


<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Lindelof: It&#8217;s Not Your Daddy&#8217;s Star Trek + Quinto On Chemistry With Pine</title>
	<atom:link href="http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/21/lindelof-its-not-your-daddys-star-trek/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/21/lindelof-its-not-your-daddys-star-trek/</link>
	<description>the source for Star Trek news and information</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:02:57 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Anthony Pascale</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/21/lindelof-its-not-your-daddys-star-trek/comment-page-3/#comment-374025</link>
		<dc:creator>Anthony Pascale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:28:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/21/lindelof-its-not-your-daddys-star-trek/#comment-374025</guid>
		<description>blaise,
for your first two posts on this site you get a warning for flaming and trolling

there is nothing that bugs me more than those who believe they are the arbiter of who is and is not a fan</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>blaise,<br />
for your first two posts on this site you get a warning for flaming and trolling</p>
<p>there is nothing that bugs me more than those who believe they are the arbiter of who is and is not a fan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blaise</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/21/lindelof-its-not-your-daddys-star-trek/comment-page-3/#comment-374014</link>
		<dc:creator>Blaise</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:19:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/21/lindelof-its-not-your-daddys-star-trek/#comment-374014</guid>
		<description>This guys full of it and himself and the movies going to suck no matter what they do. All of you backing it are not true trek fans. If paramount took the time they could have revitilised the show but they didn&#039;t and we got Enterprise. This movie will bomb and it will be 20 years before we see a good Star Trek series again.

have a nice day</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This guys full of it and himself and the movies going to suck no matter what they do. All of you backing it are not true trek fans. If paramount took the time they could have revitilised the show but they didn&#8217;t and we got Enterprise. This movie will bomb and it will be 20 years before we see a good Star Trek series again.</p>
<p>have a nice day</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gary Mitchell in the house aka COMPASSIONATE GOD</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/21/lindelof-its-not-your-daddys-star-trek/comment-page-3/#comment-360643</link>
		<dc:creator>Gary Mitchell in the house aka COMPASSIONATE GOD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:42:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/21/lindelof-its-not-your-daddys-star-trek/#comment-360643</guid>
		<description>Re: 137. Dennis Bailey - December 26, 2007 
#134:”Catering too far beyond the base runs the risk of major failure, as TPB will try to reach tastes having no interest in sci-fi, and certainly not the generally anti-loud/explosions/spinning spceships of the Star Trek universe. Every film franchise cannot be Lord of the Rings or Star Wars. The lust for career advancement and profits blinds many to this fact, and may spell doom if NewTrek appears to be more Lost than Trek.”

&quot;Not catering to casual moviegoers obviates any reason for producing a new Trek movie at all. There’s simply not enough cash to be made from what’s left of the Trek fan base to make another film worth the investment. &quot;

Dennis, I did post  &quot;Catering too far beyond the base runs the risk of major failure, as TPB will try to reach tastes having no interest in sci-fi, and certainly not the generally anti-loud/explosions/spinning spceships of the Star Trek universe.&quot;

