio's release calendar,
as well as DreamWorks' release calendar.

Studio insiders said "Star Trek" has the potential to gross more in
May than in December.

All the majors are likely to revisit their 2008 and 2009 release skeds
in the wake of the writer's strike now being over. There's an
abundance of films slated for release this year, and particularly
comedies. It's likely that Par won't be the only studio pushing back
films to 2009.

"Star Trek" has no competition in its new slot--at least not so far.
One week earlier, 20th Century Fox bows "X-Men Origins: Wolverine."

Paramount also announced that Martin Scorsese's Leonardo
DiCaprio-starrer "Shutter Island" will be released Oct. 2, 2008.

[
Yes, Trek XI would make a nice summer movie.
]



--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

In article <13r780rl7ifm360@corp.supernews.com>,
"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote:

> from variety
>
> 'Star Trek' pushed back to 2009
> Paramount shuffles major releases
> By PAMELA MCCLINTOCK
>
> Paramount is pushing back the release of "Star Trek" from Dec. 15 to
> May 8, 2009.
>
> Move was part of a major reshuffling to the studio's release calendar,
> as well as DreamWorks' release calendar.
>
> Studio insiders said "Star Trek" has the potential to gross more in
> May than in December.
>
> All the majors are likely to revisit their 2008 and 2009 release skeds
> in the wake of the writer's strike now being over. There's an
> abundance of films slated for release this year, and particularly
> comedies. It's likely that Par won't be the only studio pushing back
> films to 2009.
>
> "Star Trek" has no competition in its new slot--at least not so far.
> One week earlier, 20th Century Fox bows "X-Men Origins: Wolverine."
>
> Paramount also announced that Martin Scorsese's Leonardo
> DiCaprio-starrer "Shutter Island" will be released Oct. 2, 2008.
>
> [
> Yes, Trek XI would make a nice summer movie.
> ]

Isn't Paramount setting up ST to take a hit from Indiana Jones?

Steven L. wrote:
> from variety
>
> 'Star Trek' pushed back to 2009
> Paramount shuffles major releases
> By PAMELA MCCLINTOCK
>
> Paramount is pushing back the release of "Star Trek" from Dec. 15 to
> May 8, 2009.
>
> Move was part of a major reshuffling to the studio's release calendar,
> as well as DreamWorks' release calendar.
>
> Studio insiders said "Star Trek" has the potential to gross more in
> May than in December.
>
> All the majors are likely to revisit their 2008 and 2009 release skeds
> in the wake of the writer's strike now being over. There's an
> abundance of films slated for release this year, and particularly
> comedies. It's likely that Par won't be the only studio pushing back
> films to 2009.
>
> "Star Trek" has no competition in its new slot--at least not so far.
> One week earlier, 20th Century Fox bows "X-Men Origins: Wolverine."
>
> Paramount also announced that Martin Scorsese's Leonardo
> DiCaprio-starrer "Shutter Island" will be released Oct. 2, 2008.
>
> [
> Yes, Trek XI would make a nice summer movie.
> ]

ATTN NEWSGROUP

The argument about whether the movie is just a dumbed down special effects
extravaganza and a slap in the face for loyal fans is now rescheduled for
May 9 2009.

In article <47b3c467$0$13936$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, "Jaxtraw"
<jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote:

> Steven L. wrote:
> > from variety
> >
> > 'Star Trek' pushed back to 2009
> > Paramount shuffles major releases
> > By PAMELA MCCLINTOCK
> >
> > Paramount is pushing back the release of "Star Trek" from Dec. 15 to
> > May 8, 2009.
> >
> > Move was part of a major reshuffling to the studio's release calendar,
> > as well as DreamWorks' release calendar.
> >
> > Studio insiders said "Star Trek" has the potential to gross more in
> > May than in December.
> >
> > All the majors are likely to revisit their 2008 and 2009 release skeds
> > in the wake of the writer's strike now being over. There's an
> > abundance of films slated for release this year, and particularly
> > comedies. It's likely that Par won't be the only studio pushing back
> > films to 2009.
> >
> > "Star Trek" has no competition in its new slot--at least not so far.
> > One week earlier, 20th Century Fox bows "X-Men Origins: Wolverine."
> >
> > Paramount also announced that Martin Scorsese's Leonardo
> > DiCaprio-starrer "Shutter Island" will be released Oct. 2, 2008.
> >
> > [
> > Yes, Trek XI would make a nice summer movie.
> > ]
>
> ATTN NEWSGROUP
>
> The argument about whether the movie is just a dumbed down special effects
> extravaganza and a slap in the face for loyal fans is now rescheduled for
> May 9 2009.

The change of date just means the theoretical argument will go on for
longer before there is any real proof of what they are actually doing.

In article
<bob-19925A.19383113022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, Warchild
<bob@bob.com> wrote:

> In article <13r780rl7ifm360@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > from variety
> >
> > 'Star Trek' pushed back to 2009
> > Paramount shuffles major releases
> > By PAMELA MCCLINTOCK
> >
> > Paramount is pushing back the release of "Star Trek" from Dec. 15 to
> > May 8, 2009.
> >
> > Move was part of a major reshuffling to the studio's release calendar,
> > as well as DreamWorks' release calendar.
> >
> > Studio insiders said "Star Trek" has the potential to gross more in
> > May than in December.
> >
> > All the majors are likely to revisit their 2008 and 2009 release skeds
> > in the wake of the writer's strike now being over. There's an
> > abundance of films slated for release this year, and particularly
> > comedies. It's likely that Par won't be the only studio pushing back
> > films to 2009.
> >
> > "Star Trek" has no competition in its new slot--at least not so far.
> > One week earlier, 20th Century Fox bows "X-Men Origins: Wolverine."
> >
> > Paramount also announced that Martin Scorsese's Leonardo
> > DiCaprio-starrer "Shutter Island" will be released Oct. 2, 2008.
> >
> > [
> > Yes, Trek XI would make a nice summer movie.
> > ]
>
> Isn't Paramount setting up ST to take a hit from Indiana Jones?

Nope. The new Indiana Jones movie is May *2008* (this year), not next
year. :-)

In fact the first teaser trailer for the new Dr Jones movie is being
released today (Valentine's Day) and is probably already watchable on
the official website http://IndianaJones.com/


Of course it begs the question as to the REAL reason why they're
delaying it - re-writes???

"Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote
> Of course it begs the question as to the REAL reason why they're
> delaying it - re-writes???

Casting, if course. There are still hundreds of actors
who have still not been announed as being cast in the
film yet.

Genek

"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote in message
news:TKQsj.14769$QJ3.13025@newsfe07.phx...
>
> "Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote
> > Of course it begs the question as to the REAL reason why they're
> > delaying it - re-writes???
>
> Casting, if course. There are still hundreds of actors
> who have still not been announed as being cast in the
> film yet.

