Instead we got a Chris Pine/Zach Quinto buddy movie that may or not be directly making fun of Star Trek and its fans depending on whom you ask.
I know. Which is puzzling, it seems you should be aware it's more complicated than that by now.
How desperate are you for a new Trek TV series?
- Thread starter Jedi_Master
- Start date
Instead we got a Chris Pine/Zach Quinto buddy movie that may or not be directly making fun of Star Trek and its fans depending on whom you ask.
I know. Which is puzzling, it seems you should be aware it's more complicated than that by now.
I really don't think it is anymore complicated than people being peeved that Abrams didn't tailor his films to their vision of what "Star Trek" is. Seems like there are some folks who have a pretty narrow definition of what "Star Trek" is.
People don't like the films, great, more power to them. I don't like Voyager and I don't see the need to shit on something other people enjoy and try to make them feel bad for liking it.
Well, you seem to think it would be understandable to see as not being really Star Trek something that basically just parodies Star Trek. Seems to me it should be possible for you to work out that it's possible to reasonably disagree with you about whether Abrams did that without having 'a pretty narrow definition of what "Star Trek" is.' Right?
I don't see anything in the definition of 'parody' that remotely fits the Abrams films. If you do, great!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parody
But why waste so much time on something someone obviously feels offends them? For me, that falls under 'butthurt'.
Your mileage may vary...
I can see why one would argue it. And I can certainly see how, even if one wouldn't go that far, a lot of the dumber features of the Abrams films are at least arguably traceable to an unwillingness to treat the material seriously on its own terms.
And I can certainly see how, if one felt that way, having you pop up to remind them that "everything is Trek" and how they're supposedly being "butthurt" won't change their minds. (Besides the latter term somewhat undercutting your attempts to portray yourself as being accepting of diverse opinions.)
Can you see that?
So being reminded that Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness are Star Trek is somehow offensive to the people who dislike them? Then the term 'butthurt' fits perfectly.
...
I wrote more, but don't see the point.
The guy you were responding to didn't say anything about their being "offensive." He said that in his opinion they effectively belonged to different franchises. Can you see how that might not be the same thing, or how there can be actual, reasonable disagreement about whether that contention is correct?
So we can have a reasonable disagreement over whether Voyager and Enterprise are "Star Trek"? Of course not. Because it's non-sense.
Over the years this has played out over and over. The Next Generation isn't "Star Trek"! Those folks got laughed at and called on their non-sense. Deep Space Nine isn't "Star Trek"! Those folks got laughed at and called on their non-sense. Voyager isn't "Star Trek"! Those folks got laughed at and called on their non-sense. Enterprise isn't "Star Trek"! Those folks got laughed at and called on their non-sense.
In fifteen years, there will be another version of "Star Trek" and those same fans will be lining up to claim that it isn't "Star Trek", all the while lamenting for the 'good old days' of the Abrams films.
It's simply a broken record that I've heard way too many times over the last twenty-six years since The Next Generation premiered.
Complaining about the current version of "Star Trek" is as old as the Enterprise being the only ship in the quadrant.
Correct. But you nevertheless admit -- wisely -- that you do not believe that everything proclaimed officially to be Star Trek would necessarily be convincingly so.
That there have been prior controversies is obvious. It also isn't necessarily useful as a way of evaluating current controversies, because the specifics matter and the content matters and that changes -- in this case in a much more radical way than any of the prior leaps from TOS to TNG to DS9 to VOY to ENT. So. Can you see that it is possible to disagree with you about the specifics in the particular case of AbramsTrek and still be reasonable?
Because it seems you want to act like you see the possibility for reasonable disagreement until disagreement actually occurs, at which point the other person is supposed to be A Nutcase Just Like All Those Other Nutcases Before*. Reasonable disagreement does not work this way. Do you see that?
[* ADDENDUM: You seem not to have worked out yet that many of the rest of us were also around for prior controversies and might have reasonable cause to see the present controversy as genuinely different, on account of real differences in the circumstances and subject matter. That's puzzling to me, because that also seems like that's something you should be aware of by now, and yet here you are trying the same old I've Seen It All Before schtick. Why are you doing that? Do you just not remember these conversations or something?]
Nope. The Abrams films look like Trek, quack like Trek and have the same insanely inaccurate warp speeds as Trek.
Or are we again comparing the Abrams films to some fans idealized version of Star Trek that never existed to begin with?
At no point have I wavered on my position on this point. You're definitely reading things I haven't written.
Yeah so I really want Trek to come back so that we can argue about something new. Please CBS we are starting to argue about semantics. Hear our pleas. We need something, anything to obsess over.
No, they don't. Unless you believe that Star Trek is actually a glorified pile of dog shit.
--Sran
Thanks for coming out and just saying it.
But that being the case, you cannot talk convincingly about what other people should find reasonable or what the proper boundaries of critique should be. Being able to treat an opposing viewpoint with respect is the necessary first step in being a part of actual dialogue. What you've just told me is essentially that you're not interested in dialogue.
Please CBS its getting worse. We really need an obsession.
If that's the criteria, then two-thirds of everything "Star Trek" isn't really "Star Trek".
In fact, this is the case, yes. But in practice, what is currently being made is usually the "true" version, in the audience's collective mind and the previous versions are just so-much old news, in the end ...
It's the writing and story that some fans don't like about Nu Trek.
I used to have problems with Nu Trek but after watching it a few times, I get what they're doing.
I think when Nu Trek was being made, the situation was that it had to be successful no matter what.
It's exploiting a lot of gimmicks in a way. Seriously.
Marcus Carol underwear scene- a gimmick to draw more butts to the seats. The wrath of Khan idea- gimmick.
Those sleek sexy off duty uniforms that the women wear--a lot more noticeable than the draping full uniforms from the other series.
I still have problems with how they pull off the Nu Trek movies--too hyperactive, too much ADD, too many gimmicks--but I get what they're doing.
I used to have problems with Nu Trek but after watching it a few times, I get what they're doing.
I think when Nu Trek was being made, the situation was that it had to be successful no matter what.
It's exploiting a lot of gimmicks in a way. Seriously.
Marcus Carol underwear scene- a gimmick to draw more butts to the seats. The wrath of Khan idea- gimmick.
Those sleek sexy off duty uniforms that the women wear--a lot more noticeable than the draping full uniforms from the other series.
I still have problems with how they pull off the Nu Trek movies--too hyperactive, too much ADD, too many gimmicks--but I get what they're doing.
While it is in fact perfectly cricket to expect Trek to progress and make actually better content instead of just canonically-defensible-from-some-standpoint content, there is far, far too much energy expended in "these debates" in trying to elide -- to some eyes quite obvious, but at the very least arguable -- differences between NuTrek and either of the major television series.
Some definitions of what is actually better or what Trek "should" be can certainly be loopy, of course. And some recollections of the shows and movies can certainly be skewed -- one could say this happens pretty much equally with overblown recollections of "Gene's vision" and overblown claims that NuTrek "captures the spirit" of TOS. But wherever one comes down on those questions, I'd venture that what we really need less of is people actually, seriously believing it is not possible to disagree with their preferences and still be reasonable.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