&quot;Too far&quot; being the point. If--for example--the PTB tried to specifically reach the kind of people who almost exclusively watch &quot;I Love New York&quot;, &quot;America&#039;s Next Top Model&quot; and similar reality TV, or cling to every entertainment show talking about Paris and Britney, the PTB would be making a mistake. More than ever, we live in a world of incredible cultural differences, which modern Trek--no matter the new dressing (ex. the blatant &quot;T&amp;A&quot; of Jeri Ryan &amp; Jolene Blalock in catsuits, etc.) still failed to capture enough interest to keep the franchise alive..and even if some care to watch the occasional sci-fi and/or fantasy film, they usually prefer it in the vein of the Star Wars Prequels, or Pirates films, where its long on flash, short on real story. That is the mind one faces if attempting to go too &quot;wide&quot; in reaching for new audiences--even with the most familiar/popular Trek characters of all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: 137. Dennis Bailey &#8211; December 26, 2007<br />
#134:”Catering too far beyond the base runs the risk of major failure, as TPB will try to reach tastes having no interest in sci-fi, and certainly not the generally anti-loud/explosions/spinning spceships of the Star Trek universe. Every film franchise cannot be Lord of the Rings or Star Wars. The lust for career advancement and profits blinds many to this fact, and may spell doom if NewTrek appears to be more Lost than Trek.”</p>
<p>&#8220;Not catering to casual moviegoers obviates any reason for producing a new Trek movie at all. There’s simply not enough cash to be made from what’s left of the Trek fan base to make another film worth the investment. &#8221;</p>
<p>Dennis, I did post  &#8220;Catering too far beyond the base runs the risk of major failure, as TPB will try to reach tastes having no interest in sci-fi, and certainly not the generally anti-loud/explosions/spinning spceships of the Star Trek universe.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Too far&#8221; being the point. If&#8211;for example&#8211;the PTB tried to specifically reach the kind of people who almost exclusively watch &#8220;I Love New York&#8221;, &#8220;America&#8217;s Next Top Model&#8221; and similar reality TV, or cling to every entertainment show talking about Paris and Britney, the PTB would be making a mistake. More than ever, we live in a world of incredible cultural differences, which modern Trek&#8211;no matter the new dressing (ex. the blatant &#8220;T&amp;A&#8221; of Jeri Ryan &amp; Jolene Blalock in catsuits, etc.) still failed to capture enough interest to keep the franchise alive..and even if some care to watch the occasional sci-fi and/or fantasy film, they usually prefer it in the vein of the Star Wars Prequels, or Pirates films, where its long on flash, short on real story. That is the mind one faces if attempting to go too &#8220;wide&#8221; in reaching for new audiences&#8211;even with the most familiar/popular Trek characters of all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Orbitalic</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/21/lindelof-its-not-your-daddys-star-trek/comment-page-3/#comment-360519</link>
		<dc:creator>Orbitalic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:19:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/21/lindelof-its-not-your-daddys-star-trek/#comment-360519</guid>
		<description>#140 Jim
You are welcome and thanks for taking my comments in the spirit in which they were intended.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#140 Jim<br />
You are welcome and thanks for taking my comments in the spirit in which they were intended.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Closettrekker</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/21/lindelof-its-not-your-daddys-star-trek/comment-page-3/#comment-360402</link>
		<dc:creator>Closettrekker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:39:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/21/lindelof-its-not-your-daddys-star-trek/#comment-360402</guid>
		<description>#103--I agree on the Gary Mitchell thing, although is was never clear that they were &quot;best&quot; friends, only that they knew each other fairly well at the Academy. For that matter, Finney could be a bit player as well, if we are to see a pre-command era Jim Kirk.

Not to compare apples and oranges, but how many X-Men fans really complained that the movie failed to include men in yellow spandex? I won&#039;t complain about anything outside of character continuity. Star Trek&#039;s essence was never about it&#039;s cheap props, models, and cell phone looking communicators. It was about the social evolution of mankind within Mr. Roddenberry&#039;s vision. It&#039;s magic was in the cohesiveness and genuine affection amongst  a crew that was the very definition of diverse. Combine all of that with some good, old-fashioned fistfights, scantily clad females of varied species, and some blatant political statements--and you have yourself some Star Trek!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#103&#8211;I agree on the Gary Mitchell thing, although is was never clear that they were &#8220;best&#8221; friends, only that they knew each other fairly well at the Academy. For that matter, Finney could be a bit player as well, if we are to see a pre-command era Jim Kirk.</p>
<p>Not to compare apples and oranges, but how many X-Men fans really complained that the movie failed to include men in yellow spandex? I won&#8217;t complain about anything outside of character continuity. Star Trek&#8217;s essence was never about it&#8217;s cheap props, models, and cell phone looking communicators. It was about the social evolution of mankind within Mr. Roddenberry&#8217;s vision. It&#8217;s magic was in the cohesiveness and genuine affection amongst  a crew that was the very definition of diverse. Combine all of that with some good, old-fashioned fistfights, scantily clad females of varied species, and some blatant political statements&#8211;and you have yourself some Star Trek!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/21/lindelof-its-not-your-daddys-star-trek/comment-page-3/#comment-360220</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:08:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/21/lindelof-its-not-your-daddys-star-trek/#comment-360220</guid>
		<description>Orbitalic and Anthony -

Thanks for the context and the reality check.
Nuff said for now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Orbitalic and Anthony -</p>
<p>Thanks for the context and the reality check.<br />
Nuff said for now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anthony Pascale</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/21/lindelof-its-not-your-daddys-star-trek/comment-page-3/#comment-360201</link>
		<dc:creator>Anthony Pascale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:51:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/21/lindelof-its-not-your-daddys-star-trek/#comment-360201</guid>
		<description>some context:
It is important to note that Lindelof is a huge Trekkie. He and Roberto Orci are considered the biggest Trek geeks on the movie. He loves Trek as much as any of us. Lindelof also happens to be the guy who co-created Lost and made sci-fi genre cool again for TV. 

Lindelof wants to make trek appeal beyond hardcores (like himself) because he loves Star Trek and wants it to be big again. He knows that you cant do the same ol same ol to make that happen.

