The one reply to that is pretty awesome too
Seriously, these guys need some professional help.
Spoilers STAR TREK BEYOND
- Thread starter Khan 2.0
- Start date
The one reply to that is pretty awesome too
Seriously, these guys need some professional help.
You must not have been around long, then. A decade ago, the vitriol toward Enterprise was just as hateful, and tended to hit most of the same notes. There was also similar negativity toward TNG in its early years, and there have been decades of fan negativity toward ST:TMP.
Because there's always going to be a minority of people who really hate anything outside their comfort zone and are determined to broadcast that hate so loudly that they drown out other voices and create the false impression that their views are widespread (particularly since they constantly insist that their personal opinions represent the consensus of all true believers everywhere). This is as true of fandom as it is of religion or politics or anything else. (Just look at the physical riots that break out in soccer fandom.)
There was a guy a while back named James Dixon, an obsessive uber-fan who became so devotedly attached to the version of the Trek universe that fandom established in the '70s and early '80s that he simply could not tolerate it when new productions like TNG came along and contradicted his deeply held convictions. He spent the next couple of decades denouncing all new Trek with the kind of fervor generally reserved for war crimes and acts of terrorism (even as he continued to meticulously record and chronicle every new episode, film, book, and comic, crafting one of the most obsessively detailed chronologies ever created). He used to be a member of this very BBS, long ago, and I had my share of intense debates with him. He eventually got banned, I think, and he vanished from the public eye quite a few years ago. Which may be just as well. I shudder to contemplate the toxic verbiage that he might have put forth about the Abrams movies.
And it's not just Trek fandom. Back in the '90s, I was on a local BBS, one of whose members had an intense, religiously fervid hatred for the 1996 Doctor Who TV movie, damning it for its inconsistencies with what he imagined to be the original series' continuity, ignoring the fact that the original series had had very little continuity and had changed enormously over the 27 years of its run. And his hatred never died down. When the BBS shut down a few years later ('99, I think), in its final hours of operation, this guy posted a farewell message that was simply a restatement of his unrelenting hatred for the Doctor Who movie. Three years on, and it was still his overriding obsession -- and his ego demanded that he get the last word.
So there have always been people this hateful about new iterations of fictional franchises. It's just that as the Internet has spread, it's become easier for them to be heard more widely.
Some fans of classic BSG didn't exactly warm to nuBSG.
Same shit, different day. The difference here though is today anyone can comment using their phones rather than having to go to the effort of writing and mailing a letter to a fanzine, which then has to go through an editor to get published.
Even so, much of the hatred directed toward Wrath of Khan back in the pages of Interstat so mirrored what's said about STID in recent days that this thread swapped some names for a laugh: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=225976
Contemplate no more! His views on ST'09 are here, under the name "CaptainLJB" http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread837560/pg3&mem=Christopher said:
Last edited:
Thank you, Christopher. That really does put things into perspective.
And you're right about me not having been around long.
I became a Trek fan in the 2000's before the Abrams movie debut, and my first exposure to Star Trek was the 10 original movies. The TOS movies basically formulated my view of Star Trek.I didn't realise that negativity towards older Star Trek productions could be just as vocal. I mean, I know each incarnation of Trek has its fair share of hate, even the now widely-praised TNG. But the thing that I cannot understand is that for all the hatred the Prime-universe material received, the vocal fans today still accept each one of them. They may complain about Enterprise, or Voyager, or the TNG movies, but they'd sooner accept any of these "hates" as Trek than the Abrams movies. I guess that's just my confusion, why people are more willing to forgive Prime-universe flaws.
However, I guess you are right in that it could just be that the current Trek is the biggest target simply because it is current.
A Frech Archer Fabrication.
Based on a story BS'd by Leslie E. Owen.
Harvey Kitzman played the role of "Thug"
I'm afraid to look...
It's always the newest incarnation that gets the most hate. That's just a function of human psychology. For one thing, we're reflexively more hostile toward the unfamiliar, which is an animal survival strategy. For another thing, our brains constantly rewrite our own memories in ways that tend to soften the unpleasant or discordant aspects, leading to the illusion that the stuff we experienced in the past was better than the stuff we experience in the here and now.
Another way of looking at it: Star Trek is full of contradictions and inconsistencies, not only in the facts and ideas, but in the tone, style, and quality of different episodes, movies, series, etc. The various pieces of it just don't fit together all that well. But as fans, we convince ourselves to live with the discrepancies. We come up with rationalizations for the contradictions or just learn to ignore them. The more time we allow to pass, the more we let it blur together in our minds, the same way we tend to gloss over negative memories. So older Trek feels more cohesive to us than the newer stuff, because we've had time to let it blend together in our minds.
