If Star Trek Beyond fails

[Hartzilla2007]

Do we take the old X-Files adage: Trust no one?

I want to believe.

But the truth is out there . . ..

I'm just going to leave this here

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQoRXhS7vlU[/yt]

 

[martok2112]

Sounds to me like the "reporter" at the New York Post was a TOS fanboy with an axe to grind because the movies did so well, and was looking desperately for anything to vindicate his foolish cause.

The thing that such "reporters" and especially those who conducted that cute little poll try to bank on is that the average Joe/Jane has a very narrow grasp of numbers.

They were banking on the average Joe/Joe thinking that a high percentage of 100 people would somehow equate to a high number out of 100 percent of the fanbase. The people who were stupid enough to buy that shit only saw the numeration of x/100, and equated that as "a high percentage of Star Trek fans absolutely hated the new Trek films", not realizing that the polled group didn't even represent a fraction of a fraction of the overall Trek fanbase.

Yeah.....elective and journalistic integrity my ass.

 

[Greg Cox]

Sounds to me like the "reporter" at the New York Post was a TOS fanboy with an axe to grind because the movies did so well, and was looking for anything to vindicate his cause.

Hell, I'm a TOS fanboy and I took pains to explain why I thought the new movies recaptured the fun and excitement of the original series. None of which made it into his article.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Sounds to me like the "reporter" at the New York Post was a TOS fanboy with an axe to grind because the movies did so well, and was looking for anything to vindicate his cause.

Hell, I'm a TOS fanboy and I took pains to explain why I thought the new movies recaptured the fun and excitement of the original series. None of which made it into his article.

Weird style of reporting. Trying to find "facts" that fit your headline.

 

[martok2112]

Sounds to me like the "reporter" at the New York Post was a TOS fanboy with an axe to grind because the movies did so well, and was looking for anything to vindicate his cause.

Hell, I'm a TOS fanboy and I took pains to explain why I thought the new movies recaptured the fun and excitement of the original series. None of which made it into his article.

Well, it's bad on that guy that he can't seem to poke his head into the real world and understand that his article was just plain (going to be just plain) wrong.

Apologies, too. I should've said "TOS/Prime Universe ONLY fanboy".
But, "fanboy" can be both self-affirming and externally derogatory....so perhaps I should've picked another descriptor.

 

[M'Sharak]

Sounds to me like the "reporter" at the New York Post was a TOS fanboy with an axe to grind because the movies did so well, and was looking for anything to vindicate his cause.

Hell, I'm a TOS fanboy and I took pains to explain why I thought the new movies recaptured the fun and excitement of the original series. None of which made it into his article.

Most of the regulars in this forum are TOS fanboys, to one degree or another, but the reporter and his editor (whether fanboys or no) knew their New York Post audience (who are uninterested in open-minded opinions concerning how much fun the latest Star Trek movie was, because the inherent lack of conflict in that kind of story would be boring to them.)

 

[Phantom]

I don't buy it. If there's no proof that those who dislike JJ Trek are representative of Trek fans then there's equally no proof that the JJ Trek boosters do.

 

[BillJ]

I don't buy it. If there's no proof that those who dislike JJ Trek are representative of Trek fans then there's equally no proof that the JJ Trek boosters do.

Why even worry about it? You know you don't like the Abrams films, just like I know that I don't like Voyager. Each will have their fans and detractors.

The Abrams films are generally well like by audiences-at-large, that is what it is. Trying to argue anything else is silly. It would be like me arguing First Contact isn't popular because I don't personally like it.

 

[Greg Cox]

I don't buy it. If there's no proof that those who dislike JJ Trek are representative of Trek fans then there's equally no proof that the JJ Trek boosters do.

But if there's one thing that the internet proves every day, it's that us Trekkies never agree on anything. We're an opinionated and argumentative bunch, and always have been. The idea that there's some sort of fannish consensus regarding the new movies is disproved by the fact that we're still debating the reboot six years later--and that you can still get a decent debate going regarding TMP, even though that movie was nearly forty years ago.

