Why it is important some people are unhappy

[Sci]

What's next, Sci? Internet Stalking? Physical Violence? I'm honestly not really sure with you. You're willing to declare 'enemies' so freely based on the most assinine of reasons, where exactly is it going to stop? I'm not going to hate you for liking this movie. But you're sure as hell not extending anyone ELSE that courtesy.

You just gave me a good laugh, and I thankya much for that. I don't consider you an enemy, and I don't hate you, and, no, I have no plans to stalk you or engage in physical violence against you. The complete over-reaction is hysterical.

I criticized you for what I perceived your motives to be based upon the statements you made. Don't like it? Too bad. Put me on ignore. But I don't consider you an enemy, and I don't hate you.

 

[Vance]

No, Sci, I'm calling you a 'hypocrite'.

For all your vehemence about the 'hater's camp', you've been, by far, one of the worst 'haters' on TrekBBS, and it's about defending this movie against people who have any amount of dislike for it.

You then group everyone who states their opinion as a 'hater', and attribute, falsly, many statements and claims to them that they've never actually made. You're even beginning to use rhetoric that's generally reserved for the 'pissing contests' at a bar-room fight.

And yet you still fail to see that a lot of this is YOUR fault. So I have to wonder, where is this going to stop with you? How personally invested in this film are you where you're willing to draw permanent battlelines against other fans?

I've seen fans of other properties go to the nutty over stupid differences of opinion before. I say this frankly, you're on your way there - enough that if I coated you in chocolate, you would be a Snickers. And the worst thing is, you don't even realize what you're doing - much less feel the need to apologize for it and retract a little bit.

 

[Lumen]

Vance, the most troubling thing -- to me -- about your approach here is how intensely personal you've made your dislike of Abrams. Repeated statements about how he's a self-professed "Warsie" -- which apparently is something to mean something above and allow us to make inferences about his character, intentions, and the quality of his work beyond the real information we have about the film -- and how he dislikes Star Trek, to how he's repeatedly (not just once, mind you, but repeatedly) insulted Star Trek fans, and I can't help but feel that your complaints are a little hysterical.

Abrams isn't out to get Star Trek fans. Abrams isn't out to destroy Star Trek. Abrams might be a "Warsie," whatever that means, but I've seen nothing that indicates he wants to turn Star Trek into the prequel trilogy. That you insist -- repeatedly, yourself -- that it's simply a "point of fact" that these perceived slights to Star Trek fans (implying, I take it, that those who don't feel slighted aren't fans?) when many of us simply don't see insults or slights, but instead see honest, uncontroversial, and intelligent artistic assessments of the property, is troubling.

You might think you're making a case based on the merits of the trailer, but I see few comments by you that are actually about the trailer. Most of your posts are filled with conspiratorial accusations against Abrams and some trenchant belief that Abrams just doesn't like us or Star Trek. I have a hard time taking those views seriously.

 

[Sci]

No, Sci, I'm calling you a 'hypocrite'.

For all your vehemence about the 'hater's camp', you've been, by far, one of the worst 'haters' on TrekBBS, and it's about defending this movie against people who have any amount of dislike for it.

You then group everyone who states their opinion as a 'hater', and attribute, falsly, many statements and claims to them that they've never actually made. You're even beginning to use rhetoric that's generally reserved for the 'pissing contests' at a bar-room fight.

And yet you still fail to see that a lot of this is YOUR fault. So I have to wonder, where is this going to stop with you? How personally invested in this film are you where you're willing to draw permanent battlelines against other fans?

I've seen fans of other properties go to the nutty over stupid differences of opinion before. I say this frankly, you're on your way there - enough that if I coated you in chocolate, you would be a Snickers. And the worst thing is, you don't even realize what you're doing - much less feel the need to apologize for it and retract a little bit.

Vance, do a search for my posts. Look in them. Find me the post where I even used the term "haters."

Because unless I've suffered memory damage in the last few days, I don't think I've ever used that phrase.

 

[Vance]

Because unless I've suffered memory damage in the last few days, I don't think I've ever used that phrase.

