Done with Star Trek?

[darkwing_duck1]

Yeah, it was probably the two guys cuddling...
But I agree that BaF dragged on horribly. Especially in the second part.

That's what I found distasteful, the scene dragged on too long. The relationship could have been depicted with much better pacing. It felt like they were just trying to overemphasize "hey, we've got a major gay scene here". On top of the fact that the whole 2nd part "dragged on horribly" as you put it, didn't help.

That's always been the problem with this topic. When Trek DID do an official show about "alternative lifestyles", it did it in an allegorical, low key way.

But the advocates of "why no 'gay' Trek" always push for big, loud, and in your face "Look at us, we're doing a 'gay story'." writing.

David, being a professional writer, should have known better than to get too "preachy" on the topic.

 

[Char Aznable]

That's always been the problem with this topic. When Trek DID do an official show about "alternative lifestyles", it did it in an allegorical, low key way.

But the advocates of "why no 'gay' Trek" always push for big, loud, and in your face "Look at us, we're doing a 'gay story'." writing.

David, being a professional writer, should have known better than to get too "preachy" on the topic.

This is something that has always annoyed me about the, "pro gay in Trek" people (for lack of a better term for them). They don't know what they want and they all have different standards. If you just include a couple kissing in the background, fans will complain they're skirting the issue, if they make it a big part of the story, they're accused of preaching, if they introduce a new gay character he'll be thought of as the, "token fag." If they make one of the main characters gay (like some people seem to genuinly think should be done to Kirk or Sulu) . . . I can just SMELL the shit storm . . .

Granted, I have absolutely NO issue with gays or lesbeans in Star Trek. I just get annoyed by people who won't shut up about it as if they are somehow entitled to their representation in an adventure series. Personally, I want to see Kirk and co. out having kick ass adventures and exploring the unknown, not coming to terms with their sexuality and talking about their feelings while in therapy.

 

[23skidoo]

Going back to the original post, with any franchise you're going to have people who don't like/won't accept new iterations of that franchise. For example, there are lots of folks who refused outright to watch TNG on the simple basis that the series didn't star ALL of the original cast. Unrealistic as that may be - in 1987, Shatner was starring in TJ Hooker, Nimoy was a top-rung film director, Kelley was virtually retired, etc. But that was their view and they stuck to it. Not always politely, as I recall the fistfight that broke out one time in a local comic book store between two fans arguing over the issue.

And of course it's purely a matter of taste whether one likes any or all of the most-79 Trek. I personally hate the first 2 seasons of TNG and most of Voyager. And I'm one of about six people who liked Enterprise. On the other hand, I'd be quite happy if someone accidentally destroyed every single Season 3 episode of TOS. So it goes both ways.

Doctor Who fans are the same way. Never mind the Hugos, the BAFTAs, etc. - there are still many inconsolable fans out there who won't accept anything with the Doctor Who brand on it dated after 1989. And need I even mention the schism in Star Wars fandom between those who think Han shot first and those who think Greedo did, and those who can sit through the "West Wing in Space" plotlines of the prequel trilogy and those who are happy to stick with Episodes 4-6.

And now Trek is going through it again with the Abrams movie launching a new era. There are those who want Trek retired - the only option unless you really think it's possible to launch a new series of action films starring a pair of actors who enter their 80s in about 6 months - and there are those who accept that things have to change.

You'll never please everybody. The problem I personally have is that SF fandom in general is very unkind and snarky to those who hold opposing viewpoints. I enjoyed Abrams' film a lot, but I stopped identifying myself as a "Trekkie" after the very unpleasant experience I had as a fan and defender of Enterprise. (And I've had people call bulls*it on this, but all I say is dig into the archives and look at how vicious this place got, especially around 2003-2005. People were being banned and permabanned left right and center, and there are some user names that still make people shudder (one beginning with J comes to mind for any oldtimers out there!)

