|
|
Hi Virgil,
> Star Trek: .... strictly speaking, it's a sequel series.
Yup, and done within existing canon and with care enough to the original.
> The recent Trek movie was an enjoyable reboot.
Nope. The recent Trek movie was a travesty and worst possible damage to the franchise. It can only be compared to what was done with Highlanders 3 and following to the Highlander franchise.
It is precisely something like that which I personally fear for in the potential UFO movie:
Cmdr. Straker as a libidinous, muscular beach boy knocking up every other and again of his female staff, well, those that neither Foster don't get at first. A bimbo style Col. Lake more interested in her nail polish and the next hunky bloke than in math, and loads of nice explosions, fast CGI camera effects, lensflare and Ford doing Ayshea in the night bunk, and Jackson and Freeman hit each other over the head, while raunchy, grimily realistic looking interceptors do their thang for earth and mankind...
Ye Gods. Star Trek didn't need that, nor would UFO.
> Make it exactly as it was in 1965, models, wooden puppets, wires...
> the lot!. It might work as a period piece:).
There are quite a few wooden puppet programs actually being filmed, especially in Europe. No one does them as period pieces. ;-)
Cheers
An
|
Locked