Heh
Or perhaps someone's getting a giggle at all the fanbois dissecting every
morsel "leaked" to figure out how the movie is gona to suck and how no one
knows Star Trek like they do...
{{;-/>

--

Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
news:47b3c467$0$13936$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
> Steven L. wrote:
> > from variety
> >
> > 'Star Trek' pushed back to 2009
> > Paramount shuffles major releases
> > By PAMELA MCCLINTOCK
> >
> > Paramount is pushing back the release of "Star Trek" from Dec. 15 to
> > May 8, 2009.
> >
> > Move was part of a major reshuffling to the studio's release calendar,
> > as well as DreamWorks' release calendar.
> >
> > Studio insiders said "Star Trek" has the potential to gross more in
> > May than in December.
> >
> > All the majors are likely to revisit their 2008 and 2009 release skeds
> > in the wake of the writer's strike now being over. There's an
> > abundance of films slated for release this year, and particularly
> > comedies. It's likely that Par won't be the only studio pushing back
> > films to 2009.
> >
> > "Star Trek" has no competition in its new slot--at least not so far.
> > One week earlier, 20th Century Fox bows "X-Men Origins: Wolverine."
> >
> > Paramount also announced that Martin Scorsese's Leonardo
> > DiCaprio-starrer "Shutter Island" will be released Oct. 2, 2008.
> >
> > [
> > Yes, Trek XI would make a nice summer movie.
> > ]
>
> ATTN NEWSGROUP
>
> The argument about whether the movie is just a dumbed down special effects
> extravaganza and a slap in the face for loyal fans is now rescheduled for
> May 9 2009.

LOL!

--

Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"

"Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
news:140220081826358648%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
> In article <47b3c467$0$13936$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, "Jaxtraw"
> <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote:
>
> > Steven L. wrote:
> > > from variety
> > >
> > > 'Star Trek' pushed back to 2009
> > > Paramount shuffles major releases
> > > By PAMELA MCCLINTOCK
> > >
> > > Paramount is pushing back the release of "Star Trek" from Dec. 15 to
> > > May 8, 2009.
> > >
> > > Move was part of a major reshuffling to the studio's release calendar,
> > > as well as DreamWorks' release calendar.
> > >
> > > Studio insiders said "Star Trek" has the potential to gross more in
> > > May than in December.
> > >
> > > All the majors are likely to revisit their 2008 and 2009 release skeds
> > > in the wake of the writer's strike now being over. There's an
> > > abundance of films slated for release this year, and particularly
> > > comedies. It's likely that Par won't be the only studio pushing back
> > > films to 2009.
> > >
> > > "Star Trek" has no competition in its new slot--at least not so far.
> > > One week earlier, 20th Century Fox bows "X-Men Origins: Wolverine."
> > >
> > > Paramount also announced that Martin Scorsese's Leonardo
> > > DiCaprio-starrer "Shutter Island" will be released Oct. 2, 2008.
> > >
> > > [
> > > Yes, Trek XI would make a nice summer movie.
> > > ]
> >
> > ATTN NEWSGROUP
> >
> > The argument about whether the movie is just a dumbed down special
effects
> > extravaganza and a slap in the face for loyal fans is now rescheduled
for
> > May 9 2009.
>
> The change of date just means the theoretical argument will go on for
> longer before there is any real proof of what they are actually doing.

Theoretical? What happened to Anybody speaker for "All True Fans" being
*sure* it was going to suck?
--

Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"

In article <TKQsj.14769$QJ3.13025@newsfe07.phx>,
"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:

> "Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote
> > Of course it begs the question as to the REAL reason why they're
> > delaying it - re-writes???
>
> Casting, if course. There are still hundreds of actors
> who have still not been announed as being cast in the
> film yet.
>
> Genek

Hee hee

Naw, it's writing. They've been using the strike as an excuse for why
they couldn't fix the script for months. They used it as an excuse for
why they couldn't involved the Shat as well. Hopefully now they'll
address all of that.

--
Star Trek 08:

No Shat, No Show.

Anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <TKQsj.14769$QJ3.13025@newsfe07.phx>,
> "GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:
>
>> "Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote
>>> Of course it begs the question as to the REAL reason why they're
>>> delaying it - re-writes???
>> Casting, if course. There are still hundreds of actors
>> who have still not been announed as being cast in the
>> film yet.
>>
>> Genek
>
> Hee hee
>
> Naw, it's writing. They've been using the strike as an excuse for why
> they couldn't fix the script for months.

It put J.J. Abrams in a strange position. Directors often make small
changes to the script on-the-fly, to fix dialogue that sounds
inappropriate or to modify scenes that would be too difficult to film well.

J.J. Abrams would be able to direct scenes from the script. But the
moment he changed anything in the script, he would be breaking the
writers' strike.


--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:08:10 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:


>Naw, it's writing. They've been using the strike as an excuse for why
>they couldn't fix the script for months. They used it as an excuse for
>why they couldn't involved the Shat as well. Hopefully now they'll
>address all of that.

I'd like to see them take the opportunity to put in a Shat appearance,
and I think this is now somewhat more likely. But the shift to the
summer should generally be accepted as studio confidence in the film.
Movies that are gonna bomb get shunted to January-February and
August-September, not the primo May "kick off the summer"
release-slot.

There are plenty of good reasons to explain the delay, starting with
"strike-induced schedule chaos", followed by "this is too good a movie
to waste on two weeks of box office potential in late December"
without resorting to the usual "the movie must suck" assumptions.

Brian

In article <luh9r3pcsve1723anmdlmampmn7r49pk5l@4ax.com>,
Brian Thorn <bthorn64@suddenlink.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:08:10 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Naw, it's writing. They've been using the strike as an excuse for why
> >they couldn't fix the script for months. They used it as an excuse for
> >why they couldn't involved the Shat as well. Hopefully now they'll
> >address all of that.
>
> I'd like to see them take the opportunity to put in a Shat appearance,
> and I think this is now somewhat more likely.

Yes. At least now it's possible.

--
Star Trek 08:

No Shat, No Show.

"Kweeg" <kweeg@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:S%Qsj.37012$Ly.28572@pd7urf1no...
> Heh
> Or perhaps someone's getting a giggle at all the fanbois dissecting every
> morsel "leaked" to figure out how the movie is gona to suck and how no one
> knows Star Trek like they do...
> {{;-/>

Conversely, this isn't a "good" sign - if they were 'confident' of the
quality of the movie, the release date really should not matter much. In
fact, the opposite may be true, for money flows quite fluidly during the
holiday season in all directions with people not only seeking gifts but
"good feeling times".

Previously, delayed movies haven't exactly been "worthy" of the delay...

On Feb 13, 11:15 pm, "Kweeg" <kw...@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote:

> Or perhaps someone's getting a giggle at all the fanbois dissecting every
> morsel "leaked" to figure out how the movie is gona to suck and how no one
> knows Star Trek like they do...
> {{;-/>

I just think that it is a great Christmas present to the whole world -
we can be spared this terrible desecration for a bit longer.

But maybe it will be a great enjoyable film, as long as one forgets
that there ever was a TV show called Star Trek. Since even some of the
original cast movies weren't so great, it's really hard for me to
think there's much chance of it being worth seeing, even though I know
I could be wrong.

John Savard

"Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:47b4db68$0$25038$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> "Kweeg" <kweeg@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:S%Qsj.37012$Ly.28572@pd7urf1no...
> > Heh
> > Or perhaps someone's getting a giggle at all the fanbois dissecting
every
> > morsel "leaked" to figure out how the movie is gona to suck and how no
one
> > knows Star Trek like they do...
> > {{;-/>
>
> Conversely, this isn't a "good" sign - if they were 'confident' of the
> quality of the movie, the release date really should not matter much. In
> fact, the opposite may be true, for money flows quite fluidly during the
> holiday season in all directions with people not only seeking gifts but
> "good feeling times".
>
> Previously, delayed movies haven't exactly been "worthy" of the delay...