The same thing happened with that rabid Doctor Who fan I mentioned. He saw the original series as having a consistent, unified tone and continuity, even though it changed enormously over the course of its run. He'd seen it all enough times to let it blend together in his mind, all its disparate versions melding together into a composite idea of what Doctor Who was. After all, the show had evolved gradually from the micro-budget, black-and-white, educational kids' show it had begun as into the slick, garish, older-skewing action-adventure it had ended up as, so that softened the transitions. But then this new movie came out of the blue, with a gap of seven years and an abrupt, massive change from what had come before. So there was no gradual transition to soften the impact. It didn't feel to him like it was part of this overall composite image of the series that he had in his mind. And he couldn't recognize the illusion behind that composite, couldn't question his own assumptions enough to recognize that something outside his expectations could still validly be Doctor Who.
Yup. I can safely predict that in 15 or 20 years, fans will be condemning the next reinvention of Star Trek and waxing nostalgic for all the things J.J. Abrams and his cast and crew did right.
or, of course,it could have been the human mother nonsense and Eric Roberts as the Master
or, of course,it could have been the human mother nonsense and Eric Roberts as the Master
Did you know that the First Doctor consistently referred to himself as human? He wasn't explicitly established as an alien until his second incarnation. He wasn't called a Time Lord until the end of his second incarnation, and his planet wasn't named Gallifrey until late in his third. Most of what we take for granted about the Doctor today is a series of retcons. Because fictional series evolve over time. Eventually, radical new ideas become so familiar that we forget how much they changed things.
If the '96 movie had spawned a weekly series, as was hoped, then fans would've gotten used to the half-human idea and figured out ways to rationalize it, to integrate it into their composite image of the series. As an attempt to reinvent the character, it certainly wasn't any more arbitrary or problematical than the Cartmel Masterplan of the late '80s, the attempt in the final two seasons and the New Adventures novels to imply that the Doctor was the reincarnation of this mysterious, ancient figure from the dawn of Gallifreyan history. It was simply the latest of the many reinventions the Doctor had undergone over the decades. But it was new and unfamiliar, so it stood apart from all the other changes that had blurred together in the audience's minds.
What's interesting is that the '96 movie was criticized at the time for a number of things that went on to become routine and accepted parts of the 2005 revival: Making the Doctor a more romantic figure, building the stories more around action and spectacle, using an Earthbound setting, even using an orchestral arrangement of the main theme. They were hated the first time they were done, but eventually they came to be accepted as just part of the show's character.
actually, yes, I knew that and was joking as I hoped the emoticon would have indicated. that said, I do prefer a less orchestrical version of the theme and think the Murray Gold versions are missing a certain flavour the Hartnell theme had. but this is all completely off topic and we can discuss that over at Gallifrey Base or other Who message boards.or, of course,it could have been the human mother nonsense and Eric Roberts as the Master
Did you know that the First Doctor consistently referred to himself as human? He wasn't explicitly established as an alien until his second incarnation. He wasn't called a Time Lord until the end of his second incarnation, and his planet wasn't named Gallifrey until late in his third. Most of what we take for granted about the Doctor today is a series of retcons. Because fictional series evolve over time. Eventually, radical new ideas become so familiar that we forget how much they changed things.
If the '96 movie had spawned a weekly series, as was hoped, then fans would've gotten used to the half-human idea and figured out ways to rationalize it, to integrate it into their composite image of the series. As an attempt to reinvent the character, it certainly wasn't any more arbitrary or problematical than the Cartmel Masterplan of the late '80s, the attempt in the final two seasons and the New Adventures novels to imply that the Doctor was the reincarnation of this mysterious, ancient figure from the dawn of Gallifreyan history. It was simply the latest of the many reinventions the Doctor had undergone over the decades. But it was new and unfamiliar, so it stood apart from all the other changes that had blurred together in the audience's minds.
What's interesting is that the '96 movie was criticized at the time for a number of things that went on to become routine and accepted parts of the 2005 revival: Making the Doctor a more romantic figure, building the stories more around action and spectacle, using an Earthbound setting, even using an orchestral arrangement of the main theme. They were hated the first time they were done, but eventually they came to be accepted as just part of the show's character.
back on topic I'm gladly able to ignore distracting noises and am very excited for Beyond
Look, there's no money, no script, no actors and no location. "Stawamus" park and "Vancouver"? Those places don't even exist – look at their names. Even the name of the film is made up. There's only an improvised fan production shot in Orci's basement. It's called "McCoy's Anatomy" and it is a political drama about the staff of the UFP president Jocelyn Darnell. Klingons are back to flat foreheads due to no funding, Justin Lin has switched from directing to acting and is playing Sulu. But he doesn't know – he thinks Orci is throwing a costume party.
It's great that the studio has so much confidence in Star Trek as an ongoing concern. The vast sums of money being thrown about are slightly obscene, though.... But I guess that's Hollywood.
Vast sums of money and Hollywood are almost always obscene.
Hopefully 3 performs strongly enough to keep Paramount's confidence and financial backing.
He's obviously been enjoying himself immensely. I wonder if CBS' attorneys will ever find him.
Well if it's on Wikipedia, it's gotta be true!
The disinformation there is no longer on the Wiki page.
Similar threads
