Why are Trekkies so Hateful of Star Trek?

[JirinPanthosa]

I certainly couldn't do a better job than JJ Abrams, but other writers and directors sure could. Of course, there are a lot more that would do a worse job than him than a better one. Considering what kind of directors they tapped for the TNG movies, Abrams is a huge improvement. His only problem is that Star Trek is supposed to be a heady show about exploration and diplomacy and Abrams wants to show things going boom.

Fortunately, Star Wars is supposed to be about stuff going boom.

Let me rephrase what I earlier said about FTL travel and telepathy. I don't think either are possible. But suppose you saw two headlines, and were told one of them was real and one of them was fake. The first one read: "Scientists prove faster than light travel possible". The second one read: "Telepathy proven to exist in controlled study". I would think the first one was the real one.

 

[M'Sharak]

It's an interesting question, why are Trekkies so full of hate of (fill in the blank) Star Trek film or show? And I ask this question knowing full well I'm guilty of this ever since JJ-Trek came on the scene, but why are we all so full of hate?

I'm not full of hate. But then again, I don't identify as a Trekkie or Trekker (or Trekkist, or whatever,) so maybe this isn't really addressed to me. I just enjoy the shows - all of the live-action ones, anyway, and some of the movies. I don't hate the animated series or the other movies, but neither am I particularly interested in watching them again, nor do I spend much time talking about them or reading other people's conversations about them.

Seriously, you look at any of the boards just on this forum, and it's amazing how many of them are focused on what the various fans hate ... about Star Trek.

Know what I do? I just don't read those. Not interesting.

I see threads and posts about how much some people hates Enterprise or Star Trek V or even a behind the scenes talent like Rick Berman. Just about every show and film and person connected to Trek are dogged on, with maybe a stronger focus on 1990's Trek and onward.

I don't read those, either. Hate threads are usually pretty dull, and threads dogging on shows, films and/or people just get repetitive. Seriously, why bother?

<snip>

So my question to the fans on this board is, why? Why are we so vocal about what we hate... about Star Trek?

Not all of us are. It's just a TV show, after all - it's entertainment. If a thing is not enjoyable and is not essential, then simply find something else to do with one's time. There's more to all of this than Star Trek one might not enjoy.

 

[nightwind1]

His only problem is that Star Trek is supposed to be a heady show about exploration and diplomacy and Abrams wants to show things going boom.

You mean like all of the exploration and diplomacy in TWOK, SFS, TVH? How about all of the times in TNG when the Enterprise "explored" all of the way back to Earth?

 

[F. King Daniel]

TNG was about diplomacy. TOS was about adventures in space - many of which ended in fighting.

 

[CaptJimboJones]

The bitching and complaining about various forms of Trek don't bother me. JJ Abrams and Rick Berman both have a lot of money and mean posts about their movies and shows aren't going to hurt them.

What does bother me are the spiteful attacks on other fans for liking a particular show/movie/novel etc. During the heyday of Enterprise it really got out of hand - not only were they hating on the show itself, but they'd attack anyone who voiced an appreciation for the show as some sort of traitor to Star Trek who was hurting the franchise.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

TNG was about diplomacy. TOS was about adventures in space - many of which ended in fighting.

Even the ones that ended in fighting generally expressed a strong preference for a nonviolent solution. One episode took a horror movie premise and it turned out the killer monster had a legitimate motive which the heroes had to show empathy to discover and then brokered peaceful coexistence.

DS9's being about war worked because it took all the explorers, diplomats and scientists and thrust them into a situation where they had to question their moral certainty and defend themselves in order to survive, and even it ended in convincing the attackers to call back their final attack and then a peace treaty.

And TWOK was an addition to an established series, the two Abrams films are a new basis of a series. Them being all about 'Killem before dey killus!' sets much more of a precedent than TWOK, which by the way, was the consequence of an act of mercy.

 

[YARN]

TNG was about diplomacy. TOS was about adventures in space - many of which ended in fighting.

LOL, TNG was about prissy preachifying and a take on the Prime Directive that was so restrictive that it logically entailed morally repugnant sins of omission (Oh well, we'll just let this race die. Prime Directive, you know).

TNG was also smug. Humans had now "arrived" and were the perfected utopian people Roddenberry wanted. TOS was populated by people with flaws. It was self-conscious of the moral limitations of humans. TOS didn't brag about humanity's perfection, but simply held out the hope that one day we might be worthy to sit at the table with Organians and Metrons. In TNG, on the other hand, Picard lectures Q, non-ironically(!), with Shakespeare's "What a piece of work is man"!