Perhaps not, but I'm pointing out your behaviour to your fellow posters. You're very quick to hate and dismiss, and to defend all things about this movie, no matter what they are. You're doing the very behaviour that you're decrying others for doing for wanting "TOS exactly" ... even though I haven't personally seen a single post from ANYONE who wants to put 1966-1969 back on the screen again.

You might think you're making a case based on the merits of the trailer, but I see few comments by you that are actually about the trailer.

You misunderstand my point then. Abrams sees trek in a certain light (a rather negative one), and feels that it must 'change' to hit the audience he's more familiar and comfortable with. Everything we've seen so far about NuTrek (for clarity's sake here) illustrates this point.

That said, if Abrams says "I think Trek is too nerdy" (and he's said that), why should there be a surprise that there's a bunch of T&A, "Lost style" angst scenes, Kirk mackin' on Uhura, and lots and lots of explosions all the time (in the advertising anyway). That would be the logical result of Abram's attitude, nae?

Personally, I don't like working with Warsies on any project, because EVERYTHING is reduced to some rather basic and predictable fan-fiction like formulas. For a similar but different set of reasons, I don't like working with Trekkers or Trekkies either... In certain contexts, yes, it's derisive.

But, here it is, since literally every Trek Star, Producer, etc, has been attacked heinously, and in far far worse terms than I've used on Abrams, on a regular basis, since TrekBBS literally was a BBS, why does Abrams now get a complete Obama-like pass on his own statements and actions?

I'm not willing to give him that pass. I feel no need to. In the end he'll be judged by his work. But I'm not going to give that work a pass either, any more than I've done for anything or anyone else.

 

[Lumen]

See, I don't see anything "negative" about the way Abrams sees Star Trek. I'm not sure why you do.

 

[USS Kongo]

I would imagine all Star Trek fans would rejoice in the simple fact that it's coming back, and in a very big way.

Will it be good? Will it be true to the spirit of the original series? That's really hard to say right now without actually seeing the film.

I remain hopeful on both counts. But you have to admit that just the very existence of this film has revitalized Trek fandom. The countless threads about it, both pro and con, on this very b-board are proof of that.

Sean

 

[Vance]

See, I don't see anything "negative" about the way Abrams sees Star Trek. I'm not sure why you do.

"How can you do Star Trek after seeing Galaxy Quest"? Trek is the 'nerds and geeks' sci-fi, not GOOD sci-fi like "Star Wars". I'm deliberately overstating this a little bit, though, but that attitude is definately present, and the end results that we've seen are proof of it.

Granted, I probably won't change your mind on this one. I'm only calling what I see, based on what's been said for years by Abrams himself.

 

[Sci]

See, I don't see anything "negative" about the way Abrams sees Star Trek. I'm not sure why you do.

"How can you do Star Trek after seeing Galaxy Quest"? Trek is the 'nerds and geeks' sci-fi, not GOOD sci-fi like "Star Wars". I'm deliberately overstating this a little bit,

More like "deliberately overstating this a lot." Or, better yet, "I'm actually lying about what Abrams has said."

 

[Vance]

More like "deliberately overstating this a lot." Or, better yet, "I'm actually lying about what Abrams has said."

Seriously. You can't stop, can you?

Despite his words now quoted, and the meanings plain to see, you refuse to accept the point of fact and instead continually choose to personally attack me rather than accept the fact that maybe, just maybe, Abrams really wasn't a Star Trek fan?

 

[Lumen]

See, I don't see anything "negative" about the way Abrams sees Star Trek. I'm not sure why you do.

"How can you do Star Trek after seeing Galaxy Quest"? Trek is the 'nerds and geeks' sci-fi, not GOOD sci-fi like "Star Wars". I'm deliberately overstating this a little bit, though, but that attitude is definately present, and the end results that we've seen are proof of it.

Granted, I probably won't change your mind on this one. I'm only calling what I see, based on what's been said for years by Abrams himself.

Taking quotations out of context is hardly going to change my mind.

Abrams has honestly articulated the difficulty in rebranding Star Trek as something modern, and changing the product to match that brand. I can't be bothered by comparisons to Galaxy Quest or Star Wars because that's about the extent of recently popular space-far in film. The "attitude" I'm seeing from Abrams is the attitude of wanting to tell a good story that people will want to see, and part of that attitude involves being honest about the problems associated with raising interest in Star Trek.

