Any other TOSers give up post-Abrams?

[trevanian]

True, there was some mindless fun in it, but I think that's what did the trick. It was fun. It didn't take itself as seriously as some previous Trek outings.

There seems to be a seesaw about all this. I remember everybody knocking INS for playing too lightly (perhaps to contrast with and give weight to Picard's one engaging scene with the admiral?), but now that very lightness is what is being embraced in this new film thing?

Context has got to have something to do with how the humor or tone goes down with viewers, but given the grim aspects of the recent film (destruction/near genocide of Vulcan), I don't know that a light tone is appropriate, even if it was handled well (which for me it certainly was NOT.)

 

[Nerys Myk]

TOS was a show that liked to end episodes where crew members died with a laugh. They managed to make jokes while disguised as Space Nazis.

The deaths of Amanda and George are not taken lightly by the characters in the film nor is the destruction of Vulcan. The tone shifted as needed.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

TOS was a show that liked to end episodes where crew members died with a laugh. They managed to make jokes while disguised as Space Nazis.

The deaths of Amanda and George are not taken lightly by the characters in the film nor is the destruction of Vulcan. The tone shifted as needed.

The principle here is "no text can sustain a hostile reading" - people will criticize Abrams's resurrection of Star Trek while excusing the exact same things in the very worst episode of TOS simply because they dislike one and like the other. It's not actually a matter of applying "standards."

 

[Captain Pike]

One of the most jarring for me was when Spock, with a sleazy grin, makes a creepy sexist remark to Rand at the end of The Enemy Within regarding Kirk's attempted rape of her..

 

[trevanian]

TOS was a show that liked to end episodes where crew members died with a laugh. They managed to make jokes while disguised as Space Nazis.

The deaths of Amanda and George are not taken lightly by the characters in the film nor is the destruction of Vulcan. The tone shifted as needed.

The tone red-shifted as needed; it is just way too extreme ... just like the love that is often expressed here for the Abramsfilm, a love without standards, it seems way too needy a love, one that is without any self-respect it is so desperate.

Sort of like people making excuses on 12/8/79 about TMP, or people making excuses for the first 2 years of TNG/DS9, or the the first 7 seasons of VOYAGER ...

 

[Nerys Myk]

TOS was a show that liked to end episodes where crew members died with a laugh. They managed to make jokes while disguised as Space Nazis.

The deaths of Amanda and George are not taken lightly by the characters in the film nor is the destruction of Vulcan. The tone shifted as needed.

The tone red-shifted as needed; it is just way too extreme ... just like the love that is often expressed here for the Abramsfilm, a love without standards, it seems way too needy a love, one that is without any self-respect it is so desperate.

Sort of like people making excuses on 12/8/79 about TMP, or people making excuses for the first 2 years of TNG/DS9, or the the first 7 seasons of VOYAGER ...

I'm more than willing to point out its flaws. I'm just not seeing this as a flaw. The death scenes were well handled and did not seem out of place. The same for the humor. There was a well maintained balance. It seemed to meet the standards for the genre and the franchise. And may have even done it one better.

Gullible, stupid and now needy with out standards. Did I miss any?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

One of the most jarring for me was when Spock, with a sleazy grin, makes a creepy sexist remark to Rand at the end of The Enemy Within regarding Kirk's attempted rape of her..

Yep. Not that I noticed when I watched it as a kid - stuff like that zipped right past me. But it's definitely a low point.

Gullible, stupid and now needy with out standards. Did I miss any?

It's the usual vapid, frustrated litany.

 

[trevanian]

TOS was a show that liked to end episodes where crew members died with a laugh. They managed to make jokes while disguised as Space Nazis.

The deaths of Amanda and George are not taken lightly by the characters in the film nor is the destruction of Vulcan. The tone shifted as needed.

The tone red-shifted as needed; it is just way too extreme ... just like the love that is often expressed here for the Abramsfilm, a love without standards, it seems way too needy a love, one that is without any self-respect it is so desperate.

Sort of like people making excuses on 12/8/79 about TMP, or people making excuses for the first 2 years of TNG/DS9, or the the first 7 seasons of VOYAGER ...

I'm more than willing to point out its flaws. I'm just not seeing this as a flaw. The death scenes were well handled and did not seem out of place. The same for the humor. There was a well maintained balance. It seemed to meet the standards for the genre and the franchise. And may have even done it one better.

Gullible, stupid and now needy with out standards. Did I miss any?

Depends on the particular thread you happen to be in (and especially the forum you most inhabit), but those could be synonyms for the basic food groups for the species in question. Of course, you can only say that with security here if you're addressing folks who find fault with the film, not those who like it.

