Greg Cox wrote:
I think you'll find most people who don't accept Pine and Quinto are 24th century Star Trek fans.
Raging that its not Picard or Janeway or Sisko on screen.
This ties in with my own (completely unscientific) pet theory that it's mostly TNG-era fans that have issues with the new movies, because they're not "intellectual" or "utopian" enough--as opposed to us old-school TOS fans who grew up on a STAR TREK that was both "cerebral" and
good, old-fashioned space-opera adventure.
And between the two, good old fashioned space-opera adventure translates better to the big screen. FC was the closest movie to that among the TNG movies, and I remember people criticizing "Action Picard" as being more or less out of character.
TNG was a fine show. TOS was a fine show. But they were mostly different shows. I can see also why some TNG fans who never followed TOS at all could look at it and wonder why folks found it so great. Then some TOS fans get overly defensive protecting the product. Bar fights break out. Hair pulling. Eye gouging. Name calling. Slapping. It gets nasty.
My own two cents on the "iconic" and "cerebral" and "made you think" part is if you grew up with TOS or grabbed onto it very early in syndication (as I did) -- that is, you've been a fan 40 years or more -- you take that stuff with a heavy grain of salt.
Through the mist of time, I also think TOS gets wrongly thrown in with all those truly "groundbreaking" shows of the early 1970s that did push limits, like "M*A*S*H", "All in the Family", "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman", and so on. (Even "Laugh In".) Some of the bad reviews of STID said that while the action and characters were great, they didn't like the movie because it didn't reach the depth and scope of TOS. Whatever.
The first rule of politics is never start believing your own propaganda.