Paramount apparently still doesn't get it...

[Farscape One]

To you, and some other fans but not for all fans.

Exactly.

There are fans of TOS only and not the other shows. There are fans of only Berman era and none of the rest of the franchise. There are fans of just the Kelvin movies. There are fans of the current era, but not any of the previous shows. There are fans of the entire franchise. And everything in between.

IDIC is the best way to describe the fans.

 

[EnderAKH]

Exactly.

There are fans of TOS only and not the other shows. There are fans of only Berman era and none of the rest of the franchise. There are fans of just the Kelvin movies. There are fans of the current era, but not any of the previous shows. There are fans of the entire franchise. And everything in between.

IDIC is the best way to describe the fans.

So much this. Personally, while I watched TNG while it was on, I came to Star Trek through the TOS movies. I wholeheartedly love 2-4 and 6. I watched TNG, never could get more than a season or two into DS9, Voy, and Ent. I also like Disco (love seasons 1 & 2, indifferent to 3 & 4), SNW and Picard. We all come at the franchise from different perspectives.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Yes, there was a famous fan tirade against the state of Doctor Who, particularly the way a recent and controversial story had fundamentally changed the background of the character for the worse and ruined the mystery of the Time Lords - that was in 1976.

Sorry. Just saw this.

*!!!*fucking applause*!!!*

Post of the day!

 

[fireproof78]

Exactly.

There are fans of TOS only and not the other shows. There are fans of only Berman era and none of the rest of the franchise. There are fans of just the Kelvin movies. There are fans of the current era, but not any of the previous shows. There are fans of the entire franchise. And everything in between.

IDIC is the best way to describe the fans.

Precisely so.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Exactly.

There are fans of TOS only and not the other shows. There are fans of only Berman era and none of the rest of the franchise. There are fans of just the Kelvin movies. There are fans of the current era, but not any of the previous shows. There are fans of the entire franchise. And everything in between.

IDIC is the best way to describe the fans.

If accepting diversity was as important where ST tastes are concerned, then some would never feel a sense or need to defend criticized chapters, as if mere observation somehow "threatens" said chapter, or their enjoyment of it. I've noticed that behavior from Berman-Trek fans more than others, even fans of JJ-Trek.

 

[Farscape One]

If accepting diversity was as important where ST tastes are concerned, then some would never feel a sense or need to defend criticized chapters, as if mere observation somehow "threatens" said chapter, or their enjoyment of it. I've noticed that behavior from Berman-Trek fans more than others, even fans of JJ-Trek.

I don't think there's anything wrong with defending a favorite show or movie against criticisms, or giving criticism about a show or movie. It's when people turn criticisms into personal attacks or assuming political agendas of the person that it becomes a problem.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

I don't think there's anything wrong with defending a favorite show or movie against criticisms, or giving criticism about a show or movie. It's when people turn criticisms into personal attacks or assuming political agendas of the person that it becomes a problem.

Yup.
It's called "debate". It's generally healthy and what we do on message boards.
Otherwise threads would be all "I didn't care for this episode of this show." And every response after being variations of "Okay." Kinda dull.

 

[Greg Cox]

At the risk of resorting to playground tactics ("They started it!"), it can be hard not to rise to the defense of a personal favorite if you see it being routinely bashed as "not real Trek" or whatever. And even more so when its admirers are attacked as well.

Back during the Reboot Wars of 2009, I got very weary of hearing that all "true" fans were obliged to hate the new movie and that only callow, pew-pew-happy newbies could possibly find any merit in it.

Them's fighting words!

 

[Farscape One]

At the risk of resorting to playground tactics ("They started it!"), it can be hard not to rise to the defense of a personal favorite if you see it being routinely bashed as "not real Trek" or whatever. And even more so when its admirers are attacked as well.

Back during the Reboot Wars of 2009, I got very weary of hearing that all "true" fans were obliged to hate the new movie and that only callow, pew-pew-happy newbies could possibly find any merit in it.

Them's fighting words!

