Are new fans different from we "original" fans?

[jayrath]

In the words of Shatner, I should "get a life," but I often feel that the attraction younger fans feel towards "Star Trek" in general is completely foreign to me.

I get most upset reading the threads on the new movie's board, but it happens elsewhere, too. There are fans who want cool space battles. Fans who want to see major interstellar wars. Fans who want to know why the Federation does not launch warships, battleships, have space marines, fighter wings and so on.

That's all fine, and I'm glad that the various elements put in place by TOS are celebrated, if in exaggerated fashion. And I don't even really mind when fans of the latest cast mock the actors who originated the roles. It's all just part of breathing new life into the franchise; teens always rebel against their parents.

But I take away something very different from "Star Trek," and above all the sci-fi fun it is this: that diversity is not only acceptable, it is positive; that exploration is an end unto itself; that warfare is the last and least acceptable alternative.

Yes, this is all "don't rape my childhood," but damn it, those messages were important to me growing up during Watergate and the Munich terrorist massacre and Nixon's resignation. I wanted, and still want -- 35 years later -- to believe that NASA's Apollo missions and the fictitious philosophy of IDIC meant something.

In 2008 we seem to be back to the 1930s-50s kewl space battles of Ming the Merciless vs. Flash Gordon, of "Crash" Corrigan and "Space Patrol."

For all their faults, I wonder if Berman and Braga fought the good fight after all, and more than anything else fell to the changing and more superficial values of the first decade of the 21st century.

I've been watching all the "Trek" TV programs on DVD recently, even DS9, which I lost interest in early on.

I'm left with the firm belief that, after everything, TOS was the most hopeful and therefore most truly futuristic of all the "Trek" incarnations.

What do you think?

 

[Kegek]

But I take away something very different from "Star Trek," and above all the sci-fi fun it is this: that diversity is not only acceptable, it is positive;

How about diversity within the fanbase?

When it comes down to it, people take different things out of the franchise and for different reasons. It's entertainment, not a cult; so whatever they see in Star Trek is their affair. Be we lovers of the uber-l33t battleships or exponents of Spock's rigorous pacifist logic, can't we all IDIC?

 

[scottydog]

I'm left with the firm belief that, after everything, TOS was the most hopeful and therefore most truly futuristic of all the "Trek" incarnations.

What do you think?

I agree that TOS was the most hopeful, the most optimistic, the most utopian. And the most fun.

Did that also possibly make TOS the most unrealistic? Possibly. But to me, there's nothing wrong with escapism. Especially when it's escapism wrapped in the good old fashioned values of love and peace.

 

[number6]

I grew up on the original show and enjoyed all the other series, to varying degrees.

 

[jayrath]

How about diversity within the fanbase? ( . . . ) Be we lovers of the uber-l33t battleships or exponents of Spock's rigorous pacifist logic, can't we all IDIC?

I could not agree more. That's the point I'm trying to make. Yes, let's have the uber warships and enjoy fun with that aspect. As I said, I want it all to be reinvented. I do not mean to judge.

But also -- I think that after a certain point, if we value the appearance of TOS over the messages of TOS -- then what we have is no longer "Star Trek" at all.

It is something else, something very entertaining, perhaps, and great fun. But not "Star Trek." Not at all. Not in the slightest.

 

[Kegek]

But also -- I think that after a certain point, if we value the appearance of TOS over the messages of TOS -- then what we have is no longer "Star Trek" at all.

It is something else, something very entertaining, perhaps, and great fun. But not "Star Trek." Not at all. Not in the slightest.

That's an interesting point. I sort of agree and sort of disagree with it; to clarify:

1. Star Trek is ultimately a media franchise. Have a brain-dead volley of explosions, all sound and fury signifying nothing, and if Paramount slaps the Star Trek label on, then that's what it is. As much as we may want to be, none of us are custodians or people who determine what Star Trek is or is not, TPTB are.

2. What is more subjective is what makes good Star Trek. There's a reason - doubtless several - this label is popular to begin with. And there are reasons that we, as fans, are so attracted to it. Naturally we'll get ticked off if manifestations of it don't have what we want - such as a Star Trek devoid of meaningful social commentary, in your case.

 

[AmOkTiMe1]

If teens are attracted to the loud noises, The lights and explosions, and all the rest then it would be perfect to work TOS morals and issues in with all the hollywood glamour and give the next generation of geeks interested in all the violence and battles, a critical mind and correct morals from watching there favourite captains deal with complex issues, star trek: would act as a sort of parent that they might not get from the lack of parent involment in this millenium!

 

[JNG]

Fans who want to know why the Federation does not launch warships, battleships, have space marines, fighter wings and so on.

