Any other TOSers give up post-Abrams?

Well, see, the difference is that you like the movie and you like TOS - same as I do. In the Abrams's Trek forum, people get tired of you if you just repeatedly trash the movie because you hate it - and it's reasonable to get tired of that kind of thing. In this forum, a few people jump you immediately for criticizing TOS even if you generally like it. Most people, however, do not.

 

That particular question never bothered me. It really came down to expectations:

The Kelvin was sitting right on the edge of enemy territory and probably already had defensive systems ready vs. a group of ships that thought they were simply on a humanitarian aid mission.

Now answer me why they sent a 170 year old Ambassador with a beach ball sized container of Red Matter when you only need a drop to create a black hole?

 

The vocal hardliners make it seem as though people are kicking down the door of this forum, left and right, only to barge in and declare that TOS was terrible and had no redeeming factors. Does that happen? Are there people who hate TOS the way there are people who hate Abrams' film, and every other incarnation of Trek? If there are they're the quietest group of discontented viewers. The way "opposition" (which in most cases I've noted is little more than subtle critiques and self declared differing personal tastes) is immediately squashed (again, by the vocal hardliners) makes it seem as though that group were the rampaging horde. Does it even exist at all on this forum?

Vulcan sent out a distress call that made some mention of seismic activity. So, either they took it too seriously by sending a fleet of ships to do something about it, or they were just being kind of silly by "warping into a crisis" without at least being at yellow alert. Not to mention that the Kelvin was two decades older than, at least, Enterprise. Shouldn't the other ships have been able to hold out a little longer than they did? I mean not a lot longer... but at least a little bit?

That's a fair question. Why Spock was the one who volunteered to save Romulus can only be answered if we assume his role from TNG continued. Otherwise it would seemingly be silly to send him, alone, on such a mission when there were a stock of other scientifically minded people in the STU that could've done it. As to the the beach ball sized red matter? Well, that one is easy; First of all the Abrams' people have a thing with red balls. (Its in other movies). Secondly, it would have been boring and unimpressive, visually (something I've noted doesn't really seem to matter as much to an older generation), to look at drop of red matter in a beaker as opposed to a mass ton of it in a futuristic looking storage container.

-Withers-​

 

Again, you're only talking about a few people. Mallory, Brutal Strudel, TBonz and Kelso are four people I can think of immediately who are frequent posters in this forum, major TOS fans, and who to some extent or another enjoyed the Abrams movie and say so even in the topics which are started by your "vocal hardliners" for the purpose of bashing nuTrek. It's just that you don't notice moderate posters as much. You notice the "hardliners" and those of us who argue with them.

 

Is it really that hard for you to wade through the five hardliners that exist on this particular forum?

And the current group is nothing compared to Mr. Stinky Pants/The God Thing. He'd have sent you out of here crying.

 

Well people are entitled to their view personally I love NuTrek and if some people don't that's ok as well.

 

I'd LOVE to get his take on the new movie.

 

I doubt you've read any of my other posts outside of this forum (somehow you don't strike me as a Voyager fan- and that's meant as a compliment to be frank) but I actually enjoy doing this. There's a difference, to me anyway, between acting like a troll and responding to that sort of behavior. If someone is going to stand up and declare that anything made after 1979 sucks I'll take a piece of that action being that I'm impetuous and opinionated. It's a forum after all just going round and round about how I love Deep Space Nine with someone else who loves it just as much is no where near as fun as debating with someone who has a completely different view point... so long as it doesn't devolve into "NO U!"

Would it be hard for me to avoid them? Of course not. But why would I want to?


-Withers-​

 

Part of the problem I think. Too many people either love it or hate it with no reservations.

For me part of the fun has always been picking Trek (TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT) apart and discussing it with other fans.

 

I don't think it's ever okay to tease animals with meat...or testicles.

 

So are ToddPence, Captain Robert April, trevanian, Jeyl, yourself and the rest of the clan the pot or the kettle? Did MattJC or xortex ever post in this forum?

The problem is there are a select few who are somehow personally offended by a differing opinion.

 

And the TOS forum does not belong to the few TOS fans who won't tolerate criticism of TOS or praise for things that they don't like. It belongs to people who want to discuss TOS. Starting a topic here basically to bemoan the existence of the Abrams movie apparently falls under that umbrella, but there's no reason that only people who agree with the OP should post in it.

 

I knock Insurrection because it's as dull as dishwater and monotonous. I'd watch all 7 seasons of Voyager before I'd attempt to watch Insurrection again. I have watched Insurrection a total of 11 times throughout it's life. The last 9 were quite belaboring. Star Trek, on the other hand, I have now watched 76 times and have not grown tired of it.

 

"Monotonous" is the word. "Insurrection" and "The Undiscovered Country" are probably the two most unredeemably boring Star Trek movies (ST:TMP really drags, but at least there are extravagant visual compensations).

 

Goodness, gracious me! I loved the movie and still I want to see just how many new orifices ol' Anton would have torn it and then see what creative uses he'd make of them.

And I call myself brutal...

 

I'd like to meet this guy based on the reverence for his ability to defend TOS and trash everything else. I find "brutality" on forums like flipping pancakes; flashy and entertaining but ultimately an unnecessary attention grabbing stunt. Especially when it is validated by statements like "Couldn't have said it meaner myself."


-Withers-​

 

76 Times! Far out..

 

So would I.

 

I really like the movie.

I'm watching it with the same intensity that I did when I first became aware of TOS. I soaked up every detail. The same with TNG when it came along.
I am really excited to see more of the universe that will be unfolding. Seriously, this new incarnation has made me feel like a kid again when I watch it. It's just so much fun and I can't wait for the next adventure!

 

You know what always strikes me is how this gets so personal and so heated, and it's not always the full fault of the hard-liners. Yes, some of them can be intractable and boorish and sometime insulting, but, seriously, if you just step back for a second and take a breath, it's just a matter of opinion. People who have affection for something the way it is/was are often unhappy with things when they deviate from their idea of what makes/made it good in the past.

I've been on this board for years and I've never done more than get mildly irritated at anyone for their opinion, extreme or ridiculous as I might find it (racist or sexist or homophobic comments are another matter). It's also why when something does occasionally put a bee in my bonnet, I don't reply right away, because to write in a moment of outrage virtually guarantees a knee-jerk response.

Just my 2¢, unadjusted for inflation.