Star Trek Fundamentalism

[Plumster]

I'm amazed, too. It's an interesting study, though -- my favorite thread to read right now. There's been a lot of mutual animosity building up over the weeks, with neither 'side' particularly tolerant of the other. Maybe the mods are hoping this blows steam off. I think it'll go the other way, though with an outright slap fight and lots of warnings. But I'm a lousy judge of these things.

It has been interesting in several ways, and I'm kind of hoping that reason and restraint prevail and that the slap fight and warnings can be avoided. One thing which might help would be if my earlier advisory in this thread against making remarks personal and taking personally remarks not so intended were heeded a bit better.

I'm seeing a little too much eagerness from some parties to throw things back in the face of another who holds an opposite viewpoint, when it would be just as easy to simply acknowledge it as a different opinion and leave it be. I'm also disappointed at the sparring between "I'm the old guard and I was watching Trek on a coal-fired set that only had one channel, now get off my lawn" and the "this is new Trek, so get out of the way, oldies" contingents, who both seem to be missing the whole point of Star Trek and making the universe a smaller, bitchier place.

But what do I know? I'm not always the best judge of these things, myself. But I remain optimistic... and I have the button to lock the thread if need be.

That's fair. It just seems to me that this thread is only serving to make nerves more raw then they already are.

And by the way, zealot's not an insult. Zealots are cool!

I hope that no-one is saying that we can't have a debate because the nerves are too 'raw' on this subject. I hope I am doing you a diservice Sir.

Spoiling tactics I submit - the same as the zebra who denounced this thread as a 'oversimplified attack' on others.

This is not a debate about individuals because if it was, I'd say that these individuals are on some sort of ego trip and that I am right when I say that they see themselves as Trek to the exclusion of all others. But I'm not saying that.

This is a debate about the old and the new, the old and the bold. It's a clash of cultures over something we all love in varying degrees. It's not about my Dad's bigger than your Dad, this is a classic zebra M.O. Attack the man not his argument and hope that the debate dissolves as a consequence of the name calling and recriminations.

"Now be honest, ZEBRAS, warrior to warrior. You do prefer it this way, don't you, as it was meant to be? No peace in our time. "Once more unto the breach, dear friends."

Some of you zebras are painting the most vivid and revealing of pictures and I see or hear nothing AS YET that makes me think I'm wrong - you need to work harder.



How can you defend the undefendable?

Before you lock phasers and fire - it's a rhetorical question.

 

[Kirk1980]

Yeah, some of the people who are pissed about it aren't being too rational.

I was all for a reboot. I was meh about Abrams' involvement, annoyed about Orci/Kurtzman but I still wanted it.

From the Empire screening, the clips we've seen, I don't know if this is my type of Star Trek and let's be fair, DS9 only occasionally was for me, Voyager RARELY was for me and Enterprise had some promise that was utterly squandered.

M'Sharak's right, the middle ground hopefully is a good place to be....I want it to work, I'm just not crazy about the direction and tone I've seen thus far.

Does that make me a zebra, Plum?

 

[Plumster]

Yeah, some of the people who are pissed about it aren't being too rational.

I was all for a reboot. I was meh about Abrams' involvement, annoyed about Orci/Kurtzman but I still wanted it.

From the Empire screening, the clips we've seen, I don't know if this is my type of Star Trek and let's be fair, DS9 only occasionally was for me, Voyager RARELY was for me and Enterprise had some promise that was utterly squandered.

M'Sharak's right, the middle ground hopefully is a good place to be....I want it to work, I'm just not crazy about the direction and tone I've seen thus far.

Does that make me a zebra, Plum?

Nope - it makes you most unlike a zebra. You know what you like but your willing to give it a go because you never know you might just like it.

Ergo, the true Trek fan reflects the show itself;

1) Forward looking
2) Optimistic
3) Open minded
4) Unopinionated
5) Tolerant
6) Imaginative

I submit we call such people Beavor's because they are not zebras. They are the polar opposite of the above, the live in a flat world where the universe revolves around them.

We live in the land of plenty with law and order, good food and good company, we want for nothing other than the joy of exploration and the pleasure of what makes us feel good.

 

[Kirk1980]

Well, I will submit I misread you, Plum.

You're still nutty as a fruitcake with your hyperbole, though

 

[Plumster]

Well, I will submit I misread you, Plum.

You're still nutty as a fruitcake with your hyperbole, though

The message is clear my friend - Trek is changing - Trek had to change - and Trek will now change.

The corresponding impact of this will be felt throughout fandom - it's being debated here but I still don't think the zebras want to admit just how much things are changing and evolving.

They'll see this film like Bond fans saw Never Say Never Again or On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

They'll ignore it and pretend it never happened.