It is hard for some of us who have stuck with trek to acknowledge that it is not in good shape right now and it needs some re-vitalization...but it does.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>some context:<br />
It is important to note that Lindelof is a huge Trekkie. He and Roberto Orci are considered the biggest Trek geeks on the movie. He loves Trek as much as any of us. Lindelof also happens to be the guy who co-created Lost and made sci-fi genre cool again for TV. </p>
<p>Lindelof wants to make trek appeal beyond hardcores (like himself) because he loves Star Trek and wants it to be big again. He knows that you cant do the same ol same ol to make that happen.</p>
<p>It is hard for some of us who have stuck with trek to acknowledge that it is not in good shape right now and it needs some re-vitalization&#8230;but it does.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Orbitalic</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/21/lindelof-its-not-your-daddys-star-trek/comment-page-3/#comment-360190</link>
		<dc:creator>Orbitalic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:39:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/21/lindelof-its-not-your-daddys-star-trek/#comment-360190</guid>
		<description>When someone truly has something substancial to complain about regarding the direction or &quot;guts&quot; of this film, please speak up. Complaining about these comments is just a waste.

Happy Festivus.
Happy New Year.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When someone truly has something substancial to complain about regarding the direction or &#8220;guts&#8221; of this film, please speak up. Complaining about these comments is just a waste.</p>
<p>Happy Festivus.<br />
Happy New Year.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dennis Bailey</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/21/lindelof-its-not-your-daddys-star-trek/comment-page-3/#comment-360168</link>
		<dc:creator>Dennis Bailey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:13:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/21/lindelof-its-not-your-daddys-star-trek/#comment-360168</guid>
		<description>#134:&quot;Catering too far beyond the base runs the risk of major failure, as TPB will try to reach tastes having no interest in sci-fi, and certainly not the generally anti-loud/explosions/spinning spceships of the Star Trek universe. Every film franchise cannot be Lord of the Rings or Star Wars. The lust for career advancement and profits blinds many to this fact, and may spell doom if NewTrek appears to be more Lost than Trek.&quot;

Not catering to casual moviegoers obviates any reason for producing a new Trek movie at all.  There&#039;s simply not enough cash to be made from what&#039;s left of the Trek fan base to make another film worth the investment.   

Some Trek fans cling to the belief that there are many millions of &quot;ex-Trek-viewers&quot; that will rematerialize if a Trek movie is made that&#039;s to the tastes of the hard-core remaining fan base, but that&#039;s entirely faith - there is no evidence of it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#134:&#8221;Catering too far beyond the base runs the risk of major failure, as TPB will try to reach tastes having no interest in sci-fi, and certainly not the generally anti-loud/explosions/spinning spceships of the Star Trek universe. Every film franchise cannot be Lord of the Rings or Star Wars. The lust for career advancement and profits blinds many to this fact, and may spell doom if NewTrek appears to be more Lost than Trek.&#8221;</p>
<p>Not catering to casual moviegoers obviates any reason for producing a new Trek movie at all.  There&#8217;s simply not enough cash to be made from what&#8217;s left of the Trek fan base to make another film worth the investment.   </p>
<p>Some Trek fans cling to the belief that there are many millions of &#8220;ex-Trek-viewers&#8221; that will rematerialize if a Trek movie is made that&#8217;s to the tastes of the hard-core remaining fan base, but that&#8217;s entirely faith &#8211; there is no evidence of it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Orbitalic</title>
		<link>http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/21/lindelof-its-not-your-daddys-star-trek/comment-page-3/#comment-360136</link>
		<dc:creator>Orbitalic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:44:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trekmovie.com/2007/12/21/lindelof-its-not-your-daddys-star-trek/#comment-360136</guid>
		<description>135. Jim - December 26, 2007 

Jim, Not berating you... just observing..
  He&#039;s just talking. Don&#039;t linger on every word and don&#039;t assume the worst. He, Orci, JJ and other have been relatively quiet and they have fans upset when they don&#039;t speak. Now when they say a little...(with practically no information)... people are mad again.
What did you want him to say? &quot;This will be identical to your Daddy&#039;s Trek&quot;? We know that isn&#039;t gonna happen and be sucessful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>135. Jim &#8211; December 26, 2007 </p>
<p>Jim, Not berating you&#8230; just observing..<br />
  He&#8217;s just talking. Don&#8217;t linger on every word and don&#8217;t assume the worst. He, Orci, JJ and other have been relatively quiet and they have fans upset when they don&#8217;t speak. Now when they say a little&#8230;(with practically no information)&#8230; people are mad again.<br />
What did you want him to say? &#8220;This will be identical to your Daddy&#8217;s Trek&#8221;? We know that isn&#8217;t gonna happen and be sucessful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