I personally hate Firefly - and oh my god you'd think I'd advocated kitten stomping the reaction I (and others) have received when we've said that. Even in this very thread a guy posts how he doesn't care for the current version of Trek, wonders if others are of similar mind, and gets pages full of sarcastic responses instead. I wonder if it's possible to carry on actual discussion about contrary opinions. True, I guess this is like going onto a Tea Party website and posting "I think Sarah Palin sucks, who's with me" and being surprised that it upsets people. But this is just a discussion of a TV show (those who think it's a religion need professional help IMO and they're out there) so I'd like to think it's possible.

Alex

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The problem is simpler and really has nothing to do with the advocates for a given issue. Once the people behind Trek became self-conscious about its "importance" and saw that they could play to the vanity of the audience (as well as their own) it became virtually devoid of irony or subtext. When fans talk about its "allegorical" nature all they're talking about are stories where, as the intro to Dragnet had it, "the names and places have been changed" to protect the screenwriters.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

(And I've had people call bulls*it on this, but all I say is dig into the archives and look at how vicious this place got, especially around 2003-2005. People were being banned and permabanned left right and center, and there are some user names that still make people shudder (one beginning with J comes to mind for any oldtimers out there!)

Ah, yes... J'Stewey.

 

[thumbtack]

It sucks, getting old, doesn't it? It's almost like the world forgets that you're the most important person in it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

What topic did boborci say that in over there, BTW? He sure gives as good as he gets in the Talkbacks.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Granted, I have absolutely NO issue with gays or lesbeans in Star Trek. I just get annoyed by people who won't shut up about it as if they are somehow entitled to their representation in an adventure series. Personally, I want to see Kirk and co. out having kick ass adventures and exploring the unknown, not coming to terms with their sexuality and talking about their feelings while in therapy.

Well, let's just recast Sulu and Uhura to be plain ole white folks while we're at it. After all, if it's just about kick ass adventures, what do the people matter?

Trek is an inclusive series. Always has been. People that are different in some way coming together and learning something. The adventures are just HOW they do it. Just because there's hetrosexuals does that mean that they just sit around and talk about their feelings? No? Then why should that change just because you have a gay character?

 

[Captain Robert April]

Yeah, it was probably the two guys cuddling...

Sorry, no. There were more than enough problems with the "cuddling" scene that would have been just as evident if it had involved a hetero couple (although if the chick were naked from the waist up I'd have been more personally interested than I was in this version - just not in any way that would require listening to either of them).

THANK YOU!!

I won't discuss this further, because as a matter of practice I ordinarily see no sense in critiquing every fan film from the standpoint of how professional it is in every respect (although when such a film succeeds or at least stays afloat in every department it's worth singling out for praise, IMAO). BaF is a long way from Phase II's best, but it's an impressive show in many ways and the producers have every right to be proud of it.

I will make one observation on BaF: It was actually rather nice to see folks discussing the issues raised in the episode instead of the technical aspects of the production or the amateurishness of the actors, even if it did descend in to flame war territory a few times.

 

[Lord Garth]

If VOY S6-S7 and ENT are any indication, I'm never done with Star Trek, I just get tired of it. So what did I do? I set them aside and watched them 10 years later from a different perspective.

In the meantime, I talked about earlier aspects of the franchise and the direction it might take in the future. And I discovered several other things to watch.

 

[Shatnertage]

My interest in Trek may wane because of other stuff taking precedence, but I don't think I'll ever be "done with Trek" in the final, apocalyptic way suggested in the OP. I just ask that it entertain me when I have time to watch it, and it's been doing that since the late 1970s.

Barring the producers having the entire cast show up uninvited at my house and kick me in the nuts, I can't think of anything that would put me off the franchise. Certainly not its failing to live up to some mythical standard of excellence.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

That's always been the problem with this topic. When Trek DID do an official show about "alternative lifestyles", it did it in an allegorical, low key way.

But the advocates of "why no 'gay' Trek" always push for big, loud, and in your face "Look at us, we're doing a 'gay story'." writing.

David, being a professional writer, should have known better than to get too "preachy" on the topic.

This is something that has always annoyed me about the, "pro gay in Trek" people (for lack of a better term for them). They don't know what they want and they all have different standards. If you just include a couple kissing in the background, fans will complain they're skirting the issue, if they make it a big part of the story, they're accused of preaching, if they introduce a new gay character he'll be thought of as the, "token fag."

