Impact on Star Trek as Disney reboot Star Wars.

[teacake]

Okay.

Maybe if it means not waiting for long drawn out periods between films it's for the best.

[The Wormhole]

Well, Paramount is likely to do whatever it takes to get Trek 13 in theatres in 2016 (three years after Into Darkness). 50th anniversary and all that.

[King Daniel]

http://trekweb.com/articles/2012/11/...sode-VII.shtml

JJ Abrams wrote:

---

I frankly feel that – I almost feel that, in a weird way, the opportunity for whomever it is to direct that movie, it comes with the burden of being that kind of iconic movie and series. I was never a big Star Trek fan growing up, so for me, working on Star Trek didn’t have any of that, you know, almost fatal sacrilege, and so, I am looking forward more then anyone to the next iterations of Star Wars, but I believe I will be going as a paying moviegoer!

He makes a good point - desperate fanboys don't necessarily make the best directors. SW needs a fresh perspective.

[BillJ]

I'd rather get rid of Orci & Kurtzman than Abrams.

[UFO]

BillJ wrote:

---

I'd rather get rid of Orci & Kurtzman than Abrams.

I was thinking the same thing myself. I rather doubt Mr Abrams is responsible for the things I dislike most about the movie. So it seems likely that "desperate fanboys" make worse writers than they do directors, at least if they have a small picture view of the subject matter. I.e. If they try to pack in as many "mince pies" and "Christmas puddings" as possible without having an overall understanding of, or interest in, the material. Perhaps these days that kind of holistic approach is out of fashion.

By the way, it's strange how often "then" and "than" are confused with each other now. So often in fact that it doesn't seem like just a typo.

[Greg Cox]

UFO wrote:

---

By the way, it's strange how often "then" and "than" are confused with each other now. So often in fact that it doesn't seem like just a typo.

Don't get me started on "roll" and "role."

[UFO]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Don't get me started on "roll" and "role."

Yes, there are a number that sound the same but have different meanings. "Too" and "to" etc. But the weird thing with "then" and "than" is they don't sound quite the same and the pronunciation gives a hint about the spelling, so maybe they are being mispronounced as well?

I hasten to add that I'm not referring to BillJ's usage of course, but to the "then" in the quote of JJ Abrams where the writer means "than".

[teacake]

My current pet hate is how perfectly mature people (as in, not teenagers) spell ridiculous "rediculous".

[BillJ]

teacock wrote:

---

My current pet hate is how perfectly mature people (as in, not teenagers) spell ridiculous "rediculous".

That drives me up a fucking wall, especially in the age of spell-check!

[Gaith]

teacock wrote:

---

My current pet hate is how perfectly mature people (as in, not teenagers) spell ridiculous "rediculous".

Does it make you red with fury?!

[Set Harth]

teacock wrote:

---

My current pet hate is how perfectly mature people (as in, not teenagers) spell ridiculous "rediculous".

Don't get me started on definitely being spelled "defiantly".

[Maurice]

"Then" for "than", "threw" for "through"...

[teacake]

Gaith wrote:

---

Does it make you red with fury?!

No it makes me want to rid myself of them. The twitching defriend finger is palsied now.

[Sindatur]

Finally and Finale

Though to and too actually makes understanding some posts difficult and causes me to have to read a sentence 2 or 3 times

[Greg Cox]

Maurice wrote:

---

"Then" for "than", "threw" for "through"...

"Loose" for "lose," "rouge" for "rogue."

And, getting all Trekkie on you, "Kahn" for "Khan."