But... they did start it.

 

[nightwind1]

May I add that while I sort of like some of snw, and appreciates it's finale, I can't help but realize that in snw, the characters talk top fast, there's no time to absorb the scene, by waiting on it or showing a few different characters reactions. The style of speaking also isn't detailed, slow, and professional like it was in tos and tng. It's quick, filled with unnecessary and unfunny jocularity, and I might add, none of the solutions are as brilliant and thought out as they were in older shows. It's like the writers are just trying to pump out a script as fast as possible on kilograms of caffeine, speeding throigh plot points and dialogue to make it "complete" enough to make it seem like it's coherent and makes sense, without actually having to think about the script and put thought and heart and love and emotion into it. It's difficult to explain unless youre a writer. Thats what the new shows feel like. Rushed and not thought out. It shows so clearly in the dialogue and pacing and storytelling. It's so obvious that the writing follows a certain formula only up to a point so that it makes sense and is coherent, but is obvious how hastily and lazily it's written.

WRONG

 

[BillJ]

I think when one is an obsessive fan (I definitely used to be one), that it is best to let the dust settle before immersing themselves in these shows. Allow the internet and *YouTube commentators to get everything out of their systems about how bad these shows are and how they piss on Roddenberry's grave. Allow the hoopla to die down.

*Most of these people are trying to drive clicks on their videos, because it is how they make money. Outrage drives clicks.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I don't think there's anything wrong with defending a favorite show or movie against criticisms, or giving criticism about a show or movie.It's when people turn criticisms into personal attacks or assuming political agendas of the person that it becomes a problem.

That said, some are far too defensive over certain ST productions; take Star Trek: the Motion Picture: I cannot begin to tell you how often some of its strongest supporters end up taking criticism of the film personally, as if any negative observation is a comment on the person. It would be easier to understand if a production was based on some real world person and/or event, where someone might bristle at mishandling/representation of real people, but that's not the case with a Star Trek movie, and the defensive position taken is (usually) centered around TMP not being the follow-up TOS needed, or is the film that got it wrong, and some do take that personally, when no personal criticism was intended.

 

[F. King Daniel]

When something is close to someone's heart, they can be very defensive of it. I've definitely been guilty of it regarding the reboot Trek movies. I was even weirdly defensive of Picard's shite second season but am fairly critical of the third which is widely applauded. Both it and the reboots are full of incredibly implausible and utterly bonkers bullshit, which is exactly what I love in my Trek, but it's weird how my reactions differ.

 

[Greg Cox]

That said, some are far too defensive over certain ST productions; take Star Trek: the Motion Picture: I cannot begin to tell you how often some of its strongest supporters end up taking criticism of the film personally, as if any negative observation is a comment on the person. It would be easier to understand if a production was based on some real world person and/or event, where someone might bristle at mishandling/representation of real people, but that's not the case with a Star Trek movie, and the defensive position taken is (usually) centered around TMP not being the follow-up TOS needed, or is the film that got it wrong, and some do take that personally, when no personal criticism was intended.

Another factor may be to what degree you feel your favorite is being misrepresented, in which case the impulse to defend it may have less to do with arguing with the other person than with wanting to keep any interested third parties from getting an incorrect impression of the favorite in question.

"Farscape is just muppets in space!"
"Such-and-such is just gory trash."

I'll confess I sometimes rise to such bait

 

[Farscape One]

When something is close to someone's heart, they can be very defensive of it. I've definitely been guilty of it regarding the reboot Trek movies. I was even weirdly defensive of Picard's shite second season but am fairly critical of the third which is widely applauded. Both it and the reboots are full of incredibly implausible and utterly bonkers bullshit, which is exactly what I love in my Trek, but it's weird how my reactions differ.

Another factor may be to what degree you feel your favorite is being misrepresented, in which case the impulse to defend it may have less to do with arguing with the other person than with wanting to keep any interested third parties from getting an incorrect impression of the favorite in question.

"Farscape is just muppets in space!"
"Such-and-such is just gory trash."

