The First Trailer

[Overmind One]

To me, anyone in love with the new films is a NuTrekkie. That is not necessarily a bad thing. But it is much different than being a Trekkie from before Abrams.

This is part of the condescending attitude. Why should people who have been watching for as long as you have (or almost as long) be shunted into a special group because of movies you don't like?

I'm every bit the Trekkie you are.

Who is shunting anything? You and the others coming from this angle seem more irritated that I disagree with your opinions rather than me being particularly "adversarial" or "condescending". I am not grouping anyone. But if you are not over 40 years old and your experience with Trek is only reruns of the original series and perhaps seeing the movies but not ever attending a convention or writing a letter to Paramount or donating money to fan productions like Star Trek Continues, doesn't that necessarily make you a different (not better or worse) fan? You are entitled to your opinions! I have no issue with anyone who is a NuTrek fan. You like the new movies. I get it. I don’t like them. Why is that a problem for you?

 

[Trekkin]

That is the goto argument for the NuTrekkers. They have a point in terms of dollars, but as far as Star Trek, these movies starting in 2009 are simply not Star Trek in the spirit of Gene Roddenberry. They argue (convincingly) that the purpose of making movies is to make money, and the 2009 movie made almost as much by itself as all the previous movies in unadjusted dollars.

But they are not Star Trek.

How do you explain WHY they are not Star Trek to people who are not really science fiction fans from when scifi was still science fiction and not soap fi action flicks in space? We are relics....

There is the adversarial and condescending tone. You're on a Star Trek board full of Trekkies that happen to disagree with you. Don't kid yourself that anything more is happening than that.

I don't think you want to play the 'Trek is true scifi' game. That encourages people to show their knowledge of scifi (esp. Scifi lit) and Trek is not going to be looking good by comparison. Let's just say Trek, The War of the Worlds, The Avengers, Rendevous with Rama, Godzilla vs Space Godzilla and Foundation are all examples of scifi and leave it there.

Anyway, don't 'true' science fiction fans refuse to abbreviate it to 'scifi'? I seem to recall somone giving me a long lecture about that at some stage.

 

[Overmind One]

To me, anyone in love with the new films is a NuTrekkie.

You've been misinformed. Some of us have been fans quite a bit longer than you have.

How is that possible? I was watching them NEW on television in 1966. As in, broadcast on Desilu (NBC for me) on TV each week.

 

[Mudd]

To me, anyone in love with the new films is a NuTrekkie.

You've been misinformed. Some of us have been fans quite a bit longer than you have.

How is that possible? I was watching them NEW on television in 1966. As in, broadcast on Desilu (NBC for me) on TV each week.

You're an outlier here, so I beg your pardon.

You've been watching it exactly as long as I have.

 

[Overmind One]

That is the goto argument for the NuTrekkers. They have a point in terms of dollars, but as far as Star Trek, these movies starting in 2009 are simply not Star Trek in the spirit of Gene Roddenberry. They argue (convincingly) that the purpose of making movies is to make money, and the 2009 movie made almost as much by itself as all the previous movies in unadjusted dollars.

But they are not Star Trek.

How do you explain WHY they are not Star Trek to people who are not really science fiction fans from when scifi was still science fiction and not soap fi action flicks in space? We are relics....

There is the adversarial and condescending tone. You're on a Star Trek board full of Trekkies that happen to disagree with you. Don't kid yourself that anything more is happening than that.

And I don't think you want to play the 'Trek is true scifi' game. That encourages people to show their knowledge of scifi (esp. Scifi lit) and Trek is not going to be looking good by the end of the discussion.

This is disturbing...a Trek site that only accepts a onsided view of Star Trek? What you are calling "adversarial" and "condescending" is simple DISAGREEMENT. I do not care if the rest of you like the NuTrek films. I will never attack any of you for liking them. But I do NOT like them, and I am saying why I don’t like them. I do not consider your love for NuTrek "adversarial" even though I disagree with you.

 

[Overmind One]

To me, anyone in love with the new films is a NuTrekkie. That is not necessarily a bad thing. But it is much different than being a Trekkie from before Abrams.

Someone can't be both?

YES! There are many genuine Trek fans who like the new movies. I don’t have a problem with that, nor do I think they are wrong for liking both of them. I have these same discussions with my Trek loving friends all the time. I also realize I am in a minority of fans (as all old school Trekkies are). I get it.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I will not troll. But I will not swallow the Kool Aid either.

Well, saying that anyone who has a different opinion than you is part of a cultish group of Kool Aid drinkers is pretty much the textbook definition of trolling, but I commend you on having the restraint to at least wait until the next sentence to say it.

To me, anyone in love with the new films is a NuTrekkie. That is not necessarily a bad thing. But it is much different than being a Trekkie from before Abrams.

Nope. I was a Trekkie long before I had ever heard of JJ Abrams. So were a lot of the people here. As much as you try to make it so, the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[stardream]

To me, anyone in love with the new films is a NuTrekkie. That is not necessarily a bad thing. But it is much different than being a Trekkie from before Abrams.