That's why one abrams enthusiast poster can repeat the same basic statement a dozen times in a thread like this without warning while someone with a different point of view can get a troll warning for answering another poster's question in a single post -- but that's just bias at work, and since we're all human, I guess we're supposed to accept the biased foibles as well, be they from moderators or Republicans.

 

[Nerys Myk]

So there's bias at work here? Abrams enthusiasts get a pass? I can call those who dislike the film stupid, gullible and needy and wont even get a wrist slap? Mods will look the other way? Good to know. Mods, can I get my troll warning erased? Seems I should be immune

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I can call those who dislike the film stupid, gullible and needy and wont even get a wrist slap?

No need. They call names because they've got nothing else. Nothing.

 

[Withers]

I've read pretty extensively at this forum during my short time here and if anybody gets a "pass" its the self proclaimed "TOSers." The mere implication of a failure to comprehend the basics of a premise is enough for the threat of a warning in other areas while, especially here, it is seemingly acceptable to outright declare the mental deficiencies of anyone who has anything even so slight as a critique of TOS. And that's putting it euphemistically. If, for some reason, you didn't like TOS you're a knuckle dragging neanderthal that can't comprehend/understand or are totally unwilling to appreciate TOS in all its magnificence. That's also true of anyone who liked certain elements that came after TOS (and, to some, all elements that came after it.) And saying so in no uncertain terms is perfectly fine.

Conversely, if there was anything you didn't enjoy about TOS and say so, you'll be quartered and wracked (in equally unequivocal terms).


-Withers-​

 

[RandyS]

^It was even worse on the AOL boards back in the mid 90's. Over there, any comment other than "TOS is great" or "Kirk is God" was met with instant hatred, and you were automatically wrong no matter what you said.

That's why I been cautious around TOS fans ever since, despite the fact that I consider myself one. These people, in my view are not Star Trek fans, They are William Shatner fans.

 

[Corwwyn]

Nah, I'm a TOS fan from the beginning and I'm more interested in what happens next with Star Trek than I have been in many years - and that's thanks to Abrams's movie.

Yah, I have say on this: "Me too."

 

[trevanian]

So there's bias at work here? Abrams enthusiasts get a pass? I can call those who dislike the film stupid, gullible and needy and wont even get a wrist slap? Mods will look the other way? Good to know. Mods, can I get my troll warning erased? Seems I should be immune

Hey, if you go through this thread, you'll see the same stuff -- damned near the same wording -- from Bailey in how many posts? Not saying you're immune, but he sure is. Always has been, at least during the spells I've put in here. He gets maybe a single warning for what somebody else would be permabanned three times over for (and this is what, a decade-old phenomena?), and all the while, excellent posters fall by the wayside, mainly because they're tired of pushing the rock uphill while somebody else goes skating along because moderation has built this place as a variable gravity environment and only gives out a single pair of magnetic boots.

And overall, I guess the desired effect is being achieved, because when you've chased off enough Cary Browns and God Things (and I'm sorry for not remembering the names of SO many others), the majority here will be getting their info through the Baileys, and that'll be their viewpoint as well. Sort of like the way Republicans wear down/chase out Democrats and their attempts to get something done.

I've received many flame warnings, nearly all of them deserved and accepted w/o complaint; I've also received a couple or three troll warnings, all of which were utter and complete bullshit, and totally arbitrary, usually in threads where 'the other side' has had free reign to demean or reword the posts of others, usually with the blather of emoticonism as cover.

Fine, I'll do the democrat thing this time and cede the floor too. This thread may be more about giving up trekbbs post-abrams than giving up trek ... at least it is for me, because as much as what abrams did isn't trek, what most of you guys do here ain't in any way more palatable.

So you folks be content in thinking that klingon blood is weird looking for ratings purposes and all the other 'print the legend' bullshit is reality, cuz for the most part, you folks just don't want to know better.

And maybe you wouldn't be able to tell the dif anyway, given the taste-meters at work. As I said elsewhere recently, when trek talk is better at James Bond sites than trek ones ... it's time to go.

 

[Kirk1980]

Yeah, and calling people who dislike the film all the various things you've ascribed to them, Dennis, that's surely the mark of how enlightened the people who defend ST09 to the death are, hm?

You've managed to imply they're a bunch of basement-dwelling nerdlings with an unhealthy obsession with the show, imply that since they don't share the same view as the majority that their opinion is invalid (repeatedly).