I'll confess I sometimes rise to such bait

Agreed with both of you. I recently took an almost offended stance when someone else was calling Sisko's character racist and bigoted. Obviously, I was going to defend my captain (Sisko is my favorite captain, and for multiple reasons very dear to me) because that was not how he was written or portrayed, but I was really mad at first that those terms were even used with him. (The other person said they didn't intend to be quite that harsh with Sisko, if I'm being fair. And unless proven otherwise, I go with what someone says when they make their intentions clear.)

 

[IAmAParrot]

That said, some are far too defensive over certain ST productions; take Star Trek: the Motion Picture: I cannot begin to tell you how often some of its strongest supporters end up taking criticism of the film personally, as if any negative observation is a comment on the person. It would be easier to understand if a production was based on some real world person and/or event, where someone might bristle at mishandling/representation of real people, but that's not the case with a Star Trek movie, and the defensive position taken is (usually) centered around TMP not being the follow-up TOS needed, or is the film that got it wrong, and some do take that personally, when no personal criticism was intended.

Sure TMP sort of sucks and had a, let's just say, imaginary "forward thinking" plot, but unfortunately it was a mess and the vision for the movie fell short.

But TMP did give us THE MOST UNIQUE sets, clothing, Era, of the trek universe, ever. They only wore those clothes once. We only saw the Deltan species once. And the shots of the enterprise in the movie were brilliant, and the cast was still looking pretty young at the time.

 

[cooleddie74]

No, we saw Deltans in TVH as well as "The Star Gazer(PIC)."

 

[XCV330]

You don't see Deltans very often because wherever they go, they have to get a connecting flight in Atlanta. I'll show myself out now.

 

[IAmAParrot]

Agreed with both of you. I recently took an almost offended stance when someone else was calling Sisko's character racist and bigoted. Obviously, I was going to defend my captain (Sisko is my favorite captain, and for multiple reasons very dear to me) because that was not how he was written or portrayed, but I was really mad at first that those terms were even used with him. (The other person said they didn't intend to be quite that harsh with Sisko, if I'm being fair. And unless proven otherwise, I go with what someone says when they make their intentions clear.)

I was responsible for them commenting this. This is the thing with people today. Remember forums back in like 2000 up to 2010? People usually got along, and there were oocasionally minor arguments that were quickly settled. People generally agreed with each other or supported each other, and if someone disagreed or had a different opinion, they only mentioned it if the reason was very valid, and usually everyone even the opposing poster would agree and settle their dispute.

These days, it's like everyone's trying to compete, or appear special by trying look "smart" or "tough", by replying to a post using any "reason" no matter how far stretched or misunderstood, to make a claim thats the exact opposite of the poster they're replying to, in order to appear as if they're correct and the other poster is wrong, thus automatically making them appear "smarter" or more "learned". You'll find this everywhere now, youtube comments, Twitter, reddit, forums. If a poster makes an extremely good and solid point that basically FORCES the opposing poster to have to agree, instead of agreeing, they disagree making up crazy "reasons", like sisko being "racist", or "bigoted", essentially stretching the truth or outright lying, just to have a "gotcha" moment and appear to be the "winner". This need to do a "gotcha" and or win, is just so ridiculous. It looks so insecure. Do people think of if they're forced to agree with a poster that they don't like, that it will somehow negatively affect them? "Oh I don't want to associate with Mr. Parrot, regardless of his solid points, so I will now make up ANY reason such as claiming sisko was "racist" or whatever, just to show the APPEARANCE that I'm SO TOTALLY against him".

It would be easier to just say, "I don't like you, but you're point is correct", or try to find actual good reasons to oppose me, or others who share my opinion. Had I tried to defend sisko I'm 10000% sure my opposition wouldn't even give me a nanometer of approval, but because it was you heavily disagreeing with that poster, they realized they can't disagree with you or get on your bad side, most likely due to your reputation here or because he likes you, and thus he was forced to "restate" his "conclusions".

 

[cooleddie74]