"Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
news:270220081928511781%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com...
> In article <47c4e11a$0$10310$815e3792@news.qwest.net>, "Kevin"
> <webman6@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Kweeg" <kweeg@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > news:hjXwj.4024$pM4.1944@pd7urf1no...
> > > "Kevin" <webman6@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:47c38be1$0$507$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
> > >>
> > >> "Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote in message
> > >> news:47c38684$0$15158$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> > >> > <a> wrote in message
> > > news:6-qdnV3rKs2tGV7anZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > >> >> The tiny ratio of 50% time travel episodes simply wasn't enough to
> > > fully
> > >> >> mine the rich lode of absurdity and unbelievability offered by the
> > >> >> time
> > >> >> travel genre. My suspension of disbelief simply wasn't blasted
out of
> > >> >> the atmosphere nearly often enough.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> (Pardon the sarcasm, I just got done watching "Bloodlines" where
Worf
> > >> >> meets his Son from the Future.)
> > >> >
> > >> > ROFL. Isn't that the truth ;-)
> > >> >
> > >> > If B&B's reign ever goes down in history books in some fashion,
this
> > >> > pattern of storytelling would certainly be marked as [the cause of]
the
> > >> > downturn of the franchise.
> > >>
> > >> While I certainly agree that the use of time travel in Star Trek
> > > television
> > >> series and movies was, to put it mildly, overused, I don't believe
that
> > >> it
> > >> is the reason for the demise of the Star Trek franchise. That award
> > > should
> > >> go to Paramount for running two Star Trek series at the same time,
not
> > >> developing a Star Trek movie based on the series Deep Space Nine or
> > > Voyager,
> > >> and rushing the movies they did wind up making to the detriment of
the
> > > film
> > >> in production at the time.
> > >
> > > Movies based on DS9 or Voyager? Didn't DS9 and Voyager "finish?"
> > > or was that just me thinking DS9 (as much as I liked it) ended
> > > satisfactory
> > > with no need to come up with some absurd reason to get the crew that
> > > scattered to the 4 winds back together again .... sorta like Worf
being in
> > > the last 2 TNG movies or all of Voyager's crew, some of them not even
> > > Starfleet, staying together after they got home after 7 years... as
who
> > > can
> > > forget that oh so great finale with the Borg/timetravel/Klingons.
> >
> > There wouldn't be a need to make a "reunion" movie from either DS9 or
> > Voyager. But there could have been a film made that could have taken
> > advantage of some of the great characters from those two series. When
you
> > ask the actors from the two shows about this topic, you will get an
earful.
> >
> > Most, if not all of them are not happy about being basically tossed
after
> > their respective series ended with no chance for a feature film part.
Kate
> > Mulgrew got a tiny part in one of the last movies, but that was really
only
> > about a half minute of screen time, so I discount that.
> >
> > Not getting a feature film deal from Paramount is a really sore point
with
> > these actors who have pretty much faded out of the scene. When was the
last
> > time you saw Nana Visitor in a film?
>
> Very few TV shows become a movie. Any actor taking the role on Voyager
> or Deep Space Nine because they thought there would be a movie is
> simply an idiot ... a greedy idiot at that.
Yep and Anybody knows idiots and wanting to make money makes one gready.
> I have seen Nana Visitor and some of the others in shows since their
> Star Trek ones ended, but then how many actors do you see getting roles
> in multiple shows?? Again very few. The vast majority of actors are
> one-hit-wonders with only a handful ever making it to "the big time".
Yep and Anybody knows TV too, he's always right, he speaks for "All True
Fans."
--
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!"