Perhaps you should check those bones / tea leaves / tarot again the correct
stars weren't quite in alignment...
{{;-/>
--

Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"

"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:c1de4af2-c7ac-48ac-bb2b-c17a54692b80@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 13, 11:15 pm, "Kweeg" <kw...@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > Or perhaps someone's getting a giggle at all the fanbois dissecting
every
> > morsel "leaked" to figure out how the movie is gona to suck and how no
one
> > knows Star Trek like they do...
> > {{;-/>
>
> I just think that it is a great Christmas present to the whole world -
> we can be spared this terrible desecration for a bit longer.
>
> But maybe it will be a great enjoyable film, as long as one forgets
> that there ever was a TV show called Star Trek. Since even some of the
> original cast movies weren't so great, it's really hard for me to
> think there's much chance of it being worth seeing, even though I know
> I could be wrong.

LOL!
It wasn't necessary to try and prove me right so fast....
{{;-/>

--

Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"

In article
<ANIM8Rfsk-D7BFAD.16501414022008@news.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> In article <luh9r3pcsve1723anmdlmampmn7r49pk5l@4ax.com>,
> Brian Thorn <bthorn64@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:08:10 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Naw, it's writing. They've been using the strike as an excuse for why
> > >they couldn't fix the script for months. They used it as an excuse for
> > >why they couldn't involved the Shat as well. Hopefully now they'll
> > >address all of that.
> >
> > I'd like to see them take the opportunity to put in a Shat appearance,
> > and I think this is now somewhat more likely.
>
> Yes. At least now it's possible.

Unlikely. Jabba the Shat probbaly wants far too much money ...
afterall, he's a "big important star" (in his own imagination anyway).

"Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
news:150220081824457798%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
> In article
> <ANIM8Rfsk-D7BFAD.16501414022008@news.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <luh9r3pcsve1723anmdlmampmn7r49pk5l@4ax.com>,
>> Brian Thorn <bthorn64@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:08:10 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > >Naw, it's writing. They've been using the strike as an excuse for why
>> > >they couldn't fix the script for months. They used it as an excuse
>> > >for
>> > >why they couldn't involved the Shat as well. Hopefully now they'll
>> > >address all of that.
>> >
>> > I'd like to see them take the opportunity to put in a Shat appearance,
>> > and I think this is now somewhat more likely.
>>
>> Yes. At least now it's possible.
>
> Unlikely. Jabba the Shat probbaly wants far too much money ...
> afterall, he's a "big important star" (in his own imagination anyway).



Say what you want about Billy-boy.
He's still Mr. Star Trek, and without him for even a two second cameo,
(preferably with the remaining original cast) it's just another sci-fi
movie.
And he knows it. ;)

Kweeg wrote:
> "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
> news:c1de4af2-c7ac-48ac-bb2b-c17a54692b80@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 13, 11:15 pm, "Kweeg" <kw...@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Or perhaps someone's getting a giggle at all the fanbois dissecting
>>> every morsel "leaked" to figure out how the movie is gona to suck
>>> and how no one knows Star Trek like they do...
>>> {{;-/>
>>
>> I just think that it is a great Christmas present to the whole world
>> - we can be spared this terrible desecration for a bit longer.
>>
>> But maybe it will be a great enjoyable film, as long as one forgets
>> that there ever was a TV show called Star Trek. Since even some of
>> the original cast movies weren't so great, it's really hard for me to
>> think there's much chance of it being worth seeing, even though I
>> know I could be wrong.
>
> LOL!
> It wasn't necessary to try and prove me right so fast....
> {{;-/>

Hehe :)


Ian

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in

On Feb 14, 10:06 pm, "Kweeg" <kw...@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote:
> the correct
> stars weren't quite in alignment...

And when the stars _are_ right, the Old Ones will return again. Short
Antarctic real estate before next summer.

John Savard

In article <74430dd6-f612-4845-9a89-146e0e7b9aaa@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc says...


>And when the stars _are_ right, the Old Ones will return again. Short
>Antarctic real estate before next summer.


He who sells what isn't his'n,
buys it back, or goes to prison ..

On Feb 15, 7:18 am, George Peatty <pttyg47-1...@copper.net> wrote:
> In article <74430dd6-f612-4845-9a89-146e0e7b9...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc says...
>
> >And when the stars _are_ right, the Old Ones will return again. Short
> >Antarctic real estate before next summer.
>
> He who sells what isn't his'n,
> buys it back, or goes to prison ..

One can't short sell without money in one's trading account.

John Savard

"Kweeg" <kweeg@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:S59tj.47713$FA.6403@pd7urf2no...
> Perhaps you should check those bones / tea leaves / tarot again the
> correct
> stars weren't quite in alignment...

Could be - but think about what they are 'saying' in a different light:

"If we put it out during Christmas, not enough people will go to see it.
Therefore, if we move it to May we are sure to get enough viewers...because
we will not have very much good competition to worry about"

Taking in *this* light, the announcement is...disturbing.

"Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote
> Could be - but think about what they are 'saying' in a different
> light:
>
> "If we put it out during Christmas, not enough people will go to see
> it. Therefore, if we move it to May we are sure to get enough
> viewers...because we will not have very much good competition to worry
> about"
>
> Taking in *this* light, the announcement is...disturbing.

This sounds lile typical Hollywood strategizing.

Studios spend enoromous amounts of time stressing
over whether to release the film on any selected date
or on another date weeks or either months away.
Even if they're making movies they're convinced will
be huge hits it's still better not to release at the same
time as other movies that could potentially be huge
hits.

GeneK

AMUN wrote:
> "Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
> news:150220081824457798%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
>> In article
>> <ANIM8Rfsk-D7BFAD.16501414022008@news.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
>> Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <luh9r3pcsve1723anmdlmampmn7r49pk5l@4ax.com>,
>>> Brian Thorn <bthorn64@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:08:10 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Naw, it's writing. They've been using the strike as an excuse for why
>>>>> they couldn't fix the script for months. They used it as an excuse
>>>>> for
>>>>> why they couldn't involved the Shat as well. Hopefully now they'll
>>>>> address all of that.
>>>> I'd like to see them take the opportunity to put in a Shat appearance,
>>>> and I think this is now somewhat more likely.
>>> Yes. At least now it's possible.
>> Unlikely. Jabba the Shat probbaly wants far too much money ...
>> afterall, he's a "big important star" (in his own imagination anyway).
>
>
>
> Say what you want about Billy-boy.
> He's still Mr. Star Trek,

It's the character of CAPTAIN KIRK that is "Star Trek." Not the actor
playing him.

Kirk has a major role in Trek XI. It's just that he's played by Chris Pine.


