Star Trek Fundamentalism

[Samuel T. Cogley]

He has amazing points and finaly delivered a
message that many should have been.

No, he's just saying what you want to hear. There's a difference.

Get an autograph while you can. And pull yourself together.

Say what you want, you are trying to shut this thread by making a personal attack on one person...

Not at all. I want you to continue. The more irritating I find people, the more fascinated I am by them. I come here for entertainment. Who knows how long it would take for someone else like you to come along? (Probably not long, now that I think about it.)

...you represent the spoiling element of this debate.

This isn't a debate. It's an oversimplified attack on a large group of posters. I don't mind it, by the way. Just don't act like we're too dumb to know the difference.

I identified you earlier in my argument, your presence here is expected and of no surprise to me.

The relevance of which would be...?

I've identified you, too. What other obvious things do we need to restate for our own amusement?

I was far more ambitious in scale by attacking thousands.

'Attack'? But I thought this was a 'debate'?!?

And if an anonymous theatrical rant on the internet is something you would consider 'ambitious', I'd pay good money to attend your next job interview.

What is irritating STC is listening to the same people telling us what Trek is and what it should be.

Which now includes you.

Yes, people who are sure they know what Star Trek needs (now including you) can be irritating, but they are mostly harmless. All you have done is add a new (sort-of) level of pomp and circumstance to their same old message.

They aren't the ones who ruined Star Trek. It's the studio execs and writers that decided to cater to them and/or continually generate lazy, uninspired 'drama' for years. It's their fault.

The leftover fanboys are just an easier target.

All I've heard is that I'm rabid and vitriolic, you Zealots need to work harder.

Your theatrical approach shows me that you are more concerned about your effect here than you are about your supposed 'message.'

But please do continue with both. I find it all entertaining. In an irritating sort of way.

 

[BigC]

A split in fandom is upon us it seems to me.

1) There are those who, no matter what, will denounce this film as divisive, destructive and evil. They agitate, they snipe, they cry rape.

I despise them, they sicken me, they killed Trek.

2) There are those who welcome a new beginning and a chance to what a fresh perspective will bring to the franchise. They are what Trek is about, they are open minded and willing to give it a chance.

I love these guys, they are Trek.

The irony inherent in the juxtapostion of my own position is obvious but I'll press on anyway.

Those whom I despise have had this coming for years and I'm laughing my socks off at them - they like to tell us what Trek is, they like to tell us that Voyager was worth watching week in and week out, they like to keep Trek as a dirty little secret moulded in their own image, increasingly inward looking and obsessed with it's own belly button rather than scanning the horizon and seeking out new life and new civilisations. A few thousand zealots ruined a casual audiences enjoyment of Trek and it all it could have been, the casual audience watched it because it was good and not inward looking and not concerned about something that might have happened in an episode 20 years previously. The zealots did this to Trek, they were responsible for it's decline and death. These cretins forgot Trek is a business too and that it needs Joe Public to watch it as well, they disenfranchised the millions who kept it going by watching it and bringing in the advertising revenue and sales of the product around the globe.

And do you know what really pisses the Zealot's off?

The studio is not listening to them any more, no more letter writing campaigns that are noted, no more 'leaks' from the cast over plot details not to their liking and no more making a film for a few lonely people hiding in their cellars.

I love that, I can't tell you how amusing I find this.

Trek died and what lived on, in the form of characters we love, is what will be imagined up on the screen in May. We might love it,we might hate it but it had to happen and it had to be done to show once and for all that geriatric actors running around in wigs and corsets on shaky sets is not what Trek is or should be, that idiot aliens with the de rigour bumpy foreheads frying eggs in the mess while in the 'Delta Quadrant' is not really entertainment.

Trek may die in May but what it takes with it once and for all is the idiots, the zealots and fundamentalists who contributed to it's demise. Fuck them and fuck what they did. JJ's vision of Trek is down to them if you think it through, they are to blame for all of this one way or the other actually.

If a big budget film with a big production value cannot reinvigorate the franchise then I am happy to consign Trek to posterity and reflect, at leisure, on the bits I loved while ignoring what I hated as well as those who killed a friend while protesting 'we told you so'.

You screwed it up with your love of registry numbers, canon violations, lack of imagination and self important demographic that reduced Trek to a soap opera set in outer space.

