Do you think they'll keep making Abramsverse movies after #3?
- Thread starter ColeMercury
- Start date
I remember on another Trek forum (before I joined here) all the nasty back and forth about ST09 in the months before anything was known about the casting or story. It was painful.
Even more painful is the condemnation of everything new that comes from Paramount. It's almost as if these folks would rather see Trek die than to have it bring in new fans to keep it alive.
In my opinion, far too many fans are quick to pass judgment on something they know absolutely nothing about. Even quicker to condemn what is presented to them.
Strangely enough, that doesn't stop them from seeing it in theaters multiple times. Sure, they get to absorb the minutaie and debate it endlesssly, but at the same time they're supporting with their disposable income what they supposedly despise.
I don't get it.
Even more painful is the condemnation of everything new that comes from Paramount. It's almost as if these folks would rather see Trek die than to have it bring in new fans to keep it alive.
In my opinion, far too many fans are quick to pass judgment on something they know absolutely nothing about. Even quicker to condemn what is presented to them.
Strangely enough, that doesn't stop them from seeing it in theaters multiple times. Sure, they get to absorb the minutaie and debate it endlesssly, but at the same time they're supporting with their disposable income what they supposedly despise.
I don't get it.
Seems to me from the whole Para Mobius business that they don't think losing the reboot series would have any effect, that CBS and/or Paramount would just have to fill the Star Trek void with a new TV series and/or yet another reboot.
It's almost like they forgot all about 2005 through 2009...
Sounds like that hypothetical purist may be a 'TNG purist' if it has to be written in the style of a 1990 episode. And, for me, that episode will probably be very, very boring....very, very talky...and very, very preachy.
*yaaaawn*
And, I just got up.
...or reading stuff like "RIP Star Trek". I swear if I would get one cent for everytime I read a "RIP Star Trek" comment. I would be stinkly rich. I'm sure these fucking "RIP Star Trek" comments excist since the good old 1990s. Some of these Purists are soooo melodramatic.
Hence the sig I've had for over three years. Just a polite reminder Trek is alive and kickin'.
Hence the sig I've had for over three years. Just a polite reminder Trek is alive and kickin'.
Star Trek
1966- to infinity and beyond!
Oh I dunno about that, I reckon you'd have maybe three cents?
well from me anyway...
Oh I dunno about that, I reckon you'd have maybe three cents?
Maybe. But just look at Trekmovie...
Perhaps the writers were not visionaries at all. But agree or disagree, Roddenberry was, and the writers used their creative abilities to depict Gene's future. As fallible and humanly susceptible to weakness as he was, Roddenberry's vision was one based simply on this: the power and potential of humanity to mature into something better. Like he himself said, the power of Star Trek is not in the show, but in the audience themselves.
The Prime Universe contains one creatively interpreted example of the human race gaining wisdom and maturity enough to legitimately leave the house after dark, so to speak.
That this (prime) 'vision' has been planted into the soil of public consciousness is a huge plus, and I'm guessing a big part of why most of us are here on this forum.
Yet some fans are incapable of seeing that others see the same things in the Abrams films. They constantly try to exclude the Abrams films from their little world.
IDIC indeed. Gene would be proud.
By the roots of TOS being the "Prime" universe, and the Abramsverse being the "alternate" reality, the Abrams universe is by definition not ours. Calling it our "little world" is just insulting hyperbole made to be argumentative like a street-fighting ruffian, as Sarek might say about Tellarites, rather than reasonable.
It is all Star Trek. It is all just a fictional construct to tell stories. If you believe that the "Prime" universe is somehow more worthy, then you need to get a grip of reality.
For all the "Gene's Vision" non-sense I've seen associated with some fan groups, it makes no sense. They spent pretty much every waking moment trying to separate Trek from "Gene's Vision" the moment he was no longer healthy enough to run the show. From the wars that the Federation had supposedly been fighting all along during the peaceful TNG era (Cardassian, Tzenkethi, Talarians) to destruction of the Enterprise-D and Kirk's death, to DS9's contention that humans are the same animals they've always been when you take away the creature comforts and stability to the deconstruction of Roddenberry via Zephram Cochrane in Star Trek: First Contact.
Star Trek has been running from "Gene's Vision" since 1991. Some folks are just too blind in their devotion to realize it.
I'm still not sure I follow the reasoning why the Prime has more significance than the alternate reality? 
SF, by definition, occurs in a "What if?" world, roots in our world or in a fantasy world. Due fantasy worlds like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings have less impact due to their setting? Does the fact that TOS represents an alternate history in of itself (Eugeneics Wars in the 90s, namely) negate that impact after the fact? Would Abrams Trek be more impactful if it had been a clean reboot, with no Spock Prime?
No snarkiness here. These are legitimate questions.
SF, by definition, occurs in a "What if?" world, roots in our world or in a fantasy world. Due fantasy worlds like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings have less impact due to their setting? Does the fact that TOS represents an alternate history in of itself (Eugeneics Wars in the 90s, namely) negate that impact after the fact? Would Abrams Trek be more impactful if it had been a clean reboot, with no Spock Prime?
No snarkiness here. These are legitimate questions.
I'm still not sure I follow the reasoning why the Prime has more significance than the alternate reality?
SF, by definition, occurs in a "What if?" world, roots in our world or in a fantasy world. Due fantasy worlds like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings have less impact due to their setting? Does the fact that TOS represents an alternate history in of itself (Eugeneics Wars in the 90s, namely) negate that impact after the fact? Would Abrams Trek be more impactful if it had been a clean reboot, with no Spock Prime?
No snarkiness here. These are legitimate questions.
Same here. Star Trek is Star Trek. Fans were bitching about TNG not being real Star Trek, and the same was said for every other spin-off.
Meh.
I'm still not sure I follow the reasoning why the Prime has more significance than the alternate reality?
SF, by definition, occurs in a "What if?" world, roots in our world or in a fantasy world. Due fantasy worlds like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings have less impact due to their setting? Does the fact that TOS represents an alternate history in of itself (Eugeneics Wars in the 90s, namely) negate that impact after the fact? Would Abrams Trek be more impactful if it had been a clean reboot, with no Spock Prime?
No snarkiness here. These are legitimate questions.
Then I'll answer legitamately, and also without snarkiness. I don't know if it would have been more "impactful", but I, for one, would have been more receptive to Abrams movies if they had, in fact, been a clean reboot. It was the attitude of "let's use our films to erase everything that came before" that annoyed me. And I don't even hate Abrams' films really, I just prefer the older stuff that I grew up with more.
Similar threads