--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

In article <13rcepv10u7f2a7@corp.supernews.com>, "Steven L."
<sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote:

> AMUN wrote:
> > "Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
> > news:150220081824457798%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
> >> In article
> >> <ANIM8Rfsk-D7BFAD.16501414022008@news.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
> >> Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <luh9r3pcsve1723anmdlmampmn7r49pk5l@4ax.com>,
> >>> Brian Thorn <bthorn64@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:08:10 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Naw, it's writing. They've been using the strike as an excuse for why
> >>>>> they couldn't fix the script for months. They used it as an excuse
> >>>>> for
> >>>>> why they couldn't involved the Shat as well. Hopefully now they'll
> >>>>> address all of that.
> >>>> I'd like to see them take the opportunity to put in a Shat appearance,
> >>>> and I think this is now somewhat more likely.
> >>> Yes. At least now it's possible.
> >> Unlikely. Jabba the Shat probbaly wants far too much money ...
> >> afterall, he's a "big important star" (in his own imagination anyway).
> >
> >
> >
> > Say what you want about Billy-boy.
> > He's still Mr. Star Trek,
>
> It's the character of CAPTAIN KIRK that is "Star Trek." Not the actor
> playing him.
>
> Kirk has a major role in Trek XI. It's just that he's played by Chris Pine.

Every actor brings part of themselves to the roles they play (accent,
mannerisms, etc.). It's extremely difficult for another actor to
successfully play the same character without changing it. Characters
are permanently joined to an actor, and vice-versa (it's called
type-casting), although some actors can manage to play multiple
characters.

The only way such a change of actor really works is when the character
changes too (the best example being Doctor Who) or when there are so
few fans of the original that "nobody" remembers the first actor
anyway.

"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote in message
news:gtqtj.1232$lU5.569@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.v erio.net...
> "Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote
> > Could be - but think about what they are 'saying' in a different
> > light:
> >
> > "If we put it out during Christmas, not enough people will go to see
> > it. Therefore, if we move it to May we are sure to get enough
> > viewers...because we will not have very much good competition to worry
> > about"
> >
> > Taking in *this* light, the announcement is...disturbing.
>
> This sounds lile typical Hollywood strategizing.
>
> Studios spend enoromous amounts of time stressing
> over whether to release the film on any selected date
> or on another date weeks or either months away.
> Even if they're making movies they're convinced will
> be huge hits it's still better not to release at the same
> time as other movies that could potentially be huge
> hits.

Indeed.

--

Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"

Anybody wrote:
> In article <13rcepv10u7f2a7@corp.supernews.com>, "Steven L."
> <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> AMUN wrote:
>>> "Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
>>> news:150220081824457798%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
>>>> In article
>>>> <ANIM8Rfsk-D7BFAD.16501414022008@news.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
>>>> Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <luh9r3pcsve1723anmdlmampmn7r49pk5l@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Brian Thorn <bthorn64@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:08:10 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Naw, it's writing. They've been using the strike as an excuse
>>>>>>> for why they couldn't fix the script for months. They used it
>>>>>>> as an excuse for
>>>>>>> why they couldn't involved the Shat as well. Hopefully now
>>>>>>> they'll address all of that.
>>>>>> I'd like to see them take the opportunity to put in a Shat
>>>>>> appearance, and I think this is now somewhat more likely.
>>>>> Yes. At least now it's possible.
>>>> Unlikely. Jabba the Shat probbaly wants far too much money ...
>>>> afterall, he's a "big important star" (in his own imagination
>>>> anyway).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Say what you want about Billy-boy.
>>> He's still Mr. Star Trek,
>>
>> It's the character of CAPTAIN KIRK that is "Star Trek." Not the
>> actor playing him.
>>
>> Kirk has a major role in Trek XI. It's just that he's played by
>> Chris Pine.
>
> Every actor brings part of themselves to the roles they play (accent,
> mannerisms, etc.). It's extremely difficult for another actor to
> successfully play the same character without changing it. Characters
> are permanently joined to an actor, and vice-versa (it's called
> type-casting), although some actors can manage to play multiple
> characters.
>

Really? You mean some actors play a variety of roles during their careers?
Seriously? Are they allowed to do that?



Ian

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
news:47b67e85$0$13927$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
> Anybody wrote:
> > In article <13rcepv10u7f2a7@corp.supernews.com>, "Steven L."
> > <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> AMUN wrote:
> >>> "Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:150220081824457798%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
> >>>> In article
> >>>> <ANIM8Rfsk-D7BFAD.16501414022008@news.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
> >>>> Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <luh9r3pcsve1723anmdlmampmn7r49pk5l@4ax.com>,
> >>>>> Brian Thorn <bthorn64@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:08:10 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Naw, it's writing. They've been using the strike as an excuse
> >>>>>>> for why they couldn't fix the script for months. They used it
> >>>>>>> as an excuse for
> >>>>>>> why they couldn't involved the Shat as well. Hopefully now
> >>>>>>> they'll address all of that.
> >>>>>> I'd like to see them take the opportunity to put in a Shat
> >>>>>> appearance, and I think this is now somewhat more likely.
> >>>>> Yes. At least now it's possible.
> >>>> Unlikely. Jabba the Shat probbaly wants far too much money ...
> >>>> afterall, he's a "big important star" (in his own imagination
> >>>> anyway).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Say what you want about Billy-boy.
> >>> He's still Mr. Star Trek,
> >>
> >> It's the character of CAPTAIN KIRK that is "Star Trek." Not the
> >> actor playing him.
> >>
> >> Kirk has a major role in Trek XI. It's just that he's played by
> >> Chris Pine.
> >
> > Every actor brings part of themselves to the roles they play (accent,
> > mannerisms, etc.). It's extremely difficult for another actor to
> > successfully play the same character without changing it. Characters
> > are permanently joined to an actor, and vice-versa (it's called
> > type-casting), although some actors can manage to play multiple
> > characters.
> >
>
> Really? You mean some actors play a variety of roles during their careers?
> Seriously? Are they allowed to do that?

LOL!
I mean shhhhhh

--

Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"

Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in
news:160220081537542744%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com:

> In article <13rcepv10u7f2a7@corp.supernews.com>, "Steven L."
> <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> AMUN wrote:
>> > "Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
>> > news:150220081824457798%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
>> >> In article
>> >> <ANIM8Rfsk-D7BFAD.16501414022008@news.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
>> >> Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> In article <luh9r3pcsve1723anmdlmampmn7r49pk5l@4ax.com>,
>> >>> Brian Thorn <bthorn64@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:08:10 -0700, Anim8rFSK
>> >>>> <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Naw, it's writing. They've been using the strike as an excuse
>> >>>>> for why they couldn't fix the script for months. They used it
>> >>>>> as an excuse for
>> >>>>> why they couldn't involved the Shat as well. Hopefully now
>> >>>>> they'll address all of that.
>> >>>> I'd like to see them take the opportunity to put in a Shat
>> >>>> appearance, and I think this is now somewhat more likely.
>> >>> Yes. At least now it's possible.
>> >> Unlikely. Jabba the Shat probbaly wants far too much money ...
>> >> afterall, he's a "big important star" (in his own imagination
>> >> anyway).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Say what you want about Billy-boy.
>> > He's still Mr. Star Trek,
>>
>> It's the character of CAPTAIN KIRK that is "Star Trek." Not the
>> actor playing him.
>>
>> Kirk has a major role in Trek XI. It's just that he's played by
>> Chris Pine.
>
> Every actor brings part of themselves to the roles they play (accent,
> mannerisms, etc.). It's extremely difficult for another actor to
> successfully play the same character without changing it. Characters
> are permanently joined to an actor, and vice-versa (it's called
> type-casting), although some actors can manage to play multiple
> characters.
>
> The only way such a change of actor really works is when the character
> changes too (the best example being Doctor Who) or when there are so
> few fans of the original that "nobody" remembers the first actor
> anyway.