You only have yourselves to blame - have the guts to identify yourselves and justify your ignorance.

I dare you.

I would rather see Star Trek slip quietly in to history with it's honor intact, than to see an legend raped and dishonoured by those who care not for any thing but money and their own warped sense of entitlement to a franchise that is a living legend.

The Star Trek of my youth will die this May. What come after will no doubt be great science fiction, but Trek will be gone forever.

 

[Plumster]

He has amazing points and finaly delivered a
message that many should have been.

No, he's just saying what you want to hear. There's a difference.

Get an autograph while you can. And pull yourself together.

Say what you want, you are trying to shut this thread by making a personal attack on one person...

Not at all. I want you to continue. The more irritating I find people, the more fascinated I am by them. I come here for entertainment. Who knows how long it would take for someone else like you to come along? (Probably not long, now that I think about it.)



This isn't a debate. It's an oversimplified attack on a large group of posters. I don't mind it, by the way. Just don't act like we're too dumb to know the difference.



The relevance of which would be...?

I've identified you, too. What other obvious things do we need to restate for our own amusement?



'Attack'? But I thought this was a 'debate'?!?

And if an anonymous theatrical rant on the internet is something you would consider 'ambitious', I'd pay good money to attend your next job interview.

What is irritating STC is listening to the same people telling us what Trek is and what it should be.

Which now includes you.

Yes, people who are sure they know what Star Trek needs (now including you) can be irritating, but they are mostly harmless. All you have done is add a new (sort-of) level of pomp and circumstance to their same old message.

They aren't the ones who ruined Star Trek. It's the studio execs and writers that decided to cater to them and/or continually generate lazy, uninspired 'drama' for years. It's their fault.

The leftover fanboys are just an easier target.

All I've heard is that I'm rabid and vitriolic, you Zealots need to work harder.

Your theatrical approach shows me that you are more concerned about your effect here than you are about your supposed 'message.'

But please do continue with both. I find it all entertaining. In an irritating sort of way.

Well evidently not everyone agrees with you if you read the thread and I'm content for you to continue to dig your own Zealot's grave. Imagine someone disgreeing with you STC - the irritation must be immense.

What a shame that someone able to string a sentence together can't string an argument together without resorting to a personal attack on me rather than my argument.

You do your cause so much harm Samuel.

Focus on the argument and not the man.

 

[Plumster]

A split in fandom is upon us it seems to me.

1) There are those who, no matter what, will denounce this film as divisive, destructive and evil. They agitate, they snipe, they cry rape.

I despise them, they sicken me, they killed Trek.

2) There are those who welcome a new beginning and a chance to what a fresh perspective will bring to the franchise. They are what Trek is about, they are open minded and willing to give it a chance.

I love these guys, they are Trek.

The irony inherent in the juxtapostion of my own position is obvious but I'll press on anyway.

Those whom I despise have had this coming for years and I'm laughing my socks off at them - they like to tell us what Trek is, they like to tell us that Voyager was worth watching week in and week out, they like to keep Trek as a dirty little secret moulded in their own image, increasingly inward looking and obsessed with it's own belly button rather than scanning the horizon and seeking out new life and new civilisations. A few thousand zealots ruined a casual audiences enjoyment of Trek and it all it could have been, the casual audience watched it because it was good and not inward looking and not concerned about something that might have happened in an episode 20 years previously. The zealots did this to Trek, they were responsible for it's decline and death. These cretins forgot Trek is a business too and that it needs Joe Public to watch it as well, they disenfranchised the millions who kept it going by watching it and bringing in the advertising revenue and sales of the product around the globe.

And do you know what really pisses the Zealot's off?

The studio is not listening to them any more, no more letter writing campaigns that are noted, no more 'leaks' from the cast over plot details not to their liking and no more making a film for a few lonely people hiding in their cellars.

I love that, I can't tell you how amusing I find this.

Trek died and what lived on, in the form of characters we love, is what will be imagined up on the screen in May. We might love it,we might hate it but it had to happen and it had to be done to show once and for all that geriatric actors running around in wigs and corsets on shaky sets is not what Trek is or should be, that idiot aliens with the de rigour bumpy foreheads frying eggs in the mess while in the 'Delta Quadrant' is not really entertainment.