In all honesty,the acceptance/tolerance vs open embraceing/advocacy issue is a problem for the gay community in general, not just as it pertains to portrayals in fiction.

And I'll leave it at that.

 

[Amaris]

When I get a little fatigued with one iteration, I turn to another. For example, I started watching TNG after I got a little tired with TOS. Then I'll watch some DS9 and then back to TOS. It's always a cycle.

 

[Destructor]

Barring the producers having the entire cast show up uninvited at my house and kick me in the nuts, I can't think of anything that would put me off the franchise. Certainly not its failing to live up to some mythical standard of excellence.

Even that would be, like, a heck of a story.

 

[Shatnertage]

Barring the producers having the entire cast show up uninvited at my house and kick me in the nuts, I can't think of anything that would put me off the franchise. Certainly not its failing to live up to some mythical standard of excellence.

Even that would be, like, a heck of a story.

It's an interesting image, certainly.

And it's probably the only thing that would excite as much personal animosity in me as I've seen spewed around here towards the show and its producers. Unless they're advocating genocide or some other seriously evil shit, I just can't work myself up into that much of a lather over a bunch of people who I've never met.

 

[ST-One]

BaF is a long way from Phase II's best, but it's an impressive show in many ways and the producers have every right to be proud of it.

Agreed.

 

[Maurice]

couldn't get into DS9 (my username notwithstanding)

So why did you pick that name?

Because I worked as a game designer of the DS9 videogame for the Sega Genesis.

 

[number6]

couldn't get into DS9 (my username notwithstanding)

So why did you pick that name?

Because I worked as a game designer of the DS9 videogame for the Sega Genesis.

And wrote a slash novel about Kirk and the Gorn.

 

[Doug Otte]

OK, Doug, I get what you're saying. However, think of it this way: If a ton of people who are not Trek fans went to see the movie because of whatever reason (word of mouth, JJ Abrams lovers, lovers of action/popcorn films, etc.), and made the film a success, it stands to reason that the same people will go to see the sequel. Just look at Batman Begins and the Dark Knight if you don't believe me. (And do you honestly think anyone in the audience of those two films were fans of the original '60's Batman TV show?)

Now, how does this equate to people who are Trek fans? Well, it's very simple. If these movies are successful (which they're proving to be), then it's much more likely that a new Trek television series will be produced (at least more likely than if the film flopped). And who's going to be watching that series? Not the popcorn-loving moviegoers...but the Star Trek fans.

So who really cares if Trek fans or non-Trek fans go to see these movies, as long as they're successful? Either way it can only help us. Get it?

I agree with everything you're saying, excpet the last paragraph. For traditional (old?) Trek fans like me, and I guess Warped9, a new series in the vein of Abrams' Trek doesn't matter, because it's so far from the spirit of the original that we probably wouldn't even watch.

I absolutely loved TNG when it was on - couldn't get enough of it. I started to get fatigued around Season 5, though. I did like some of DS9, but never got into Voyager or Enterprise. You can blame it on a combination of factors - different producers, etc., and I'm sure a large part of it is me getting older, having a family, etc.

However, after enjoying Trek for nearly 40 years, I can now only enjoy the original. I've tried to go back to TNG via the DVD sets, but I just can't stand it anymore.

Doug

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Barring the producers having the entire cast show up uninvited at my house and kick me in the nuts, I can't think of anything that would put me off the franchise. Certainly not its failing to live up to some mythical standard of excellence.

Even that would be, like, a heck of a story.

Even then, you could get a lawyer and retire at Paramount's expense.

There is a story that one person employed by Trek who settled a matter with the studio via lawsuit spent a part of the money on an addition to their property which they christened the "Gene Roddenberry Memorial Swimming Pool."

There are bits and pieces of Trek that I like from its beginning to the present day. There is no version of it that I enjoy or think even approaches being flawless entertainment in its entirety, though for my taste TOS comes far closer than anything that's followed. That said, if I ever get entirely bored with it I'll just be off doing something else instead. I don't need to share my thoughts about why I don't like brussells sprouts with those who enjoy them; I just don't eat the things.