There's a certain kind of fan who watched the Enterprise every week and said "That must be the weakest and least cool ship in Starfleet and most of the ships and tasks in the organization must be violence-oriented to make up for the fact that she is not obviously so." It's a strange thing to take away from the series for sure, but I do think there were plenty of viewers who did that back in earlier years too, and thus that it isn't exclusively the province of "new" fans.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

This being the TOS forum, it may not be allowed for me to say that TOS is not exactly my favorite Trek of all (that would be Enterprise) but I feel I must point out that that will probably color my opinion and influence what I am about to say.

Here we go...

I fucking hate the way fans of any show, Trek in particular, section off into something clearly resembling armed encampments. As if you can't like one show without slamming all the others. Haven't we outgrown that?

And, God help me, the constant and by now extremely irritating use of the word "kewl" as spelled like that, is a slam - however unintentional - against whatever kind of fans might disagree. Kind of like "oh, all those young whippersnapper newbies only want KEWL explosions and KEWL violence and KEWL starships and all that - we're the only real fans, since we don't want any of that".

People who use words like that are often the same people who are ready to elevate Franz Joseph to godhood but at the same time claim that Mike Okuda is the antichrist.

Not that I am bitter or anything.

 

[Trekwatcher]

The term "original" fans has definitely lost some of it's meaning as the show has aged. I am in my late 30's, grew up with TOS, and have watched all the other series during their original runs. So, in my opinion that makes me an "original" fan.

I have met many people who starting watching Trek in their teens when TNG started, went back and watched TOS, and have watched the other series in the intervening years. They now have 20 years of Trek under their belts-do they not count as "original" fans by this point? Believe me, they sure consider themselves "original" fans by now!

I am worried about the new movie, but I also worried about each new series as it came out and, for the most part, have not been disappointed. We will see what the next movie brings. Will some of it be geared to bring new viewers to Trek? I assume so, but as long as they also clearly try to make it for the loyal fans as well I think I will be, hopefully, happy with the end result.

 

[Shatmandu]

Other than the obvious sexual perversions, I don't think the new fans are any different than us.

Joe, which-wayed

 

[The Squire of Gothos]

I fucking hate the way fans of any show, Trek in particular, section off into something clearly resembling armed encampments. As if you can't like one show without slamming all the others. Haven't we outgrown that?

Personally I think its quite amusing and am prepared to sit back and laugh at the raids carried out by one camp on another

But I applaud modern day fans, they have had everything from DS9 to the X-Files to NuBSG to compare TOS to. And if they like it, their taste is more highly defined than mine, I only had Lost in Space, Buck Rodgers and Land of the Giants to compare it to.

 

[Warped9]

My experience with the younger generation of viewers is either they "get" TOS on its own terms or they don't. But I find that it is really no different than anything else. You are either perceptive enough to assess something from it's own context or you're not.

Despite the production standards as compared to what is possible today TOS remains the most visionary and most ambitious sf ever brought to television. Everything else since has been essentially a smaller step forward.

TOS basically took the fundamentals of something like Forbidden Planet, fleshed it out and built on it whereas most everything else since has essentially been an extrapolation of some particular aspect of TOS. TOS also had many roots in sf literature. I doubt very much that most of the sf and "sci-fi" done since has had much connection to literary sf. I see very very little of what I've read in sf over the past twenty years reflected in contemporary sf in film and tv. Yet the most cutting edge sf is still found mostly in the literature.

 

[MANT!]

I was one of those "Cool Space Battle" TOS fans (hence the fact I still play the Starfleet Command series of games on my PC)..but perhaps it's due to the fact I was 5 when the series premiered in '66, I've always wanted to see the Big E slug it out with the "bad guys"..so TWOK is great fun to me...but I always knew that TOS's Federation stood for peace..and that there was hope for the future...(to me there still is..)

 

[Michael]

There are fans who want cool space battles. Fans who want to see major interstellar wars. Fans who want to know why the Federation does not launch warships, battleships, have space marines, fighter wings and so on.

Maybe you're pleased to hear this coming from a 24 years old Trek fan (who grew up on DS9 but came to love TOS and has a hard time to decide which is his favorite), but I'm just as clueless as you about those fans. I don't exactly despise them — I just don't understand how FX, space battles and the like can be so important to someone. For me they always are first and foremost the means to tell a story. I'm a fan of drama — a fan of good storytelling and conflict. That's what I take out of the original series as well as the later incarnations of Trek.

So let me just say this, "new" fans aren't always like this. (Though I reckon "new fans" is an inexact term — I've been a fan since my early childhood. It's just not possible that I could have experienced the original series like older fans have.)

 

[Vance]

Well, one thing I've really noticed about these 'new' fans is that they really don't even like Star Trek (though some may say they do, it's pretty clear that they're fans of something else) .. and that they'll be hateful, nasty, and vlie to anyone who likes anything 'old' in the franchise. Their posts are full of moralization, insults, and personal attacks (veiled or not) such as Babaganoosh's above.