Trek may die in May but what it takes with it once and for all is the idiots, the zealots and fundamentalists who contributed to it's demise. Fuck them and fuck what they did. JJ's vision of Trek is down to them if you think it through, they are to blame for all of this one way or the other actually.

If a big budget film with a big production value cannot reinvigorate the franchise then I am happy to consign Trek to posterity and reflect, at leisure, on the bits I loved while ignoring what I hated as well as those who killed a friend while protesting 'we told you so'.

You screwed it up with your love of registry numbers, canon violations, lack of imagination and self important demographic that reduced Trek to a soap opera set in outer space.

You only have yourselves to blame - have the guts to identify yourselves and justify your ignorance.

I dare you.

I would rather see Star Trek slip quietly in to history with it's honor intact, than to see an legend raped and dishonoured by those who care not for any thing but money and their own warped sense of entitlement to a franchise that is a living legend.

The Star Trek of my youth will die this May. What come after will no doubt be great science fiction, but Trek will be gone forever.

Thank you for a sensible response.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

You're an amateur, Plumster, and you know it.

But keep it up. With practice, maybe you'll get better.

I certainly did.

For now, you're too transparent. I can still see the strings.

 

[Ghrakh]

First to get one thing out of the way..

Fandamentalists.
" ... (noun, pl.); fans who violently believe the only valid interpretation of any entertainment source is a dogmatic adherence to their favorite version of that source. Any change to the smallest detail is inherently unacceptable (see also "heresy") and met with frantic scorn. See also Hal Jordan and Klingons, bumpy vs, smooth.

http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2004/12/fandamentalism.html

This actually was a problem back in 1979 when TMP was going to be released..leaks of the "New Enterprise" the uniforms etc. were causing great consternation in certain fans.."How dare they change the Enterprise etc"..so this isn't new to me.....Oh TMP didn't make money because of the fan base, it made money because the general public was curious to see it. The trailers weren't aimed at Star Trek fans...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwivz3gECus
but at the movie audiences of the day.


I've seen this all before..and I'm looking forward to see JJ's take on Trek..

I recall seeing the new Enterprise in Starlog, and personally thought it was cool looking. Apparently, the criticism from some fans didn't affect the final film's ship, sets, or uniforms. Surely the same happened when TNG came out.

I'm curious as to this "zealot influence" being ranted on about here, given that.

 

[Utopianvista]

A split in fandom is upon us it seems to me.

1) There are those who, no matter what, will denounce this film as divisive, destructive and evil. They agitate, they snipe, they cry rape.

I despise them, they sicken me, they killed Trek.

The irony inherent in the juxtapostion of my own position is obvious but I'll press on anyway.

Those whom I despise have had this coming for years and I'm laughing my socks off at them - they like to tell us what Trek is, they like to tell us that Voyager was worth watching week in and week out, they like to keep Trek as a dirty little secret moulded in their own image, increasingly inward looking and obsessed with it's own belly button rather than scanning the horizon and seeking out new life and new civilisations. A few thousand zealots ruined a casual audiences enjoyment of Trek and it all it could have been, the casual audience watched it because it was good and not inward looking and not concerned about something that might have happened in an episode 20 years previously. The zealots did this to Trek, they were responsible for it's decline and death. These cretins forgot Trek is a business too and that it needs Joe Public to watch it as well, they disenfranchised the millions who kept it going by watching it and bringing in the advertising revenue and sales of the product around the globe.

Wait what? Did you get born yesterday?

Most of the people who hate Abrams Trek absolutely hated Voyager and blasted it all the time. I was one of those people for crying out loud. Voyager was not Star Trek, it was a cheap gimmick show that didn't understand anything in regards to what made Star Trek so popular to begin with. Its pretty much what Abrams Trek is doing. Making it "kewl".

The only one I know personally, in real life, excited for Abrams Trek were the Voyager fans. So, you should probably do some actual research into the fandom before you make ridiculous assumptions that have no relation to the actual reality.

The fandom was fractured long ago. The DS9/VOY split was the biggest (TOS/TNG had one but TNG won everyone over for the most part to at least accept it.)

Voyager was written for the casual fans with no character arcs, no sense of greater in universe continuaty and blantant disregard to canon when it saw fit. Enterprise, the the series that dropped the Trek name to appeal to the casuals, BOMBED.