I don't know if that's where your difficulty is -- if you think broadening the appeal of Star Trek is impossible without compromising what makes it work. That's what your reaction to action and sex scenes in the trailer suggests, anyway.

 

[Goliath]

This discussion is a waste of time.

It doesn't matter if some Trekkies are happy. It doesn't matter if some are unhappy. How Trekkies feel, or don't feel, is profoundly beside the point.

This movie is called Star Trek. Period. No Roman numerals. No subtitles.

Now, what does that remind you of?

I know what it reminds me of. It reminds me of The Brady Bunch Movie, Starsky and Hutch, The Dukes of Hazzard, and SWAT. It reminds me of The Hills Have Eyes, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Amityville Horror, The Omen, and Dawn of the Dead.

This new film is a remake, just like any of those others. It's the SWAT of sci-fi. It's the Texas Chainsaw Massacre of Trek.

Like all remakes, the marketing strategy is simple. Take a product that was popular in theatres or on TV about 20-30 years ago--something that older people remember fondly, and that young people consider 'retro'--and cash in on the nostalgia.

Your happiness or unhappiness with the results is irrelevant because, in most cases, this movie was not made for you.

It was made for people like me, who have fond memories of watching TOS reruns in the 70s, and my students, who weren't even born when TNG premiered in 1987.

The rest of you are superfluous. The TNG-Era Trek factory has been closed, and you've all been laid off. Any money you spend on this movie will be a bonus, as far as its makers are concerned.

I know where I'll be when this movie opens. I'll be there, with my Dad of all people, and maybe one or two of my brothers. And we'll be swapping stories about watching TOS when it was in reruns in the 70s, and how "The Apple" is the first TV show I can remember watching, and laughing about how the redshirts always got killed. If my older brother is there, he'll insist that all the redshirts were named "Yablonski."

We'll watch the movie, and enjoy it, or not, on its merits. And we'll discuss how it was different from the TV show afterward. Some of us will probably shell out for the TOS DVDs at last.

And then... life will go on. I'll come back here, and the rest of you will still be arguing about some stupid shit that I'll only half-understand. Someone will accuse Abrams of raping his childhood, and I'll shake my head, and see what's happening in Miscellaneous.

Welcome to the new entertainment economy. I hope you've enjoyed the last twenty years, because they're over, and they're never coming back.

 

[Vance]

I don't know if that's where your difficulty is -- if you think broadening the appeal of Star Trek is impossible without compromising what makes it work. That's what your reaction to action and sex scenes in the trailer suggests, anyway.

And that's where your logic fails. All this 'new edgy appeal' we're talking about isn't exactly new. Much of the same sort of crap was in Voyager, and to a much larger extent in Enterprise. That the same tactics and techniques used there and failed will suddenly make this next movie a mega-hit is a bizzare leap of logic.

You may still like this, and you're entitled, but it's a damn sight from you having the right to not only tell me that it's 'what Trek should be', but also that I have a duty to 'suck it up and like it', which is basically the intent behind yours (and others) messages as well.

 

[Sci]

More like "deliberately overstating this a lot." Or, better yet, "I'm actually lying about what Abrams has said."

Seriously. You can't stop, can you?

No. I can't. When I see someone deliberately mischaracterizing someone else's words, I have a habit of telling them they're wrong.

Despite his words now quoted, and the meanings plain to see, you refuse to accept the point of fact and instead continually choose to personally attack me rather than accept the fact that maybe, just maybe, Abrams really wasn't a Star Trek fan?

The meaning is plain to see: Abrams is aware of Star Trek's flaws and weaknesses. He is aware of the parts of it that are silly and that a mainstream audience are going to need to be helped through if the new film is to be the kind of blockbuster hit it needs to be to rescue the Trek franchise from the deathbed it's been on since 2005.

Is Abrams a fan? No. Does that mean he dislikes it? No. Are his writers fans? Yes. They've made that very clear -- hell, they're big enough fans that they've even incorporated elements from the novels into their screenplay.

