| Re: When the Sequel for [message #306368 is a reply to message #306223] |
Thu, 17 December 2015 20:46  |
Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma:
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <n4phna$6u8$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Clu <drclu@swbell.net>
wrote:
> On 11/16/15 7:02 PM, Gatuzo wrote:
>>
>> I thinks After the 80' , Hollywood have no more Imagination and all
>> the crap now a reply of old movies or garbige
>>
>> I remember about that and do not See like a Sequel of it , it was BAD
>> BAD !!
>
> G80 (Galactica 1980) is enjoyable enough to watch on it's own. It is
> like a comedy with Battlestar Galactica trappings. I think the
> cyclones would make good ground roving vehicles, but should never have
> flown.
>
> Oh well. "In name only" is a term used a lot since the New Battlestar
> came out. Luckily Doctor Who learned from this mistake and did not
> ignore the past.
>
> As for Star Trek, they started off saying "Ok the whole other universe
> happened, this is a new universe." That was excellent. However with
> the new trailer looking like "Star Trek the Fast and the Furious" well,
> it looks like the new Trek is Trek in name only as well.
Nope, Jar Jar Abrams "Crap Trek" is just yet another "ignore the past,
steal the name, and butcher the ideas" reboot that doesn't actually fit
with anything that came before (despite the silly "alternate universe"
nonsense).
I haven't seen the new Star Wars movie yet, but from the trailers and
reviews I have seen for it so far, it looks like Jar Jar Abrams has
also done an idiotic "reboot" with Star Wars too and again tried to
claim it's part of the same franchise by calling it "Episode VII" and
including original cast again ... but it appears all he's really done
is remake the original, butchering it, and adding his own hopeless
"fan-wank" ideas. :-(
The guy's a talentless cretin and everything he touches turns to
over-hype, idiotic, ill-fitting crap. :-(
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