 

[uniderth]

So just because some of us say that we need to stick with what is established in the Trek Universe means that we are:

1) Backwards
2) Unoptimistic
3) Close minded
4) Opinionated
5) Untolerant
6) Unimaginative

What this seems to say to me is that you(not you specifically but anyone who is against us "fundies") don't think there is enough diversity in established Star Trek to allow for creative and productive story telling. This doesn't seem very imagitive to me, open minded, or optimistic.

The reason I will not watch the new movie. The reason why it and Enterprise are not Star Trek is because they don't agree with established Star Trek History. It's perfectly possible to create a Star Trek prequel that fits with Star Trek and is a good movie/TV show. You don't have to reboot the universe just to get more fans or tell a story.

I bet you any reasonable ammount of money that I could create both Star Trek movies and TV series that would both bring in new fans(aka revitalize Star Trek) and appeal to us fundies by sticking with what is established.

I'll bet you right now. Put me in charge of Star Trek and I'll do these things or I'll pay up. Until then no one has a right to complain against fundie Trek.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'll bet you right now. Put me in charge of Star Trek and I'll do these things or I'll pay up. Until then no one has a right to complain against fundie Trek.

You're saying that until a completely inexperienced and unqualified fan is put in charge of Star Trek and given a chance to implement their preferences "no one has a right" to criticize the attitudes and vocal expectations of these people?

You're saying that?



That is beyond ridiculous.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Here http://www.paramount.com/ http://www.cbs.com/

Contact them and convince them.
I'm sure with your superior intellect and creative skills you will have no trouble getting them to hand you the keys to the franchise, especially after the inevitable failure of Trek XI.

I bet you any reasonable ammount of money that I could create both Star Trek movies and TV series that would both bring in new fans(aka revitalize Star Trek) and appeal to us fundies by sticking with what is established.

I'll bet you right now. Put me in charge of Star Trek and I'll do these things or I'll pay up. Until then no one has a right to complain against fundie Trek.

In the meantime, congratulations on failing to understand anything the writers and director have said about the movie.

The reason I will not watch the new movie. The reason why it and Enterprise are not Star Trek is because they don't agree with established Star Trek History.

 

[Lashmore]

Originally Posted by uniderth
I bet you any reasonable ammount of money that I could create both Star Trek movies and TV series that would both bring in new fans(aka revitalize Star Trek) and appeal to us fundies by sticking with what is established.

I'll bet you right now. Put me in charge of Star Trek and I'll do these things or I'll pay up. Until then no one has a right to complain against fundie Trek.

People like that had the keys...look at what happened.

I'd say put your money where your mouth is. Write a movie length script (in SCRIPT format, not overly descriptive) and post it in this forum. If you can do what trek hasn't been able to do for me in a long time and actually entertain me and convince me its clever, then I'd agree about your self-important self-absorbed claims.

However, I doubt you have the capability. You said the words, I laid down the challenge, prove yourself to me. My money is on you being, to use what an internet friend of mine says; "Epic Phail."

I sense your script would be to please you, and not the majority of trek fans, and even more non-trek fans.

But, challenge is there, prove me wrong.

 

[uniderth]

You're saying that until a completely inexperienced and unqualified fan is put in charge of Star Trek and given a chance to implement their preferences "no one has a right" to criticize the attitudes and vocal expectations of these people?

What I'm saying is that until a Trek Fundie has the chance to make Star Trek then no one has the moral right to say that Trek fundies bring about the death of Star Trek.

Contact them and convince them.
I'm sure with your superior intellect and creative skills you will have no trouble getting them to hand you the keys to the franchise, especially after the inevitable failure of Trek XI.

Hey that's your job. I'm the one who made the challange. If your up for the wager then lets bet. If not no problem, just means that you have no arguement against Trek fundies.

In the meantime, congratulations on failing to understand anything the writers and director have said about the movie.

Then perhaps you could "enlighten" me.

 

[Plumster]

So just because some of us say that we need to stick with what is established in the Trek Universe means that we are:

1) Backwards
2) Unoptimistic
3) Close minded
4) Opinionated
5) Untolerant
6) Unimaginative

What this seems to say to me is that you(not you specifically but anyone who is against us "fundies") don't think there is enough diversity in established Star Trek to allow for creative and productive story telling. This doesn't seem very imagitive to me, open minded, or optimistic.

The reason I will not watch the new movie. The reason why it and Enterprise are not Star Trek is because they don't agree with established Star Trek History. It's perfectly possible to create a Star Trek prequel that fits with Star Trek and is a good movie/TV show. You don't have to reboot the universe just to get more fans or tell a story.

