GUARDIAN: Your vessel, your beginning, all that you knew is gone.
- Thread starter JWPlatt
- Start date
Frankly, I find myself going in the exact opposite direction lately. In particular, I've always considered myself in the minority for the fact that I DESPISE Voyager and can only tolerate it in very small doses. Likewise, my interest in STO started a slow decline when they brought in Tim Russ to do the feature episodes; now they're doing an entire season of Voyager rehashes, and the game has become unplayable.What's the "core fan base"? The 2.5 million who were still tuning in at the end of Enterprise's run in 2005? Or the 0.6 million non-unique views that the Prelude to Axanar fan film has on Youtube? Those numbers are trifling next to the 8.4 million tickets sold for Into Darkness in it's first weekend alone. Do those "core" numbers matter on such a vast stage?
The article seems to have taken a vocal minority's complaints (lens flares again?) and decided that listening to them will make a difference - should TNG have been changed to please the loud 80's fans who insisted it was an inferior rip-off of TOS?
Also, I'm really looking forward to Terminator Genisys
I actually LIKED the direction Abrams was going and I want to see more of it. I want to see less of Enterprise, less of the TNG movies and WAY less of Voyager (a little more DS9 wouldn't hurt either).
The True Fans want more of that? Count me the hell out.
A
Amaris
Guest
I've actually grown to like VOY a little more. Yeah, it's no DS9, but it wanted to be TNG lite, but it's no TNG either! That said, I do want to see more nuTrek. I want to see a nuTrek series, but I'm not sure it will happen. Right now, big money's being made in theaters, and TV Trek is selling well on DVD/Blu-ray, so there's no need.
Why would you "grudgingly" admit that some fans don't like the reboot when that's been obvious around this forum for quite a few years now? I know I'm not the only one.
Why not just say that while some fans didn't like it, you did?
Well, how dare some fans say they didn't like the Abrams movies and preferred some/all of the previous forms of Star Trek!What's the "core fan base"? The 2.5 million who were still tuning in at the end of Enterprise's run in 2005? Or the 0.6 million non-unique views that the Prelude to Axanar fan film has on Youtube? Those numbers are trifling next to the 8.4 million tickets sold for Into Darkness in it's first weekend alone. Do those "core" numbers matter on such a vast stage?
The article seems to have taken a vocal minority's complaints (lens flares again?) and decided that listening to them will make a difference - should TNG have been changed to please the loud 80's fans who insisted it was an inferior rip-off of TOS?
Also, I'm really looking forward to Terminator Genisys
THIS, 500%!
I also hope that any new Star Trek series or movies after movie #3 are filmed in the same set up as the Abrams ones, and also use the same ship designs, costumes designs, weapons, etc.-we don't need a retread of the Roddenberry/Piller/Berman/Braga/Sternbach/Probert/Okuda era, style-wise or otherwise (and as good as it was), just because of a few loudmouthed fans at one convention and elsewhere trapped in the past (and now nostalgic for a past era that most of them were vocally tired of [the Roddenberry/Piller/Berman/Braga era in particular]) but now want back as if all has been forgiven simply because they feel Abrams, Orci, & Kurtzman 'screwed up' Star Trek.
I have a few favorite TNG episodes. There are probably a few dozen that I don't mind rewatching if they happen to be on and I happen to be in the mood to watch them. There are a few DS9 episodes I enjoy enough to rewatch. None of that series is so special I'd go out of my way for it, though, especially if Worf or Jadzia is in it. It's almost the reverse for Voyager. I do enjoy most of that series, with the exception of a few episodes I never want to see again (Threshold is at the top of the list). I haven't seen TOS in years, but then I've seen those episodes so many times in the last 39 years that I can recite parts of some of them from memory. There are some TAS episodes I really enjoy, and about the best thing I can say about Enterprise is that Porthos is cute. But the series itself was ungodly boring to the point that I haven't seen most of it and am not particularly bothered by that fact.
So tell me again how my not liking the Abrams movies means I am yearning for everything TNG and onwards. 'Cause I'm not. Most of my Star Trek viewing these days consists of fan films, and most of my Star Trek reading consists of fanfic. The only pro Trek author whose books I try to keep up with regularly is Greg Cox, and even then I'm behind in reading them.
Of course.
Throw in "katras" for extra credit. Silliness like the Enterprise taking a jolt when it crosses the edge of the Mutara Nebula is just gravy.
Of course.
Throw in "katras" for extra credit. Silliness like the Enterprise taking a jolt when it crosses the edge of the Mutara Nebula is just gravy.
Not to mention that the idea that a nebula would mess around with a starship's functions like it did or really look rich, colorful, and dense like it does in a long-exposure picture of one.
Still, great fun. And a beautifully shot scene with the reds and blues and the lightning.
No one had to explain the "silly science" with any kind of technobabble to give it some sort of legitimacy. It was there, and one just had to go with it. That was the beauty of "red matter" in ST09.
Of course.
Throw in "katras" for extra credit. Silliness like the Enterprise taking a jolt when it crosses the edge of the Mutara Nebula is just gravy.