The sad thing is most of the so called "bashers" of the new direction of Trek, to appeal to the "casuals", have grown apathetic and left this site long ago. Thus an ever growing echo chamber of love of Abrams.

 

[Icy_Penguigo]

This thread is just an excuse to insult people and troll, while Plumster gets a hard-on from nerd raging at people. Seriously, why is it still open?

 

[Devon]

I would rather see Star Trek slip quietly in to history with it's honor intact, than to see an legend raped and dishonoured by those who care not for any thing but money and their own warped sense of entitlement to a franchise that is a living legend.

The Star Trek of my youth will die this May. What come after will no doubt be great science fiction, but Trek will be gone forever.

 

[Lynx]

Personally I'm not too fond of the "recycling" of TOS.

I see it as lack of constructive ideas and a desperate attempt to milk the last possible drops out of characters like Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the others.

TOS was a great series. They should let it rest in peace and be remembered as the masterpiece it was.

If those responsible for the movie had been smart and constructive, they shhould have come up with new characters and new stories, just like TNG was done once upon a time.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Personally I'm not too fond of the "recycling" of TOS.

I see it as lack of constructive ideas and a desperate attempt to milk the last possible drops out of characters like Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the others.

TOS was a great series. They should let it rest in peace and be remembered as the masterpiece it was.

If those responsible for the movie had been smart and constructive, they shhould have come up with new characters and new stories, just like TNG was done once upon a time.

Again with the insulting of the people running the franchise becuase they do something you don't like.

 

[Kirk1980]

Who says the people in charge are above criticism?

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Who says the people in charge are above criticism?

When you basically make a habit of insulting them and accusing them of doing something for some sinister motive WITHOUT giving any proof and then getting annoyed when other posters point out that that is wrong.

 

[Devon]

If those responsible for the movie had been smart and constructive, they shhould have come up with new characters and new stories, just like TNG was done once upon a time.

So in other words you are saying that the people involved in Star Treks 1-10 were not smart or not constructive? That's your line of logic at play.

 

[Borgminister]

It is this type of "he raped my childhood" idiocy and associated stigma that turns the general public off to Trek.

As a casually hard-core Trekker, I hope that the movie manages to attract a broad audience and expand the fan base.

Daniel Craig is the new Bond now... Get over it, Connery fans.

Sheesh.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

It is this type of "he raped my childhood" idiocy and associated stigma that turns the general public off to Trek.

As a casually hard-core Trekker, I hope that the movie manages to attract a broad audience and expand the fan base.

Daniel Craig is the new Bond now... Get over it, Connery fans.

Sheesh.

QFT

 

[Mordock]

If those responsible for the movie had been smart and constructive, they shhould have come up with new characters and new stories, just like TNG was done once upon a time.

There were three series after TNG which tried to hew to that strategy, though, and each was less popular than the series that preceded it. At this point, I don't begrudge Paramount and the new team attempting to find out if the je ne sais quoi of Star Trek can be found in a revival of the TOS characters.

 

[-Brett-]

A split in fandom is upon us it seems to me.

1) There are those who, no matter what, will denounce this film as divisive, destructive and evil. They agitate, they snipe, they cry rape.

I despise them, they sicken me, they killed Trek...

Those whom I despise have had this coming for years and I'm laughing my socks off at them - they like to tell us what Trek is, they like to tell us that Voyager was worth watching week in and week out, they like to keep Trek as a dirty little secret moulded in their own image, increasingly inward looking and obsessed with it's own belly button rather than scanning the horizon and seeking out new life and new civilisations.

I was posting here when Enterprise was on the air. I was a regular at another forum when Voyager was on the air. The "zealots" as you call them were complaining about the tanking quality as loudly as anyone. Your argument fails.

 

[Kirk1980]

Yeah, I don't know what fans you're talking about, Plumster.

You ain't talking about me, that's for sure. What I like is what I like...what I don't is what I don't...all flavors of Trek fall under that umbrella.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I would rather see Star Trek slip quietly in to history with it's honor intact, than to see an legend raped and dishonoured by those who care not for any thing but money and their own warped sense of entitlement to a franchise that is a living legend.

The "warped sense of entitlement" belongs to long-timers who imagine that they ought to have some veto power over the efforts of the people who are actually working on Trek.

Never had it. Never will.