So, yeah, I roll my eyes whenever anybody insists that the "fans" have universally rejected the new movies. "Speak for yourself," I always say . . . and let the general audience decide whether the movie is going to be a hit or not.

There is no "correct" fannish position on this or any Trek movie or TV series.

 

[M'Sharak]

I don't buy it. If there's no proof that those who dislike JJ Trek are representative of Trek fans then there's equally no proof that the JJ Trek boosters do.

You don't buy what? What proof?

If you say you don't like JJ Trek, what reason should anyone have to disbelieve you? If someone who likes JJ Trek is also professes to be a longtime fan of TOS, what reason could there possibly be for not taking them at their word?

Why worry about who represents Trek fandom, when it ought to be clear that all Trek fans—with all of their myriad opinions and preferences—are representative of Trek fandom. It becomes a lot more fun if you can acknowledge that and just join the crowd, letting others have what opinions they will. Stop trying to make a contest out of "which fans are most representative"; that's Gatekeeper stuff, designed to exclude rather than include.

 

[Phantom]

^Wish the JJ boosters would understand that. They're the ones who keep telling people to sit down and shut up.

But you asked me to start letting things go more, so that's the last I'll say about it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

^Wish the JJ boosters would understand that. They're the ones who keep telling people to sit down and shut up.

But you asked me to start letting things go more, so that's the last I'll say about it.

What exactly do you define as "sit down and shut up."?

 

[eyeresist]

^Wish the JJ boosters would understand that. They're the ones who keep telling people to sit down and shut up.

But you asked me to start letting things go more, so that's the last I'll say about it.

What exactly do you define as "sit down and shut up."?

It's rude to use logic and point out facts.

 

[BillJ]

^Wish the JJ boosters would understand that. They're the ones who keep telling people to sit down and shut up.

But you asked me to start letting things go more, so that's the last I'll say about it.

No one's ever told people that dislike the Abrams films to sit down and shut up.

 

[Phantom]

Since I have been told I must drop the matter by Admin, it's only fair that everyone else move on as well.

 

[fireproof78]

^Wish the JJ boosters would understand that. They're the ones who keep telling people to sit down and shut up.

But you asked me to start letting things go more, so that's the last I'll say about it.

*cue Frozen clip*

I'm still trying to figure out who are the "ra-ra" JJ cheerleaders who are telling people to step in line and like the film. I've seen a lot of opinion, from both sides, and a lot of hyperbole and a lot of hurt feelings.

Here's my general questions (not directed towards any one person or fan group) that have plagued me since I started discussing Abrams Trek.

First, what did Abrams Trek do that was so different from any other Trek that happened before, especially TOS? Bonus points if the phrase" true Trek" doesn't appear.

Secondly, there has never been consensus among Trek fans as to what is the "best," or even what "GR's vision is." Heck, the film that GR most opposed, TWOK, is the one film that seems to be the one consensus that can be reached? So, what standard is being applied to exclude 09 and STID but not TWOK?

Finally, why is there the opinion that it would better for there to be no Trek than Abrams Trek? Isn't the net result the same for people who don't like Abrams Trek?

Seriously, these questions bug me. I just don't get it.

Edit: This is not directed at Phantom or any other specific member. If you want to avoid derailing the thread or running afoul the mods, feel free to PM me

 

[BillJ]

^Wish the JJ boosters would understand that. They're the ones who keep telling people to sit down and shut up.

But you asked me to start letting things go more, so that's the last I'll say about it.

*cue Frozen clip*

I'm still trying to figure out who are the "ra-ra" JJ cheerleaders who are telling people to step in line and like the film. I've seen a lot of opinion, from both sides, and a lot of hyperbole and a lot of hurt feelings.