Right, cast changes never work. Just ask anybody on Broadway or TV soap
operas.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
news:47b67e85$0$13927$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
> Anybody wrote:
>> Every actor brings part of themselves to the roles they play (accent,
>> mannerisms, etc.). It's extremely difficult for another actor to
>> successfully play the same character without changing it. Characters
>> are permanently joined to an actor, and vice-versa (it's called
>> type-casting), although some actors can manage to play multiple
>> characters.
>>
>
> Really? You mean some actors play a variety of roles during their careers?
> Seriously? Are they allowed to do that?

Talk to Adam West - I'm SURE he'll have a life's history regarding this that
he is willing to talk about... ;-)

In article <47b717f8$0$15161$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
"Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote:

> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
> news:47b67e85$0$13927$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
> > Anybody wrote:
> >> Every actor brings part of themselves to the roles they play (accent,
> >> mannerisms, etc.). It's extremely difficult for another actor to
> >> successfully play the same character without changing it. Characters
> >> are permanently joined to an actor, and vice-versa (it's called
> >> type-casting), although some actors can manage to play multiple
> >> characters.
> >>
> >
> > Really? You mean some actors play a variety of roles during their careers?
> > Seriously? Are they allowed to do that?
>
> Talk to Adam West - I'm SURE he'll have a life's history regarding this that
> he is willing to talk about... ;-)

Adam West's move to politics was a defining moment for him. He has
achieved much as a mayor.

Laugh!

"Warchild" <bob@bob.com> wrote in message
news:bob-4B7772.11062616022008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <47b717f8$0$15161$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
> "Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
> > news:47b67e85$0$13927$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
> > > Anybody wrote:
> > >> Every actor brings part of themselves to the roles they play (accent,
> > >> mannerisms, etc.). It's extremely difficult for another actor to
> > >> successfully play the same character without changing it. Characters
> > >> are permanently joined to an actor, and vice-versa (it's called
> > >> type-casting), although some actors can manage to play multiple
> > >> characters.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Really? You mean some actors play a variety of roles during their
careers?
> > > Seriously? Are they allowed to do that?
> >
> > Talk to Adam West - I'm SURE he'll have a life's history regarding this
that
> > he is willing to talk about... ;-)
>
> Adam West's move to politics was a defining moment for him. He has
> achieved much as a mayor.
>
> Laugh!

Like his cat thrower.... LMAO!


--

Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"

On Feb 15, 5:52 pm, "GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:

> Studios spend enoromous amounts of time stressing
> over whether to release the film on any selected date
> or on another date weeks or either months away.
> Even if they're making movies they're convinced will
> be huge hits it's still better not to release at the same
> time as other movies that could potentially be huge
> hits.

That may be, but it's still so much more fun to speculate that the
delay is caused by it taking longer than expected to file off Harlan
Ellison's serial numbers, whether or not there's any truth to that.

John Savard

"Wiseguy" <epwise@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A46612BBC5Bepwiseyahoocom@66.150.105.47.. .
> Right, cast changes never work. Just ask anybody on Broadway or TV soap
> operas.

Agreed...but, then again, those characters aren't a cultural phenomenon, are
they? ;-)

It's going to be a bit "tricky", no matter what, I think. Star Trek, and
its characters, are such an integral part of the cultural fiber of hundreds
of countries throughout the world that even in the best circumstance what
might work (the change) in one locale...might be completely and utterly
dismissed in another.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:42:44 -0500, "Snake"
<fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote:

>Agreed...but, then again, those characters aren't a cultural phenomenon, are
>they? ;-)

I would disagree. Both Broadway and the soaps .. especially the soaps ..
are an integral part of modern, popular American culture .. perhaps not
*your* culture .. but the soaps often experience adverse reactions from fans
who are unhappy over casting decisions or plot developments ..

"Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote...
> Agreed...but, then again, those characters aren't a cultural
> phenomenon, are they? ;-)

Not if you aren't a soaps viewer. But those who are can
go beyond the most ardent trek fan. There are anecdotes
about actors who played bad guys on top soaps being
ambushed on the grocery lines and beaten over the head
with umbrellas by little old ladies who were fans of their
characters' victims. Offhand I can't recall ever hearing
of anything like that ever happening to Ricardo Montalban.

GeneK

"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote in message
news:xWjuj.1270$lU5.1186@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to. verio.net...
> "Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote...
>> Agreed...but, then again, those characters aren't a cultural phenomenon,
>> are they? ;-)
>
> Not if you aren't a soaps viewer. But those who are can
> go beyond the most ardent trek fan. There are anecdotes
> about actors who played bad guys on top soaps being
> ambushed on the grocery lines and beaten over the head
> with umbrellas by little old ladies who were fans of their
> characters' victims. Offhand I can't recall ever hearing
> of anything like that ever happening to Ricardo Montalban.

But to answer both Mr. Peatty and yourself, the soaps are intrinsic to the
individual society. My point is Star Trek crosses MANY societies and has
become such a cultural force across the world that no comparison can even
justly be made. Is "Young and the Restless" watched in Japan? In India?
In the U.K.? In Iceland? In Australia? In the Netherlands? In South
Africa? In Argentina?

I don't believe so.

There is simply *no* comparison. I am asking one to think outside the
United States - Star Trek is a *worldwide* cultural phenomenon.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:39:47 -0500, "Snake"
<fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote:

>But to answer both Mr. Peatty and yourself, the soaps are intrinsic to the
>individual society. My point is Star Trek crosses MANY societies and has
>become such a cultural force across the world that no comparison can even
>justly be made. Is "Young and the Restless" watched in Japan? In India?
>In the U.K.? In Iceland? In Australia? In the Netherlands? In South
>Africa? In Argentina?

In some of those countries, yes. No, I don't know which ones. Even where
they are not, almost all countries have local equivalents that inspire the
same kind of audience involvement. Yes, Trek is a global cultural
phenomenon, to be sure, but it is hardly the only one ..

"George Peatty" <peattyg47-1230@copper.net> wrote in message
news:gjkjr39liaagejs0ooo9d26njsmis1vttv@4ax.com...
> In some of those countries, yes. No, I don't know which ones. Even where
> they are not, almost all countries have local equivalents that inspire the
> same kind of audience involvement. Yes, Trek is a global cultural
> phenomenon, to be sure, but it is hardly the only one ..

All very true.

But when something is transcultural, not simply monocultural, there are a
LOT more complexities to the formula. Sure, we must all agree, soap operas
are *extremely* popular. But it may be reasonable to assume that one entire
soap opera's fan base, in total even if it does cross cultural barriers, is
but the smallest segment of Star Trek's cultural impact. I'm not aware of
many soap operas injecting entire words, phrases and references
transculturally.

"Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote
> There is simply *no* comparison. I am asking one to think outside the
> United States - Star Trek is a *worldwide* cultural phenomenon.

TOS and TNG managed to do that as TV shows. Don't know
the extent to which the theatrical films for either have, or how
well the post-TNG series managed to penetrate.