This is part of the condescending attitude. Why should people who have been watching for as long as you have (or almost as long) be shunted into a special group because of movies you don't like?

I'm every bit the Trekkie you are.

As I type this, I'm drinking Coke out of my "I'm a Doctor, not an Engineer" glass.

I'm a Trekkie from before Abrams (should we start using the designation BA...like BCE? ) and I like the new films. I don't know if I would go do far as to say that I'm in 'love' with them though.

Reading through this thread I've come to a couple of conclusions.

No one is going to be scolded or bullied or shamed into changing his or her mind. We like what we like...or don't like what we don't like.

I'm surprised that people are surprised that some people like the trailer...or that people are surprised that people don't like the trailer. Life experience should teach us that the fandom is made up of people of varying tastes and opinions. We don't march in lock step with one another. If we did I would be the first to leave.

 

[Vger23]

Atrocious. No other word for it. RIP Star Trek.

Please, please tell us why.

Why? So half of you can line up to tell me what a scumbag I am for not liking what I'm seeing?

I don't want Guardians of the Galaxy meets Fast & Furious. It's that simple. That's what this trailer sells to me....with maybe a bit if Mission Impossible thrown in the mix.

If the marketing is rubbish and the movie ultimately has the thought provoking qualities of past Trek (and isn't as vapid as Into Darkness) then fine, I'll ultimately be pleased. I'm cool with that. But I think the chances of that are pretty slim based both on who is writing it (albeit admittedly an upgrade on Orci) and the fact that the studio ordered that it is "less Star Treky" then the previous two, which were themselves only superficially "Star Treky" with their fan winks, and more like GOTG. The trailer is entirely consistent with that direction, as is Lin's involvement.

That's my take on the trailer. I don't like what I see. I hope the finished product is better than the trailer. That's my opinion, I don't need to be told why I am wrong or convinced to change my mind, nor am I interested in a long discussion about why I should. End of.

I know I'm a little late to the party on this....but I have to ask:

If you don't want to discuss it further or be called out and challenged, why post at all? What exactly was the point?

 

[Overmind One]

To me, anyone in love with the new films is a NuTrekkie. That is not necessarily a bad thing. But it is much different than being a Trekkie from before Abrams.

This is part of the condescending attitude. Why should people who have been watching for as long as you have (or almost as long) be shunted into a special group because of movies you don't like?

I'm every bit the Trekkie you are.

As I type this, I'm drinking Coke out of my "I'm a Doctor, not an Engineer" glass.

Love it! You guys are misreading me. I have NO PROBLEM with NuTrek love. New Trek is just "not my type". I watched them and have them in my collection along with my other Trek stuff. Still dont like them though!

 

[Garak]

To me, anyone in love with the new films is a NuTrekkie.

I am not grouping anyone.

It really shows.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Please, please tell us why.

Why? So half of you can line up to tell me what a scumbag I am for not liking what I'm seeing?

I don't want Guardians of the Galaxy meets Fast & Furious. It's that simple. That's what this trailer sells to me....with maybe a bit if Mission Impossible thrown in the mix.

If the marketing is rubbish and the movie ultimately has the thought provoking qualities of past Trek (and isn't as vapid as Into Darkness) then fine, I'll ultimately be pleased. I'm cool with that. But I think the chances of that are pretty slim based both on who is writing it (albeit admittedly an upgrade on Orci) and the fact that the studio ordered that it is "less Star Treky" then the previous two, which were themselves only superficially "Star Treky" with their fan winks, and more like GOTG. The trailer is entirely consistent with that direction, as is Lin's involvement.

That's my take on the trailer. I don't like what I see. I hope the finished product is better than the trailer. That's my opinion, I don't need to be told why I am wrong or convinced to change my mind, nor am I interested in a long discussion about why I should. End of.

I know I'm a little late to the party on this....but I have to ask:

If you don't want to discuss it further or be called out and challenged, why post at all? What exactly was the point?

Shit, in the grand scheme of things, this is nothing. Remember when Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica raped the childhoods of an entire generation of fans? Remember Languatron and his high-literature published on Amazon speaking of a Grand Conspiracy between Universal and RDM to shut out Glen Larson? The screaming, histrionics and gnashing of teeth was a thing to behold - went full-on up to "eleven". We're only at a low-"five" boil right now.

The passion just isn't there any more.

 

[Trekkin]

That is the goto argument for the NuTrekkers. They have a point in terms of dollars, but as far as Star Trek, these movies starting in 2009 are simply not Star Trek in the spirit of Gene Roddenberry. They argue (convincingly) that the purpose of making movies is to make money, and the 2009 movie made almost as much by itself as all the previous movies in unadjusted dollars.

But they are not Star Trek.

How do you explain WHY they are not Star Trek to people who are not really science fiction fans from when scifi was still science fiction and not soap fi action flicks in space? We are relics....

There is the adversarial and condescending tone. You're on a Star Trek board full of Trekkies that happen to disagree with you. Don't kid yourself that anything more is happening than that.