And best of all, Abrams gets it. Even if he wasn't a fan, even if he wants to combine Trek's intellectualism with Wars's visceral impact, he gets what makes Star Trek tick and he's trying to bring that to his film:

In a world where a movie as incredibly produced as The Dark Knight is raking in gazillions of dollars, Star Trek stands in stark contrast. It was important to me that optimism be cool again.

So I say, sit back, relax, take a Romulan chill pill, because the soul of Star Trek will probably be well served.

 

[Vance]

Welcome to the new entertainment economy. I hope you've enjoyed the last twenty years, because they're over, and they're never coming back.

Sure they will.. in another 20 years.
One more trip to the well... one more trip...
Probably until the baby boomers die off.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

[Repeated statements about how he's a self-professed "Warsie" -- which apparently is something to mean something above and allow us to make inferences about his character, intentions, and the quality of his work beyond the real information we have about the film...

Oh, once it's indicated that we're supposed to care about the supposed Trek/Wars competition in terms that include calling people "Warsies" all possibility of intelligent conversation with the name-caller is eliminated.

"Star Trek fans" as vetted by that kind of mindset have never and should never be in charge of Trek.

 

[Lord Lunacy]

It's just the fact that it is anoying to hear people obsess over pointless minutiae.

Cha ching ding! You get the prize, 4,000 golden hohos for truth!

There should be no complaints as to how Trek is being destroyed/altered/neutered etc in the first place...there was nothing left of Trek after the Brannon Braga beast got through with it. Maybe JJ can resurrect Trek from the ashes, who knows.

 

[Lumen]

I don't know if that's where your difficulty is -- if you think broadening the appeal of Star Trek is impossible without compromising what makes it work. That's what your reaction to action and sex scenes in the trailer suggests, anyway.

And that's where your logic fails. All this 'new edgy appeal' we're talking about isn't exactly new. Much of the same sort of crap was in Voyager, and to a much larger extent in Enterprise. That the same tactics and techniques used there and failed will suddenly make this next movie a mega-hit is a bizzare leap of logic.

You may still like this, and you're entitled, but it's a damn sight from you having the right to not only tell me that it's 'what Trek should be', but also that I have a duty to 'suck it up and like it', which is basically the intent behind yours (and others) messages as well.

First of all, Abrams' work is far cry from anything we saw in Voyager or Enterprise. Lost and Alias managed to be exciting and sexy when they tried to be exciting and sexy -- Voyager and Enterprise, for the most part, just failed. They failed at creating a real sense of jeopardy when they tried to be exciting, and anything "sexy" came across as juvenile, and was often more slapstick than remotely sexy. And, anyway, action scenes are nothing new in Trek movies -- almost all of them climax during one. Most successful films and dramas today make good use of sexual tension, character conflict and action scenes, and I'd say the first seasons of Alias and Lost are among them (I haven't watched much TV lately, so I can't speak about Heroes). Voyager and Enterprise failed because they used gimmicks that didn't enhance the story -- Abrams hasn't done that, in my view, so I expect a different product.

Secondly, you're being far more hostile than you need to. You're treating this as if it were some kind of battle -- Abrams is out to get you, people who are excited about this movie are out to get you, Star Wars fans are out to get you, etc. I'm not trying to crusade about what Star Trek "ought" to be about -- I'm just saying that I don't see anything dramatically wrong with it being about this; certainly nothing so wrong that I ought to feel insulted by Abrams and attacked by those that disagree with me.

And on a side note: I fit nicely into Camelopard's story. I'll be seeing Star Trek on opening day with my dad; I was born a few years after TNG came out, and my dad grew up on TOS.

 

[Balthier the Great]

My solution to saving Trek is the same as my advice to my beloved and failiing St. Louis Rams. No one gives a shit about the uniforms or the field or the nostalgia if the team can't win any games. That's where trek is right now. They've got a promising new head coach, they've got a young team that might or might not produce a great film. But I think fandom is fandom -- they want a big win, and if the winning coach decides to change the uniforms, so be it.

I want Trek to have a good year. Hopefully now that we've gotten rid of the old coaching staff, we have a good shot. If not, meh, get 'em next year. I don't think we have to choose between No Trek Evair and Abrams' Trek.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I don't think we have to choose between No Trek Evair and Abrams' Trek.

No, you'll always have books and comics.