Even when the reasons are personal, even when they're thought-out and not mocking those who are fans, you attack them as if they said ST09 was the work of the Anti-Christ.

 

[Shazam!]

No need. They call names because they've got nothing else. Nothing.

Well we could just make up facts and figures, but who does that?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I've read pretty extensively at this forum during my short time here and if anybody gets a "pass" its the self proclaimed "TOSers." The mere implication of a failure to comprehend the basics of a premise is enough for the threat of a warning in other areas while, especially here, it is seemingly acceptable to outright declare the mental deficiencies of anyone who has anything even so slight as a critique of TOS. And that's putting it euphemistically. If, for some reason, you didn't like TOS you're a knuckle dragging neanderthal that can't comprehend/understand or are totally unwilling to appreciate TOS in all its magnificence. That's also true of anyone who liked certain elements that came after TOS (and, to some, all elements that came after it.) And saying so in no uncertain terms is perfectly fine.

Conversely, if there was anything you didn't enjoy about TOS and say so, you'll be quartered and wracked (in equally unequivocal terms).


-Withers-

This is all true, but it's also true that it's a campaign that's carried out by a very small number of posters in the TOS forum and some others (notably Trek Art and occasionally in the Future Of Trek forum) - probably no more than five regular, long-term posters. Most of the folks in this forum are pretty cool, including some who just aren't interested in any version of Trek other than TOS.

 

[BillJ]

I've read pretty extensively at this forum during my short time here and if anybody gets a "pass" its the self proclaimed "TOSers." The mere implication of a failure to comprehend the basics of a premise is enough for the threat of a warning in other areas while, especially here, it is seemingly acceptable to outright declare the mental deficiencies of anyone who has anything even so slight as a critique of TOS. And that's putting it euphemistically. If, for some reason, you didn't like TOS you're a knuckle dragging neanderthal that can't comprehend/understand or are totally unwilling to appreciate TOS in all its magnificence. That's also true of anyone who liked certain elements that came after TOS (and, to some, all elements that came after it.) And saying so in no uncertain terms is perfectly fine.

Conversely, if there was anything you didn't enjoy about TOS and say so, you'll be quartered and wracked (in equally unequivocal terms).


-Withers-​

Someone's got a persecution complex.

Walk into the Trek XI forum sometime and try to criticize that film. You'll have an easier time going into a tiger cage with your testicles wrapped in meat. Or is that behavior okay because the majority agrees with you?

 

[Vonstadt]

I've read pretty extensively at this forum during my short time here and if anybody gets a "pass" its the self proclaimed "TOSers." The mere implication of a failure to comprehend the basics of a premise is enough for the threat of a warning in other areas while, especially here, it is seemingly acceptable to outright declare the mental deficiencies of anyone who has anything even so slight as a critique of TOS. And that's putting it euphemistically. If, for some reason, you didn't like TOS you're a knuckle dragging neanderthal that can't comprehend/understand or are totally unwilling to appreciate TOS in all its magnificence. That's also true of anyone who liked certain elements that came after TOS (and, to some, all elements that came after it.) And saying so in no uncertain terms is perfectly fine.​

Conversely, if there was anything you didn't enjoy about TOS and say so, you'll be quartered and wracked (in equally unequivocal terms).​

-Withers-​

Someone's got a persecution complex.

Walk into the Trek XI forum sometime and try to criticize that film. You'll have an easier time going into a tiger cage with your testicles wrapped in meat. Or is that behavior okay because the majority agrees with you?

*snickers* and a fair point.

Vons

 

[Withers]

Someone's got a persecution complex.

That implies I've some interest in rocking the boat- I don't. To paraphrase a song I'm fond of I accept certain inalienable truths; prices will rise, politicians will philander, I too will get old. When I do I'll fantasize that, when I was young, prices were reasonable, politicians were noble, and people respected (in this case) what was truly good work.

I get it.

Walk into the Trek XI forum sometime and try to criticize that film. You'll have an easier time going into a tiger cage with your testicles wrapped in meat. Or is that behavior okay because the majority agrees with you?

I've done just that very thing (pointing out that it doesn't seem reasonable that the Kelvin withstood such a prolonged barge of missile fire from the Narada while the fleet was utterly obliterated in under a minute) and it led to a conversation, one in which no one was so blithe as to dismiss my observations as the viewpoint of an unappreciative, under qualified, poorly educated bucket drooling moron. Did some people disagree? Of course they did. Sternly in certain instances. It, in no way, matched the bile dispensed all over this forum whenever anything but "TOS is the absolute best thing ever produced by the hand of man" is mentioned.

-Withers-​