Here's my general questions (not directed towards any one person or fan group) that have plagued me since I started discussing Abrams Trek.

First, what did Abrams Trek do that was so different from any other Trek that happened before, especially TOS? Bonus points if the phrase" true Trek" doesn't appear.

Secondly, there has never been consensus among Trek fans as to what is the "best," or even what "GR's vision is." Heck, the film that GR most opposed, TWOK, is the one film that seems to be the one consensus that can be reached? So, what standard is being applied to exclude 09 and STID but not TWOK?

Finally, why is there the opinion that it would better for there to be no Trek than Abrams Trek? Isn't the net result the same for people who don't like Abrams Trek?

Seriously, these questions bug me. I just don't get it.

They are all great questions, and have been asked before in various threads. No one has ever really given a good answer and it usually devolves into tirades about "True Trek" and "Roddenberry's Vision".

 

[martok2112]

It's really a simple matter:
Those who completely understand that there are folks who do not like the JJ-era films will not try to force them to say: "Hey, accept the JJ films as canon-Trek, or get off the boat!"

However, it is the one's (the deluded ones, not the rational ones) who seem to think that the JJ-era films are somehow not Star Trek that seem to want to force everyone to say: "Oh, jee, the unwashed masses are so wrong for enjoying JJ's take on Star Trek as anything official, and non-true-fans and unwashed masses should bow down before the all-too-knowledgeable anti-JJ'ers as being the harbingers and caretakers of all things Trek".

Yeah....try and sell me another one.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Here's my general questions (not directed towards any one person or fan group) that have plagued me since I started discussing Abrams Trek.

First, what did Abrams Trek do that was so different from any other Trek that happened before, especially TOS? Bonus points if the phrase" true Trek" doesn't appear.

Well, it did do a number of things differently.

It had a heavily modern sense of humor (which I think was a good thing, but definitely different to prior trek).

It had a bizarre love of Lens Flares.

It treated basically the entire crew as ridiculously special prodigies, rather than as competent professionals with (at most) well earned reputations.

It leaned a little bit too much toward action for action's sake (I know, Kirk being chased by a snow monster probably isn't any worse than Picard racing a dune buggy, but then Nemesis isn't exactly well loved, either) rather than action that actually has a point in the story.

It recast the entire original crew (again, I think the new cast is great, but it is clearly a major departure from the previous standard of spinoffs instead of reboots).

It set itself in an alternate universe that doesn't reset, thereby producing an odd conflict between wanting the new universe to be different (because what's the point of a new universe that isn't different?) and not wanting it to be different (because what's the point of rebooting old characters if they're different people anyway?).

I feel like I'm forgetting something, but that's all the comes to mind right this second.

Secondly, there has never been consensus among Trek fans as to what is the "best," or even what "GR's vision is." Heck, the film that GR most opposed, TWOK, is the one film that seems to be the one consensus that can be reached? So, what standard is being applied to exclude 09 and STID but not TWOK?

Maybe you're reading different threads than I am, but I've not seen many people complaining about GR's vision being lost. Those I have seen, I don't take seriously, since GR's vision accounts for only a tiny portion of the ST that I love.

As for what standard is applied - it's the same one that's always applied in all fandoms. Personal preference. That's pretty much the entire reason why there is never a consensus, as you already pointed out.

Finally, why is there the opinion that it would better for there to be no Trek than Abrams Trek? Isn't the net result the same for people who don't like Abrams Trek?

I think the point for many people is that if there wasn't Abrams trek, there could potentially be some other kind of trek they might like better. It's wishful thinking, to a certain extent, at least, but then, this is a fan board, after all.

 

[Campe]

I don't buy it. If there's no proof that those who dislike JJ Trek are representative of Trek fans then there's equally no proof that the JJ Trek boosters do.

I can stack a room with 100 different Star Trek fans with different tastes and the outcome can be totally different. What's your point? It's a poor sample set with very little in the way of deviation of tastes.