Why are Trekkies so Hateful of Star Trek?

I once got red-repped (downvoted using a forum reputation feature) just for saying I hadn't seen the prequels. Since that forum had a lot of privileges and accesses that depended on keeping one's reputation score securely in the green, I thought that was distinctly hostile.

I've just decided that for me, Star Wars consists of the IV-VI movies, plus any books written by Alan Dean Foster. I can't be bothered to care if people love or hate the rest of it.

 

I think hateful is too strong, opinionated would be better. Everyone of any fandom--especially those that have been around for many years--won't agree on everything in the franchise, it's very much a matter of taste.

 

This being "so hateful" business - it's just misplaced passion, is all it is ...

 

They're no worse than the Genesis Device or the all-out fantasy of Vulcan mind magic. Or what about the Excelsior splutting to a halt in space? There has been no change from that standard set in movies II and III (which were a huge step down from I, realism-wise, but about on par with TOS) The ONLY difference is that you like those movies better, so you're willing to gloss over their nonsense.

 

^^^Yep. FTL telepathy. Transporters which split people into Jeckyl and Hyde and which can magically restore a person to a previous state (de-age). Engines modified to get to to Andromeda in a couple of hundred years which can never go that fast again. etc. etc. Star Trek's always been chock full of such rubbish.

 

^^ Although I consider myself a nitpicky technophile Trekker and often have issues with scientific nonsense, I'm nevertheless aware that the storytelling comes first. Simply put, I'm willing to sacrifice scientific accuracy if it helps to tell a darn good story.

"The Enemy Within" split Kirk into Jeckyl and Hyde but what the episode was truly about was the "What if" scenario, i.e. whether it would be a good or counterproductive thing to remove the unethical traits of a person, how much each and every single one of us depends on these despicable traits.

From a philosophical point of view and IMHO, this was one of Star Trek's finest and best episodes.

Then you take "Second Chances" where Riker had been duplicated by the transporter, one left marooned on a planet, the other pursuing his Starfleet career. Another great Star Trek story, IMHO, one of TNG's finest.

(Both are impressive storylines to exploit a device originally only created to get people ASAP from Location A to Location B)

So it simply comes down whether bending or violating scientific accuracy helps you to tell a good story - or not. YMMV.

Bob

 

You mean in asking questions, or in coming up with answers? The episode is really good at asking questions, but not so much at the other thing.

We saw explicitly why allowing someone's evil half to run amok was a bad idea, as if there was ever going to be any doubt of that. However, "The Enemy Within" is extremely shallow with respect to the other question of why allowing someone's good half to run free of the evil side is itself a bad idea. The episode gives no answer to the general ethical question there, which is certainly the more interesting of the two. For some reason, the good side gets weak, but then again so does the evil side. The two sides need each other, but the episode never answers why, beyond the obvious that you need two halves to make a whole. That's anything but a deep analysis of the situation, and it really seems to serve only the end of getting everything ready for next week's episode.

That said, I found its answer to the question of why the evil side would ultimately want to rejoin with the good side to be somewhat insightful, if not generally in the abstract, then at least specifically under the premises of the story, that reason being out of pure selfishness to live.

All in all, Evil Kirk is the more interesting and well-thought-out character, between him and Good Kirk. Big surprise that the episode showcases what it's named after, eh? But how exactly is that highbrow philosophy?

Intellectually deep? Not really. Entertaining? Yes, certainly.

And anyway, Maurice's point was that Star Trek has always thrown the science part of science fiction under the bus whenever it felt like it. Even if "The Enemy Within" earns a pass, because Jekyll/Hyde is sufficiently literary, it still doesn't contradict the overall point, does it?

 

Two things: First - people on the internet love to complain.

Second - Many longterm Trek fans who grew up with series x or series y tend to view that series as "their" Trek. It's theirs, and they take personal ownership of it. And from that point onward, through the other series and movies, they cast a keen eye on ways that these other Treks stray from what it was about "their" Trek that they loved so much. Take, for example, the "old-timers" or TOS fans. For them, Trek stopped either at the end of the third season of TOS, or if they're feeling generous, the animated series (because it contained many of the same creative team and actors as TOS).

And every Trek series has fans like this, and boy, are they ever vocal.

At the root of it, it's the difference between a fan's expectations of what a Trek series or movie would look like, and what the studios have produced. The greater those vary, the more complaining you hear. It's not a hate of Trek. It's a love of the "idea" of Trek that the fan has built in his/her mind.

I hope that helps.

 

I grew up with TOS, started watching in 1975 and I've enjoyed all the different takes to one degree or another.

 

I'm not sucking up shit, for you or anybody else. I'm tired of you people constantly blasting Abrams & Co. for making the best Star Trek movies ever, for revitalizing the franchise and getting new generations of people to like it (check out these devianArt groups to see what I mean. ) You just want Star Trek to be stuck in a mythological 'cerebral' past that never really existed as far as TOS was concerned and was mostly a confused reading of TOS based on TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise. Except that it never had this except in small doses, and was mostly all action adventure with an extra dollop of philosophy and sociology.

As has been said numerous times, you don't have to see this at all; you can stick to the older shows and movies (as well as the fan shows like Phase II.) But you won't, because you'll always be looking for ways to say that the movie could be 'better' according to you. Except that your 'better' involves bringing in things that won't work with this version of Star Trek and mostly only works on TV.

At least the movies have made money, have a ton of fans beyond just the core Trekfans, and is critically acclaimed; that means the show will go on, even if Abrams won't be directing. Would that the people who hate it might want to give up bitching about it online and offline, and just accept that this is now what the franchise is, like it or not.