It's about being elitist, not about being fans. "I'm better than you because I like what Paramount's doing right now. You're old, and you're better off dead and forgotten, so shut up."

And it completely misses the point of what Trek was about in the first place.

 

[Outpost4]

Pot, meet kettle.

Vance, I think you should take your Star Trek home and put it safely in a drawer. We don't want to let anybody else play with it.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Now, what I wanted to post about:

Star Trek doesn't change. Styles change. What's "kewl" changes. Star Trek is still there, telling allegories about its core values of acceptance, growth and optimism. Sometimes over the last 40 years, Trek has forgotten these and gone off on a tangent - ST:3, anyone? - but it always comes back to them - ST:4, anyone?

The fans don't change. Their interests may wander, but then that's the way of the world. In the end, people come back to the truths Star Trek espouses because they are universal and timeless. They're so strong that even a couple of shitty movies and a marginal TV series can't kill them.

The 1980s were another time when Star Trek's principles weren't as valued by the general public. It took Elvis Costello to write a song to point this out. Its title is applicable to Star Trek today: What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Well, one thing I've really noticed about these 'new' fans is that they really don't even like Star Trek (though some may say they do, it's pretty clear that they're fans of something else) .. and that they'll be hateful, nasty, and vlie to anyone who likes anything 'old' in the franchise. Their posts are full of moralization, insults, and personal attacks (veiled or not) such as Babaganoosh's above.

It's about being elitist, not about being fans. "I'm better than you because I like what Paramount's doing right now. You're old, and you're better off dead and forgotten, so shut up."

And it completely misses the point of what Trek was about in the first place.

The "old guard" is often similarly elitist to those who like newer Trek. That is no different. "I'm better than you because I like what's old. You're too new, you don't mean anything, all Trek done after 1969 sucks, you are not allowed to like newer stuff simply because I don't."

Elitism is hardly confined to one side or the other.

Look, I don't hate TOS. Not by a long shot. It isn't exactly my favorite Trek ever (as I said, Enterprise is) but hey, it's still Trek, you know? I don't have a *problem* with TOS or its followers, I just happen to like other forms of Trek better. I realize that since this is the TOS forum, that's not a popular opinion, but there we are.

 

[Doge]

In the words of Shatner, I should "get a life," but I often feel that the attraction younger fans feel towards "Star Trek" in general is completely foreign to me.

I get most upset reading the threads on the new movie's board, but it happens elsewhere, too. There are fans who want cool space battles. Fans who want to see major interstellar wars. Fans who want to know why the Federation does not launch warships, battleships, have space marines, fighter wings and so on.

That's all fine, and I'm glad that the various elements put in place by TOS are celebrated, if in exaggerated fashion. And I don't even really mind when fans of the latest cast mock the actors who originated the roles. It's all just part of breathing new life into the franchise; teens always rebel against their parents.

But I take away something very different from "Star Trek," and above all the sci-fi fun it is this: that diversity is not only acceptable, it is positive; that exploration is an end unto itself; that warfare is the last and least acceptable alternative.

Yes, this is all "don't rape my childhood," but damn it, those messages were important to me growing up during Watergate and the Munich terrorist massacre and Nixon's resignation. I wanted, and still want -- 35 years later -- to believe that NASA's Apollo missions and the fictitious philosophy of IDIC meant something.

In 2008 we seem to be back to the 1930s-50s kewl space battles of Ming the Merciless vs. Flash Gordon, of "Crash" Corrigan and "Space Patrol."

For all their faults, I wonder if Berman and Braga fought the good fight after all, and more than anything else fell to the changing and more superficial values of the first decade of the 21st century.

I've been watching all the "Trek" TV programs on DVD recently, even DS9, which I lost interest in early on.

I'm left with the firm belief that, after everything, TOS was the most hopeful and therefore most truly futuristic of all the "Trek" incarnations.

What do you think?

I watched the show originally in the 1970s and I think we didnt realise what sci-fi could really do if given good scripts and budgets.

Think its still brill though.

 

[Vance]

Pot, meet kettle.

Vance, I think you should take your Star Trek home and put it safely in a drawer. We don't want to let anybody else play with it.

And, again, QED

I never attacked anyone who likes the newer Trek or even the movie personally. I attacked only those who have to be complete asses about it, the guys that post the 'PWNED' pictures when berating older fans, or want to get their 'fandom cred' by shitting on anything older than next year.

I even said, outright, the movie may be good, but the pictures I've seen made me concerned about the art direction. For that 'sin', I've been called a 'fascist' on these very forums, among other nice terms - and a handful of supposed 'fans' come on to draw the battle-lines.