And I don't think you want to play the 'Trek is true scifi' game. That encourages people to show their knowledge of scifi (esp. Scifi lit) and Trek is not going to be looking good by the end of the discussion.

This is disturbing...a Trek site that only accepts a onsided view of Star Trek? What you are calling "adversarial" and "condescending" is simple DISAGREEMENT. I do not care if the rest of you like the NuTrek films. I will never attack any of you for liking them. But I do NOT like them, and I am saying why I don’t like them. I do not consider your love for NuTrek "adversarial" even though I disagree with you.

You're claiming that the 'Nufans' you're arguing with do not (or cannot) 'truly' appreciate 'real' science fiction. Which is both wrong and presumptive.

I don't give a fig if you don't like the new movies. There are plenty of posters around here who don't. You could have said 'How do you explain to Kardashian/Transformers fans about true science fiction...' and I'd still be calling your statement condescending.

 

[CorporalClegg]

What you are calling "adversarial" and "condescending" is simple DISAGREEMENT.

Replace "Trekkies" with any nationality, racial group or ethnicity, and see the absurdity with your comment.

For something less biting, try Americans:

How do you explain WHY this isn't America to people who are not really Americans from when America was still America?

 

[Overmind One]

To me, anyone in love with the new films is a NuTrekkie. That is not necessarily a bad thing. But it is much different than being a Trekkie from before Abrams.

This is part of the condescending attitude. Why should people who have been watching for as long as you have (or almost as long) be shunted into a special group because of movies you don't like?

I'm every bit the Trekkie you are.

As I type this, I'm drinking Coke out of my "I'm a Doctor, not an Engineer" glass.

I'm a Trekkie from before Abrams (should we start using the designation BA...like BCE? ) and I like the new films. I don't know if I would go do far as to say that I'm in 'love' with them though.

Reading through this thread I've come to a couple of conclusions.

No one is going to be scolded or bullied or shamed into changing his or her mind. We like what we like...or don't like what we don't like.

I'm surprised that people are surprised that some people like the trailer...or that people are surprised that people don't like the trailer. Life experience should teach us that the fandom is made up of people of varying tastes and opinions. We don't march in lock step with one another. If we did I would be the first to leave.

Very well put. I have had no less than 6 comments that because I disagree with the idea that NuTrek is Star Trek, I am being "adversarial" or "condescending". Really? I don’t like the 2009 film or Star Trek Into Darkness, and I do not like what I see in the trailer. So if a Mod likes them, or a "majority" of fans on this board like them, my differing opinion is "adversarial"? Then, somebody questioned my credibility when I have been involved with Trek since before some of them were born, and because that is true it is "condescending"? That is not encouraging. I read the comments from the others and I am seeing more adversary and condescension from them than anything I am saying.

 

[Overmind One]

What you are calling "adversarial" and "condescending" is simple DISAGREEMENT.

Replace "Trekkies" with any nationality, racial group or ethnicity, and see the absurdity with your comment.

For something less biting, try Americans:

How do you explain WHY this isn't America to people who are not really Americans from when America was still America?

Um, considering that I am not a white guy, I think I have a handle on this. Thanks for your concern! My statement stands. I am simply disagreeing with those of you who like NuTrek and think it qualifies as Star Trek. I an not attacking your opinions at all. I am simply stating mine, and you are attacking me for that.

 

[Trekkin]

What you are calling "adversarial" and "condescending" is simple DISAGREEMENT.

Replace "Trekkies" with any nationality, racial group or ethnicity, and see the absurdity with your comment.

For something less biting, try Americans:

How do you explain WHY this isn't America to people who are not really Americans from when America was still America?

I saw a character saying nearly that exact same phrase on NCIS last night.

 

[Overmind One]

There is the adversarial and condescending tone. You're on a Star Trek board full of Trekkies that happen to disagree with you. Don't kid yourself that anything more is happening than that.

And I don't think you want to play the 'Trek is true scifi' game. That encourages people to show their knowledge of scifi (esp. Scifi lit) and Trek is not going to be looking good by the end of the discussion.

This is disturbing...a Trek site that only accepts a onsided view of Star Trek? What you are calling "adversarial" and "condescending" is simple DISAGREEMENT. I do not care if the rest of you like the NuTrek films. I will never attack any of you for liking them. But I do NOT like them, and I am saying why I don’t like them. I do not consider your love for NuTrek "adversarial" even though I disagree with you.

You're claiming that the 'Nufans' you're arguing with do not (or cannot) 'truly' appreciate 'real' science fiction. Which is both wrong and presumptive..

I don't give a fig if you don't like the new movies. There are plenty of posters around here who don't.

I have done no such thing. You NuTrek fans like your NuTrek thing. I have repeatedly said that I do not have a problem with that. You seem to have a problem with the fact that I do not like NuTrek, and that is your problem not mine. I dont like them! So why are you so upset about that? You like the new movies. Good for you. I have no problem with that. This is ridiculous!

 

[Mudd]

Really, we're kind of having a laugh...

 

[137th Gebirg]

[Sniff]...[sniff]. I wonder if someone around here is cooking a multi-burger.