I loved the remake just for doing the story in a different way and as it would be told in a different culture. Obviously, there's no lords and ladies in the USA,

Spoiler: so they adjusted by making the island people all female and practicing male sacrifice (a new thing in movies [I]these[/I] days) to bring about the harvest.

so they adjusted by making the island people all female and practicing male sacrifice (a new thing in movies these days) to bring about the harvest.

The thing about any 'remake' of The Wicker Man is, is that it's the filmed adaptation of a novel to begin with (Ritual ) and so the second movie, despite using the title of the first, probably isn't really a remake at all.

 

I was unaware of any RL experiments that have resulted in peer-reviewed journal articles detailing the RL speed limit of telepathy.

Since telepathy is one of those SF staples that hasn't been definitely proven in RL, it can work at any damn speed the author wants it to work.

 

QFT.

No, there's a qualitative difference between playing fast and loose with the science to serve storytelling or expediency (which Trek has done, it's where transporters came from) and being aggressively silly as a deliberate attempt at reference (which is what "red matter," "cold fusion" that freezes things, supernovas as galactic threats and Marvel-style healing-factor blood are). NuTrek is built around the latter and not the former.

This, incidentally, is a phenomenon that plays into the "bashing" of classic Trek that milo noticed earlier: the need to defend absolutely every element of NuTrek as being precisely the same as what went before regardless of whether this is true or not, because admitting otherwise means facing up to flaws or variances in the new product. If something in AbramsTrek doesn't make sense, well of course it doesn't, Trek never ever tried to make sense! If some part of the story is less than compelling, well of course Trek's storytelling has always been shit! "Nothing has changed!" That discussion we had about false equivalences needing to go the other day -- that applies to this kind of shenanigans too.

 

Since the speed limit of the universe is the speed of light, why would telepathic communication be exempt?

 

The classic Trek setting establishes that things propagate faster than light in subspace, I'm pretty sure? (It's still uncertain whether it's really possible to make anything meaningful propagate faster-than-light IRL. Except of course, as we all know, for bad news.)

 

Since it hasn't been proven to work, it might just as well rely on something like quantum tunneling. Warp speed is a much harder thing to swallow, yet NASA is working on it...

 

Star Trek is still a cult show to many people. The most dedicated people often no longer care about being entertained, they care about the minutiae and become possessive of aspects of the show. Worse, they often lack the ability to adapt and change after time. Not being able to adapt to the world and change is one of the biggest reasons for hate in the world in general. It's what makes racial hatred, racial hatred, and rednecks, redneck as the population grows and people who were once provincial are forced to accept others. Luckily not everyone fits under this description and exposure often mitigates the worst of it after time and leads to acceptance.

RAMA

 

Light traveling some distance can be measured. So far, we have not developed any reliable way to measure telepathy.

 

To say that it hasn't been measured reliably belies the fact that the very existence of telepathy has not been substantiated.

FTL nonsense is still nonsense.

 

Hmm... I could have sworn I said this:

So yeah, I'm quite aware that the existence of telepathy has not been proven. And since we don't know for sure whether or not it exists, we haven't developed a reliable way to measure it.

As for FTL being nonsense... for now, it's called "suspension of disbelief" - something we all do every time we sit down to enjoy a Star Trek episode (or any other show that uses FTL technology). For the future... I think we need to realize that we don't know everything yet. It's not irrational to hope that some day somebody will figure out a way to make it work, or at least discover an alternate way that will achieve the same end results.

As F.M. Busby said in The Long View (one of my favorite novels from a series that does use relativity as a fundamental part of the plot) when a character does discover FTL: "Einstein wasn't wrong... He just didn't have all the facts."

I'm fairly sure we don't have all the facts, either.

 

You did, which, as I said, makes it completely incongruous to try to make the point that "we have not developed any reliable way to measure telepathy."

However, since you seem to think that the two statements go together, with your use of the words definitely [sic - better would be definitively] and reliable, your two statements there sound like you're suggesting that telepathy has some evidential support, but just nothing definite yet. And, it sounds like you're suggesting that support for telepathy would increase, if only it could be measured more reliably.

No. That's wrong. Telepathy doesn't have any support. It has zilch. Nada. It hasn't even been measured at all, whether reliably, unreliably, definitely, indefinitely, definitively, or inconclusively.

Again, your use of the word reliable is entirely redundant. Also, the way you've constructed your assertion in the boldfaced part frankly suggests that there is a realistic possibility that we could someday measure it, or in fact that we already have albeit unreliably, both of which are false.

Actually, I didn't mean by that that FTL is nonsense. By "FTL nonsense is still nonsense" what I meant was that using FTL as an adjective to modify a noun that represents a form of nonsense still leaves you with nonsense. What was under discussion was "FTL telepathy", in which FTL is an adjective. Although I didn't think I needed to because of the context, I probably could have worded that less ambiguously, say as: "An FTL faerie is still a faerie."

My point was that "FTL telepathy" is still a form of telepathy. "FTL telepathy" isn't somehow more legitimate than telepathy generally. The only reason it isn't less so is because nonsensical nonsense is still just nonsense.

True, we don't have all the facts.

Whether FTL or telepathy might theoretically be discovered someday is an entirely separate question from whether they have any evidential support. They have none. There are some theoretical reasons to suggest that FTL could, hypothetically, be possible, but nothing concrete has yet been demonstrated. Absolutely nothing.

It's also worth pointing out that, given the body of evidence that we have, the discovery of FTL or telepathy are events that realistically have a low probability of occurring.

The fact that we don't have all the facts can't be twisted to support the reality of such fantastic concepts. At best, that ignorance in not having all the facts, which is an essential element of the human condition, only prevents all hope that they could be real from being closed off.