GeneK

In article <Xns9A46612BBC5Bepwiseyahoocom@66.150.105.47>, Wiseguy
<epwise@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in
> news:160220081537542744%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com:
>
> > In article <13rcepv10u7f2a7@corp.supernews.com>, "Steven L."
> > <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> AMUN wrote:
> >> > "Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:150220081824457798%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
> >> >> In article
> >> >> <ANIM8Rfsk-D7BFAD.16501414022008@news.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
> >> >> Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> In article <luh9r3pcsve1723anmdlmampmn7r49pk5l@4ax.com>,
> >> >>> Brian Thorn <bthorn64@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:08:10 -0700, Anim8rFSK
> >> >>>> <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> Naw, it's writing. They've been using the strike as an excuse
> >> >>>>> for why they couldn't fix the script for months. They used it
> >> >>>>> as an excuse for
> >> >>>>> why they couldn't involved the Shat as well. Hopefully now
> >> >>>>> they'll address all of that.
> >> >>>> I'd like to see them take the opportunity to put in a Shat
> >> >>>> appearance, and I think this is now somewhat more likely.
> >> >>> Yes. At least now it's possible.
> >> >> Unlikely. Jabba the Shat probbaly wants far too much money ...
> >> >> afterall, he's a "big important star" (in his own imagination
> >> >> anyway).
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Say what you want about Billy-boy.
> >> > He's still Mr. Star Trek,
> >>
> >> It's the character of CAPTAIN KIRK that is "Star Trek." Not the
> >> actor playing him.
> >>
> >> Kirk has a major role in Trek XI. It's just that he's played by
> >> Chris Pine.
> >
> > Every actor brings part of themselves to the roles they play (accent,
> > mannerisms, etc.). It's extremely difficult for another actor to
> > successfully play the same character without changing it. Characters
> > are permanently joined to an actor, and vice-versa (it's called
> > type-casting), although some actors can manage to play multiple
> > characters.
> >
> > The only way such a change of actor really works is when the character
> > changes too (the best example being Doctor Who) or when there are so
> > few fans of the original that "nobody" remembers the first actor
> > anyway.
>
>
> Right, cast changes never work. Just ask anybody on Broadway or TV soap
> operas.

Broadway is irrelevant - it's not an on-going series of connected
shows. It's the same "episode" played over and over to (mostly) a
different audience every time. It doesn't matter who plays the role
because those watching haven't seen the previous actor anyway. *BUT*
even then, someone who does see different actors wil always have one or
two they prefer in the role.

It doesn't "work" in soap operas either (which is why they prefer to
kill off or move away the characters). It's just that the people
watching them are too stupid to notice the change. ;-) In one
Australian soap opera they change the actress playing a character from
a tall skinny blonde to a short healthier red head, both with
completely different accents and characteristics. There absolutely no
in-show explanation at all, you were just supposed to accept it as
though it never happened.

Snake wrote:
> "GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote in message
> news:xWjuj.1270$lU5.1186@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to. verio.net...
>> "Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote...
>>> Agreed...but, then again, those characters aren't a cultural
>>> phenomenon, are they? ;-)
>>
>> Not if you aren't a soaps viewer. But those who are can
>> go beyond the most ardent trek fan. There are anecdotes
>> about actors who played bad guys on top soaps being
>> ambushed on the grocery lines and beaten over the head
>> with umbrellas by little old ladies who were fans of their
>> characters' victims. Offhand I can't recall ever hearing
>> of anything like that ever happening to Ricardo Montalban.
>
> But to answer both Mr. Peatty and yourself, the soaps are intrinsic
> to the individual society. My point is Star Trek crosses MANY
> societies and has become such a cultural force across the world that
> no comparison can even justly be made. Is "Young and the Restless"
> watched in Japan? In India? In the U.K.? In Iceland? In Australia?
> In the Netherlands? In South Africa? In Argentina?

The 'Young and the Restless' was/is being broadcast over here. Numerous U.S.
soaps can be seen over here (in The Netherlands). Most of them probably draw
more viewers than science fiction shows.
And they influence culture. Most recently a group called 'Leaf' had a song
called 'Wonder Woman' which featured these lines:

With coffee two sugars and the bold and the beautiful
I’m still single, but I feel ditched
I can’t believe Ridge really married that bitch

http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/l/leaf/wonderwoman.html

Over 90% of foreign made television that is broadcast in The Netherlands is
produced in the US (that's how I perceive it anyway) and includes shows from
all genres. Soaps, sit coms, court room drama, more cop shows than you can
shake a stick at, hospital shows, yada yada yada. Even 'Home (Oh my gosh!)
Improvement' shows. We are like a 51st state in that respect. Even election
news of the primaries is being watched closely.

>
> I don't believe so.
>
> There is simply *no* comparison. I am asking one to think outside the
> United States - Star Trek is a *worldwide* cultural phenomenon.

True.
And in the various countries in which it is popular I think it more or less
has the same type of relative position to soaps as in the US.

The biggest difference between Trek and soaps lies in fandom I think.
Trekkies tend to be more organized, more analytical. More critical.

--
www.woutervalentijn.net

www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html

liam=mail

Anybody wrote:
> In article <Xns9A46612BBC5Bepwiseyahoocom@66.150.105.47>, Wiseguy
> <epwise@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in
>> news:160220081537542744%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com:
>>
>>> In article <13rcepv10u7f2a7@corp.supernews.com>, "Steven L."
>>> <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> AMUN wrote:
>>>>> "Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:150220081824457798%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <ANIM8Rfsk-D7BFAD.16501414022008@news.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
>>>>>> Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <luh9r3pcsve1723anmdlmampmn7r49pk5l@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>> Brian Thorn <bthorn64@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:08:10 -0700, Anim8rFSK
>>>>>>>> <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Naw, it's writing. They've been using the strike as an excuse
>>>>>>>>> for why they couldn't fix the script for months. They used it
>>>>>>>>> as an excuse for
>>>>>>>>> why they couldn't involved the Shat as well. Hopefully now
>>>>>>>>> they'll address all of that.
>>>>>>>> I'd like to see them take the opportunity to put in a Shat
>>>>>>>> appearance, and I think this is now somewhat more likely.
>>>>>>> Yes. At least now it's possible.
>>>>>> Unlikely. Jabba the Shat probbaly wants far too much money ...
>>>>>> afterall, he's a "big important star" (in his own imagination
>>>>>> anyway).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Say what you want about Billy-boy.
>>>>> He's still Mr. Star Trek,
>>>>
>>>> It's the character of CAPTAIN KIRK that is "Star Trek." Not the
>>>> actor playing him.
>>>>
>>>> Kirk has a major role in Trek XI. It's just that he's played by
>>>> Chris Pine.
>>>
>>> Every actor brings part of themselves to the roles they play
>>> (accent, mannerisms, etc.). It's extremely difficult for another
>>> actor to successfully play the same character without changing it.
>>> Characters are permanently joined to an actor, and vice-versa (it's
>>> called type-casting), although some actors can manage to play
>>> multiple characters.
>>>
>>> The only way such a change of actor really works is when the
>>> character changes too (the best example being Doctor Who) or when
>>> there are so few fans of the original that "nobody" remembers the
>>> first actor anyway.
>>
>>
>> Right, cast changes never work. Just ask anybody on Broadway or TV
>> soap operas.
>
> Broadway is irrelevant - it's not an on-going series of connected
> shows. It's the same "episode" played over and over to (mostly) a
> different audience every time. It doesn't matter who plays the role
> because those watching haven't seen the previous actor anyway. *BUT*
> even then, someone who does see different actors wil always have one
> or two they prefer in the role.
>
> It doesn't "work" in soap operas either (which is why they prefer to
> kill off or move away the characters). It's just that the people
> watching them are too stupid to notice the change. ;-) In one
> Australian soap opera they change the actress playing a character from
> a tall skinny blonde to a short healthier red head, both with
> completely different accents and characteristics. There absolutely no
> in-show explanation at all, you were just supposed to accept it as
> though it never happened.