I bet you any reasonable ammount of money that I could create both Star Trek movies and TV series that would both bring in new fans(aka revitalize Star Trek) and appeal to us fundies by sticking with what is established.

I'll bet you right now. Put me in charge of Star Trek and I'll do these things or I'll pay up. Until then no one has a right to complain against fundie Trek.

No - you said that - not me. My comment in this context was confined to true Trekker's.

So - are you now suggesting that as a consequence of your honesty that you see yourself as this as a consequence of your imagined and diametrical position to what I wrote?

 

[Lashmore]

I'll bet you right now. Put me in charge of Star Trek and I'll do these things or I'll pay up. Until then no one has a right to complain against fundie Trek.

Consider your wording,: Until YOU are given charge of writing and directing trek no one can argue against "fundie" Trek?

That is hardly ... an intelligible sentence in any argument.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Contact them and convince them.
I'm sure with your superior intellect and creative skills you will have no trouble getting them to hand you the keys to the franchise, especially after the inevitable failure of Trek XI.

Hey that's your job. I'm the one who made the challange. If your up for the wager then lets bet. If not no problem, just means that you have no arguement against Trek fundies.

The ball's in your court according to all the Is and mes in your post.

I bet you any reasonable ammount of money that I could create both Star Trek movies and TV series that would both bring in new fans(aka revitalize Star Trek) and appeal to us fundies by sticking with what is established.

I'll bet you right now. Put me in charge of Star Trek and I'll do these things or I'll pay up. Until then no one has a right to complain against fundie Trek.

In the meantime, congratulations on failing to understand anything the writers and director have said about the movie.

Then perhaps you could "enlighten" me.

Sure.

Here you will find countless threads where we have talked and analyzed to death interviews by the director and the writers. Quotes, links, everything.

http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=50


Here you will also find interviews by the director and the writers.

http://www.trekmovie.com

Knock yourself out.

 

[uniderth]

I see myself as a Fundemental Star Trek fan that is forwar thinking, optimistic, open minded, tolerant, and imaginitive.

 

[Lashmore]

You seem too self absorbed to be honest. To quote how people can;t argue until YOU do the following:

I'll bet you right now. Put me in charge of Star Trek and I'll do these things or I'll pay up. Until then no one has a right to complain against fundie Trek.

Sorry, until YOU do this? Nah, you just lost all credibility. It is the same as me saying "you have no right to diss my vision of trek until after I've directed and made movies for paramount...blah!"

 

[uniderth]

Consider your wording,: Until YOU are given charge of writing and directing trek no one can argue against "fundie" Trek?

That is hardly ... an intelligible sentence in any argument.

I'm sure many other Fundie Trekkers could do domething similar. But since I'm the only one who knows my own thoughts then I can only speak for myself.

It's just as in politics no body really knew what President Obama would do as president until he actually exercised that office. Nobody could argue against what Obama would actually do in office. People ould argue against his record or against what they thought he would do in office.

So, in reference to me, you can't argue against what I would do if I was in chrgae of Star Trek because I'm not in charge.

The ball's in your court according to all the Is and mes in your post.

I threw down the gaunlet. I'm just waiting for someone to pick it up.

 

[Lashmore]

I see excuses, no evidence. Is it that hard to write a script or are you unwilling?

Onto Obama example you threw out. he had outsiders funding him. He had chosen a presidential running mate, he had millions supporting him and a team of advisors and PR directors. He had news crews following his every word, and he had Oprah's personal backing. That at least proves Obama had the faith of mnay many people of what he would be and do as a President.

You have what...yourself?

Your example does not fit into the context you are within, I'm sorry.

 

[uniderth]

Scripts are currently in Progress.

Would be Movie projects:
Earth-Romulan War 1, 2, and 3

Would be TV projects:
Star Trek(unnamed) This would be kind of like Enterprise except better stories and would use the Canon "ringship"
Star Trek(with Captain April)
Star Trek(with Captain Pike first five year mission)
Star Trek(with Captain Pike secons five year mission)
Star Trek(with Captain Kirk finish first five year mission)
Star Trek: Phase II(would be different than the proposed series but still be about Kir's Second Five year mission)

 

[Lashmore]

And like any successful script in any episode do not fall in the belief that the first draft by one person is ever the final draft used. Usually a minimum of two to three people end up modifying the script, then further edits are done between a full table of people.

So...would you be the clever director and let people of alternative views to yours assist in total re-edits?

As that's smart business. Allowing people with complete opposite views to you be on the re-edit team. As it means they can spot something completely silly the original writer couldn't in his own writing.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Well, I'm now convinced by that list and the astounding quality of the scripts.

All hail the savior. Where do we pay the bet ?