Not to mention that the idea that a nebula would mess around with a starship's functions like it did or really look rich, colorful, and dense like it does in a long-exposure picture of one.
Still, great fun. And a beautifully shot scene with the reds and blues and the lightning.
No one had to explain the "silly science" with any kind of technobabble to give it some sort of legitimacy. It was there, and one just had to go with it. That was the beauty of "red matter" in ST09.
Just like time travel events. I have long ago decided they are best enjoyed at face value, rather than accompanied by complex, detailed "scientific" explanations that, in the end, are nothing of the kind.
It was "grudgingly" because the reporter was trying so hard to get me to support his thesis that not just "some" fans but most fans were opposed to reboot.
The reporter was starting from what struck me as a false premise,that there was near-universal resistance to the new movies from fandom, and I was making a sincere effort to convince him that this was hardly the case.
And, as it turns out, I was right to be wary of agreeing with him at all, because, sure enough, none of the positive stuff I said about the new movies made it into the article. The only line he quoted was the part where I agreed with him that some fans didn't like the reboot.
I was "grudging" about it because I didn't like having words put in my mouth. That's all.
I actually ran into the same phenomena several years ago when I was interviewed by The Learning Channel for a special on vampires. Once again, the filmmakers seemed to have decided in advance what points they wanted to make and just wanted an "expert" to parrot them onscreen. They kept trying to get me to say that the rising popularity of vampire fiction had a dark side that indicated something disturbing about modern society, whereas I was all "Nah, vampire fiction is fun and harmless. It's just make-believe," which is not what they wanted to hear. And when I didn't play ball and give them the right soundbyte, they kept circling around to the same question and asking it in different ways . . . .
It was the same story with that NY Post article on Star Trek.
Of course.
Throw in "katras" for extra credit. Silliness like the Enterprise taking a jolt when it crosses the edge of the Mutara Nebula is just gravy.
Not to mention that the idea that a nebula would mess around with a starship's functions like it did or really look rich, colorful, and dense like it does in a long-exposure picture of one.
Still, great fun. And a beautifully shot scene with the reds and blues and the lightning.
No one had to explain the "silly science" with any kind of technobabble to give it some sort of legitimacy. It was there, and one just had to go with it. That was the beauty of "red matter" in ST09.
Just like time travel events. I have long ago decided they are best enjoyed at face value, rather than accompanied by complex, detailed "scientific" explanations that, in the end, are nothing of the kind.
Yep. And, let's just assume that if they are even trying to do "real" science, or even quasi-real science in these Trek stories, then they are doing a bloody poor job of it.
Just do your slingshot around the sun, get back to 1986, and let's get on with the story. While going forward in time is acknowledged as possible, the ability to go backwards in time is still being debated, with many credible cosmologists and physicists saying it can't be done. So, the old trope of many a sci-fi story may be totally impossible in first place.
Also - If you COULD time-travel into the past, you just might end up in an alternate reality, one where you wound up in the past, not your actual past, because you were never there or it would of been in the news or in a history book or what ever have you.....
At least this is the current view of it based on Quantum Theory, thus the entire Grand father paradox becomes moot, you could kill your Grand father, you'd just would be in a reality where your Grand father died, yes you wouldn't be born in that reality, but your not from that reality....
Granted you'd have a tough time returning to the reality you came from, at least going by what I've heard about all this....
It's basically like a infinite roulette wheel, spin it & who knows where you'd wind up when you go "Back To The Future"....
;-)
That explanation is used by some to say that what we see in Trek is actually stories taking place across multiple universes. Takes care of continuity issues.
Conceptually, time as a cosmological issue fascinates me. That said, I've never been able to wrap my head around the theory of multi-verses, especially infinite ones where all possibilities play out (even if their frequency is distributed in some kind of probabilistic way by likelihood). There's something tautological about that to me. It also raises questions about where the matter for a new timeline or universe comes from, doesn't it? In what space is all this "newness" being "created?" And, did nothing exist there, before?
Ultimately these other realities were there all along, just we didn't have access to them, at least until we started to mess around w/ time-travel or when we started to what ever the case may be, or do on a day to day base when we decide to go left instead of right on that day, hour, min, second....
At least that's how the experts present this idea of multi-verse theory, it is a lot to wrap one's head around I agree on that, I sometimes find myself confused by all of it, more so when it's used in stories & films as a plot point....
One reason I mentioned "Back To The Future" is that Doc Brown explained it about as simple as one could when he drew it up on the blackboard in Part 2, yes he only drew 2 lines, but the idea is still there, heck we were seeing that other reality right in front of us in Part 2, but it was "replaced" once things were set right....
Heck in the first film it was hinted that Marty hadn't returned to the reality he started out in, Lone Pine Mall vs Twin Pine Mall, and so on, also because he returned before he even left, there are 2 Marty's in that reality, no matter how you slice it....
Part 2 gave us a 3rd reality w/ 2 Marty's in 1955.... Possibly a 4th seeing as 2015 also had 2 Marty's, one was just older.... My head is spinning just thinking of this, and it's only one trilogy I'm talking about... Guh....
Similar threads