Do you really believe that other viewers are so "stupid" that they don't
notice a change of casting; or is it more likely that they accept that a
different actor is playing a role and just get on with enjoying the show?
There is no need for an "in-show" explanation, because the "real-world"
explanation is apparent; the role has been recast. What further explanation
could possibly be required?


Ian

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
news:47ba1eb3$0$13925$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
> Anybody wrote:
> > In article <Xns9A46612BBC5Bepwiseyahoocom@66.150.105.47>, Wiseguy
> > <epwise@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Right, cast changes never work. Just ask anybody on Broadway or TV
> >> soap operas.
> >
> > Broadway is irrelevant - it's not an on-going series of connected
> > shows. It's the same "episode" played over and over to (mostly) a
> > different audience every time. It doesn't matter who plays the role
> > because those watching haven't seen the previous actor anyway. *BUT*
> > even then, someone who does see different actors wil always have one
> > or two they prefer in the role.
> >
> > It doesn't "work" in soap operas either (which is why they prefer to
> > kill off or move away the characters). It's just that the people
> > watching them are too stupid to notice the change. ;-) In one
> > Australian soap opera they change the actress playing a character from
> > a tall skinny blonde to a short healthier red head, both with
> > completely different accents and characteristics. There absolutely no
> > in-show explanation at all, you were just supposed to accept it as
> > though it never happened.
>
>
> Do you really believe that other viewers are so "stupid" that they don't
> notice a change of casting; or is it more likely that they accept that a
> different actor is playing a role and just get on with enjoying the show?
> There is no need for an "in-show" explanation, because the "real-world"
> explanation is apparent; the role has been recast. What further
explanation
> could possibly be required?

Shh you'll jus upset him with your logic, and he does speak for "All True
Fans."
The British soap Coronation Street is seen in many different countries and
has had some different actors playing the same character. Especially when
that character is "reintroduced."
--

Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"

"Kweeg" <kweeg@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:32quj.54493$Ly.49762@pd7urf1no...
> Shh you'll jus upset him with your logic, and he does speak for "All True
> Fans."
> The British soap Coronation Street is seen in many different countries and
> has had some different actors playing the same character. Especially when
> that character is "reintroduced."

That is because in Great Britain, TV actor's contracts are substantially
different than in the United States.

In the U.K., actors are contracted "per annum" (per "series", which in the
United States is "season"), with no clauses for contract extensions. Each
and every series contract is renegotiated per annum, per actor.

This is why you see so many actor changes in a long running show, sometimes
per "series" - the actor's contract has ended and they have negotiated
during the interim with an alternate production. Therefore, the actor is no
longer available to continue their existing character position...and must
leave.

In the United States most actors' contracts are for a minimum of 2 to 3
years, with options for contract extensions, pending cancellation of the
show. This is due to a much stronger Screen Actor's Guild union in the
U.S. - this is what they have managed to bargain into their contracts over
the past 50 years. So, in the United States, we are accustomed to steady
actor characterizations in reoccurring roles.

I found this out via discussions with U.K. residents regarding their shows,
and why actor changes are so common. The BBC, many times, does not plan for
more than 1 series of a show, expecting a short production run and then a
"fade out into history", as it were. With BBC shows averaging 11 to 13
shows per series, rather than the typical United States' 29 to 40 per
season, U.K. actors move around constantly in order to be able to make a
consistent living.

"Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:47ba399c$0$14662$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> "Kweeg" <kweeg@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:32quj.54493$Ly.49762@pd7urf1no...
> > Shh you'll jus upset him with your logic, and he does speak for "All
True
> > Fans."
> > The British soap Coronation Street is seen in many different countries
and
> > has had some different actors playing the same character. Especially
when
> > that character is "reintroduced."
>
> That is because in Great Britain, TV actor's contracts are substantially
> different than in the United States.
>
> In the U.K., actors are contracted "per annum" (per "series", which in the
> United States is "season"), with no clauses for contract extensions. Each
> and every series contract is renegotiated per annum, per actor.
>
> This is why you see so many actor changes in a long running show,
sometimes
> per "series" - the actor's contract has ended and they have negotiated
> during the interim with an alternate production. Therefore, the actor is
no
> longer available to continue their existing character position...and must
> leave.
>
> In the United States most actors' contracts are for a minimum of 2 to 3
> years, with options for contract extensions, pending cancellation of the
> show. This is due to a much stronger Screen Actor's Guild union in the
> U.S. - this is what they have managed to bargain into their contracts over
> the past 50 years. So, in the United States, we are accustomed to steady
> actor characterizations in reoccurring roles.
>
> I found this out via discussions with U.K. residents regarding their
shows,
> and why actor changes are so common. The BBC, many times, does not plan
for
> more than 1 series of a show, expecting a short production run and then a
> "fade out into history", as it were. With BBC shows averaging 11 to 13
> shows per series, rather than the typical United States' 29 to 40 per
> season, U.K. actors move around constantly in order to be able to make a
> consistent living.

Indeed.
UK actors seem a better more rounded actor. There are a few "known" actors,
but for the most part one can find them *acting* be it TV, movies or on
stage and not stuck in the *I'm a star* syndrome. Brian Blessed comes to
mind; I remember seeing him in Space 1999, Dr Who, Black Adder, the movie
Flash Gordon, on stage in a production of Richard III with the Royal
Shakespeare Company at Stratford upon Avon, the movie Alexander....
( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000306/ ... and it seems lots of other I
forgot too)
Reminds me of something Billy Connolly once said when asked about "making it
big in America"... "The bastards won't let ya."

--

Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"

Kweeg wrote:
> "Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:47ba399c$0$14662$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>> "Kweeg" <kweeg@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
>> news:32quj.54493$Ly.49762@pd7urf1no...
>>> Shh you'll jus upset him with your logic, and he does speak for
>>> "All True Fans."
>>> The British soap Coronation Street is seen in many different
>>> countries and has had some different actors playing the same
>>> character. Especially when that character is "reintroduced."
>>
>> That is because in Great Britain, TV actor's contracts are
>> substantially different than in the United States.
>>
>> In the U.K., actors are contracted "per annum" (per "series", which
>> in the United States is "season"), with no clauses for contract
>> extensions. Each and every series contract is renegotiated per
>> annum, per actor.
>>
>> This is why you see so many actor changes in a long running show,
>> sometimes per "series" - the actor's contract has ended and they
>> have negotiated during the interim with an alternate production.
>> Therefore, the actor is no longer available to continue their
>> existing character position...and must leave.
>>
>> In the United States most actors' contracts are for a minimum of 2
>> to 3 years, with options for contract extensions, pending
>> cancellation of the show. This is due to a much stronger Screen
>> Actor's Guild union in the U.S. - this is what they have managed to
>> bargain into their contracts over the past 50 years. So, in the
>> United States, we are accustomed to steady actor characterizations
>> in reoccurring roles.
>>
>> I found this out via discussions with U.K. residents regarding their
>> shows, and why actor changes are so common. The BBC, many times,
>> does not plan for more than 1 series of a show, expecting a short
>> production run and then a "fade out into history", as it were. With
>> BBC shows averaging 11 to 13 shows per series, rather than the
>> typical United States' 29 to 40 per season, U.K. actors move around
>> constantly in order to be able to make a consistent living.
>
> Indeed.
> UK actors seem a better more rounded actor. There are a few "known"
> actors, but for the most part one can find them *acting* be it TV,
> movies or on stage and not stuck in the *I'm a star* syndrome. Brian
> Blessed comes to mind; I remember seeing him in Space 1999, Dr Who,
> Black Adder, the movie Flash Gordon, on stage in a production of
> Richard III with the Royal Shakespeare Company at Stratford upon
> Avon, the movie Alexander.... ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000306/
> ... and it seems lots of other I forgot too)
> Reminds me of something Billy Connolly once said when asked about
> "making it big in America"... "The bastards won't let ya."

