Greg Cox wrote:
.....Well, quite simply put, you are not a Star trek fan.QUOTE]
Okay, I don't have time to defend the new movie for the umpteenth time, but, sorry, you don't get to tell me I'm not a Star Trek fan because I don't agree with you. I've been watching the show since its original run on NBC, I have driven hundreds or miles, or stood in line in the pouring rain, to see each new movie on opening night, I've been spent much of my adult life being a professional Trekkie, have spent countless hours discussing Trek with my fannish friends and associates, have developed lifelong friendships through Trek fandom, spent way too many hours attending Trek conventions all over the country, etc.
Nothing personal, 'cause you're hardly the only person who does this, but can we please declare a moratorium on the "You're not a real Trek fan if . . . ." bullshit. Nobody gets to rule on who is really a fan--and I'll put my Trekkie credentials up against anyone.
(To be fair, it's not just Trekkies who do this. I've run into the same schtick on comic-book message boards. "You're not a real Superman fan if you like SMALLVILLE" or whatever.)
To be honest, I'm not quite sure why it seems so important to some people to establish who the real fans are . . .
Star trek IS an established fictional universe with established characteristics, established technology, established time lines, established canon and an established chain of command (another thing the 2009 namesake defecated on. And I feel really bad to anyone who can suspend disbelief in the face of 'cadet kirk' becoming 'captain kirk' on a training mission, no less).
As such, star trek must adhere to some of these basic established parameters in order to be consider star trek, and not a parody of such or a namesake reboot that bears little similarity to the real thing.
The argument that you cannot write within established parameters is really silly. By that logic we may as well blend the star wars, babylon 5 and star trek universes into one amalgam universe so we don't have to 'adhere to established canon'.
It is the approach of lazy writing and even lazier reasoning.
Er, where did I say that one could not write within the established parameters? Or that Babylon-5, Star Trek, and Star Wars are all one and the same?
I was just objecting to the tendency on the part of some fans to declare themselves the sole arbiters of what constitutes a Star Trek fan (or a Batman fan or a Buffy fan)--and to insist that anyone who disagrees with them is not really a fan. Because, of course, only they understand what Star Trek is really all about . . . .
Please. Enough with the more-Trekkie-than-thou attitude. People can like the reboot, and prefer it to NEMESIS, without being clueless, heretics, or traitors to the cause.