Greg Cox wrote:
Many will harp on homages and inconsistencies anyways. The Wrath of Khan wasn't exactly welcomed with open arms if fanzines of the time are to be believed.
I'd like to see a breakdown of the vote. But I surmise that this was entirely fabricated by someone with an ax to grind.
Or to gin up controversy.
True story. Not long ago, a reporter contacted me regarding an article he was working on about how all us old-school Trekkies hate the new movies. To his surprise and disappointment, I refused to play along. I spent over thirty minutes on the phone to this guy, patiently explaining that his premise was incorrect, that only a vocal minority of purists objected to the Abrams films, but this wasn't what he wanted to hear. (He told me upfront that his editor had already dictated the slant of the article.)
When I wouldn't give him the sound-byte he wanted, he asked me to point him toward another
Trek author who would go along with the idea that all true Trekkies were universally opposed to the movies. Again, I declined.
Sure enough, when the article saw print, guess what the gist of it was?
So, yeah, I'm justly skeptical of these kind of headlines.
This is really a shame. I know in the grand scheme of things, an article about Star Trek movies is of zero significance, but this tabloid, "If you can't find a source, make one up" mentality is becoming more and more mainstream.
It's common practice now--especially with online "journalism"--to make the facts match the article and not make the article match the facts.