Ah! Brian Blessed. One of my favorites.
He also had a role once in 'Blake's 7', 'I Claudius' and I think it was
'Treasure Island' (as a pirate of course).
The first time I saw him was in something called.... err. (my brain starts
to hurt, so I'm using IMDB): 'Boy Dominique' (hardly remember the show, but
Mister Blessed's presence was unmistakable.


--
www.woutervalentijn.net

www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html

liam=mail

In article <47bb2887$0$14354$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, "Wouter
Valentijn" <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:

> Kweeg wrote:
> > "Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote in message
> > news:47ba399c$0$14662$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> >> "Kweeg" <kweeg@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:32quj.54493$Ly.49762@pd7urf1no...
> >>> Shh you'll jus upset him with your logic, and he does speak for
> >>> "All True Fans."
> >>> The British soap Coronation Street is seen in many different
> >>> countries and has had some different actors playing the same
> >>> character. Especially when that character is "reintroduced."
> >>
> >> That is because in Great Britain, TV actor's contracts are
> >> substantially different than in the United States.
> >>
> >> In the U.K., actors are contracted "per annum" (per "series", which
> >> in the United States is "season"), with no clauses for contract
> >> extensions. Each and every series contract is renegotiated per
> >> annum, per actor.
> >>
> >> This is why you see so many actor changes in a long running show,
> >> sometimes per "series" - the actor's contract has ended and they
> >> have negotiated during the interim with an alternate production.
> >> Therefore, the actor is no longer available to continue their
> >> existing character position...and must leave.
> >>
> >> In the United States most actors' contracts are for a minimum of 2
> >> to 3 years, with options for contract extensions, pending
> >> cancellation of the show. This is due to a much stronger Screen
> >> Actor's Guild union in the U.S. - this is what they have managed to
> >> bargain into their contracts over the past 50 years. So, in the
> >> United States, we are accustomed to steady actor characterizations
> >> in reoccurring roles.
> >>
> >> I found this out via discussions with U.K. residents regarding their
> >> shows, and why actor changes are so common. The BBC, many times,
> >> does not plan for more than 1 series of a show, expecting a short
> >> production run and then a "fade out into history", as it were. With
> >> BBC shows averaging 11 to 13 shows per series, rather than the
> >> typical United States' 29 to 40 per season, U.K. actors move around
> >> constantly in order to be able to make a consistent living.
> >
> > Indeed.
> > UK actors seem a better more rounded actor. There are a few "known"
> > actors, but for the most part one can find them *acting* be it TV,
> > movies or on stage and not stuck in the *I'm a star* syndrome. Brian
> > Blessed comes to mind; I remember seeing him in Space 1999, Dr Who,
> > Black Adder, the movie Flash Gordon, on stage in a production of
> > Richard III with the Royal Shakespeare Company at Stratford upon
> > Avon, the movie Alexander.... ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000306/
> > ... and it seems lots of other I forgot too)
> > Reminds me of something Billy Connolly once said when asked about
> > "making it big in America"... "The bastards won't let ya."
>
> Ah! Brian Blessed. One of my favorites.
> He also had a role once in 'Blake's 7', 'I Claudius' and I think it was
> 'Treasure Island' (as a pirate of course).
> The first time I saw him was in something called.... err. (my brain starts
> to hurt, so I'm using IMDB): 'Boy Dominique' (hardly remember the show, but
> Mister Blessed's presence was unmistakable.

He also voiced the Boss Nass character in Star Wars: Episode I, among
lots of other stuff he has done over the years.

On Feb 18, 3:16 pm, "Wouter Valentijn" <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:

> Over 90% of foreign made television that is broadcast in The Netherlands is
> produced in the US (that's how I perceive it anyway) and includes shows from
> all genres. Soaps, sit coms, court room drama, more cop shows than you can
> shake a stick at, hospital shows, yada yada yada. Even 'Home (Oh my gosh!)
> Improvement' shows. We are like a 51st state in that respect. Even election
> news of the primaries is being watched closely.

So this is not unique to Canada.

Of course, "election news of the primaries" *is* important outside the
U.S., since presumably if the next American election had been Joe
Lieberman (for the Democrats) running against Rudy Giuliani (for the
Republicans), the odds of a departure of the U.S. from Iraq any time
soon would be lower... than it is with Barack Obama having an
incredible momentum among young Americans, who, when they do deign to
show up at the polls, are like an iceberg.

John Savard

On Feb 18, 5:11 pm, "Jaxtraw" <j...@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote:

> Do you really believe that other viewers are so "stupid" that they don't
> notice a change of casting; or is it more likely that they accept that a
> different actor is playing a role and just get on with enjoying the show?
> There is no need for an "in-show" explanation, because the "real-world"
> explanation is apparent; the role has been recast. What further explanation
> could possibly be required?

Well, since the character doesn't look the same, this is very strange.

Although I know it's only a TV show, what I expect from its producers
is that what I see is just like a window into real events - the events
of the story. Thus, I expect the special effects to be perfect, and
the parts to never be recast.

Of course, I do make allowances for flashbacks into when the
character, an adult in the show, was a 10-year-old child; I know they
can't plan TV series that far in advance, so as to have filmed those
scenes back when the same actor was 10 years old. And there would be
ethical questions in trying to deal with this by means of cloning.

John Savard

In article
<3ba47757-6ee2-4249-a158-ac54d8a14ab3@q70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> On Feb 18, 5:11 pm, "Jaxtraw" <j...@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote:
>
> > Do you really believe that other viewers are so "stupid" that they don't
> > notice a change of casting; or is it more likely that they accept that a
> > different actor is playing a role and just get on with enjoying the show?
> > There is no need for an "in-show" explanation, because the "real-world"
> > explanation is apparent; the role has been recast. What further explanation
> > could possibly be required?
>
> Well, since the character doesn't look the same, this is very strange.
>
> Although I know it's only a TV show, what I expect from its producers
> is that what I see is just like a window into real events - the events
> of the story. Thus, I expect the special effects to be perfect, and
> the parts to never be recast.
>
> Of course, I do make allowances for flashbacks into when the
> character, an adult in the show, was a 10-year-old child; I know they
> can't plan TV series that far in advance, so as to have filmed those
> scenes back when the same actor was 10 years old. And there would be
> ethical questions in trying to deal with this by means of cloning.

In a soap opera, the usual story is some serious accident followed by
plastic surgery ... as if that's going to make a person shorter /
taller / fatter / thiner and change their hair colour. :-\