TOS was about diplomacy. In Mirror Mirror, for example, Kirk negotiates for Dilithium from the Halkans, but notes that the Federation would not take the crystals by force. And before they beam back to their universe, Kirk does his best to convince goatee Spock that "in every revolution there is one man with a vision!" to attempt to get him to consider attempting to changes the evil empire.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Notice that that in almost every TNG movie though, there is a big ship to ship fight scene at the end.

First Contact didn't have one in the end, because they showed one in the beginning.


It was as if TNG trek knew they had to provide some type of action but was stuck into the same format, again and again.

One reason why I wish they did a Dominion War style movie, because the action would be built in.

I'm not as big a fan of the NU Trek, but I credit Abrams with helping to keep Star Trek mainstream.

And I think Nu Trek is better than the last two TNG movies.

The hyperactive action is what I'm not into. And I love action.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

TNG was about diplomacy. TOS was about adventures in space - many of which ended in fighting.

LOL, TNG was about prissy preachifying and a take on the Prime Directive that was so restrictive that it logically entailed morally repugnant sins of omission (Oh well, we'll just let this race die. Prime Directive, you know).

TNG was also smug. Humans had now "arrived" and were the perfected utopian people Roddenberry wanted. TOS was populated by people with flaws. It was self-conscious of the moral limitations of humans. TOS didn't brag about humanity's perfection, but simply held out the hope that one day we might be worthy to sit at the table with Organians and Metrons. In TNG, on the other hand, Picard lectures Q, non-ironically(!), with Shakespeare's "What a piece of work is man"!

TOS was about diplomacy. In Mirror Mirror, for example, Kirk negotiates for Dilithium from the Halkans, but notes that the Federation would not take the crystals by force. And before they beam back to their universe, Kirk does his best to convince goatee Spock that "in every revolution there is one man with a vision!" to attempt to get him to consider attempting to changes the evil empire.

Actually I find the people who insist religiously that the flaws of humanity are a natural state that we should embrace and just follow our personal selfish needs are more smug about it than TNG ever is outside a handful of episodes, especially if you ignore season 1.

 

[Amaris]

I certainly couldn't do a better job than JJ Abrams, but other writers and directors sure could. Of course, there are a lot more that would do a worse job than him than a better one. Considering what kind of directors they tapped for the TNG movies, Abrams is a huge improvement. His only problem is that Star Trek is supposed to be a heady show about exploration and diplomacy and Abrams wants to show things going boom.

Fortunately, Star Wars is supposed to be about stuff going boom.

Let me rephrase what I earlier said about FTL travel and telepathy. I don't think either are possible. But suppose you saw two headlines, and were told one of them was real and one of them was fake. The first one read: "Scientists prove faster than light travel possible". The second one read: "Telepathy proven to exist in controlled study". I would think the first one was the real one.

Maybe you'll get that heady exploration for the third film. There's a huge build up for the whole 5 year mission, and I think it will payoff in the third film.

At the same time, none of the past pre-JJ Star Trek movies have really dug into the sense of exploration and wonder, save for The Motion Picture. Well, okay, Generations tried.

 

[F. King Daniel]

TNG was about diplomacy. TOS was about adventures in space - many of which ended in fighting.

LOL, TNG was about prissy preachifying and a take on the Prime Directive that was so restrictive that it logically entailed morally repugnant sins of omission (Oh well, we'll just let this race die. Prime Directive, you know).

TNG was also smug. Humans had now "arrived" and were the perfected utopian people Roddenberry wanted. TOS was populated by people with flaws. It was self-conscious of the moral limitations of humans. TOS didn't brag about humanity's perfection, but simply held out the hope that one day we might be worthy to sit at the table with Organians and Metrons. In TNG, on the other hand, Picard lectures Q, non-ironically(!), with Shakespeare's "What a piece of work is man"!

TOS was about diplomacy. In Mirror Mirror, for example, Kirk negotiates for Dilithium from the Halkans, but notes that the Federation would not take the crystals by force. And before they beam back to their universe, Kirk does his best to convince goatee Spock that "in every revolution there is one man with a vision!" to attempt to get him to consider attempting to changes the evil empire.

Actually I find the people who insist religiously that the flaws of humanity are a natural state that we should embrace and just follow our personal selfish needs are more smug about it than TNG ever is outside a handful of episodes, especially if you ignore season 1.

Problem is that they preached about enlightenment and then showed (in First Contact and DS9) they were no better than man is today.

It's makes me wonder if 24th century kids are indoctrinated to believe in their own superiority at school.