yeah, and Gene didn't invent Star Trek either![]()
Even if he did -- and an awful lot of what we think of as the core of Star Trek today came from Gene Coon, DC Fontana, David Gerrold, and a lot of others -- he didn't invent Star Trek fandom.
yeah, and Gene didn't invent Star Trek either![]()
whatever, but if Gene himself says that Trekkies is the correct term, how can "trekker" even exist?
Roddenberry doesn't get to choose what people call themselves.
Are you a Star Trek fan?
It seems like a silly self-evident question, doesn't it?
Perhaps the question should be: what defines being a Star Trek fan?
Over the years I've been approached by people who said things along the lines of, "I understand you're a Star Trek fan?"
Me: "Yes. That's right."
Them: "Oh, cool. Did you watch the new Voyager last night?"
Me: "Uh, no."
Them: "Oh, too bad. You missed it?"
Me: "No, I knew it was on, but I was doing something else."
Them: "Really? I thought you're were an avid Star Trek fan?"
Me: "I am. I'am a fan of the orignal series called Star Trek. I've watched the others, but they just don't work for me. I've found them very hit-and-miss. So in the end I just do something else I'm more interested in."
Them: But, you're supposed to be a fan. How can you ignore the other shows?"
Me: "Well, do you watch all the CSi shows or all the Law & Order series?"
Them: "Nah, I only like one or two of them."
Me: "Well there you go. Does that make you any less of a CSi fan?"
Them: "Hmm. I guess not. I just never thought of it that way.
And so folks, how do you define being a Star Trek fan? Do you like everything or just parts of it? Does that make you any less of a devoted fan?
Thoughts?
this is a sad post. much as I don't like Trek at times, I could never not consider myself a Trekkie. Trek spells "home" to me. when I can't sleep at night because of worry, bad thoughts, stress, I turn on Trek and it helps de-stress me and center me. it spells hope and dreams for me. I just hope it's not slaughtered by JJ and Team.
Every time I read something like this, I'm reminded of Raymond Chandler's response to the question, "Are you tired of Hollywood ruining your books?" He took the interviewer into his library and said, "They're right here and they're fine."
No matter what JJ Abrams does with this movie, ST will always exist in its previous forms. I mean, good grief, there are those on this BBS that think Roddenberry killed ST with TMP (or TNG, etc.).
What can I say; I'm also a comic book fan. I've seen so many reboots of favorites like Superman and Batman my head would explode if I took it too seriously.
ST is right here and it's fine.
Star Trek is Trek from 1964 production start to 2008. The new Star Trek movie may well have a different history/timeline in which case it will be a different Star Trek.
Maybe this will answer the direct question:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=1622099&postcount=71
RAMA
Star Trek is Trek from 1964 production start to 2008. The new Star Trek movie may well have a different history/timeline in which case it will be a different Star Trek.
Maybe this will answer the direct question:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=1622099&postcount=71
RAMA
Correction, it appears that with today's JJ interview, it has been confirmed that the TOS AND STNG storylines will make an appearance in the movie, which makes me even more excited to see it! I would consider it part of an expansion of the current timeline.
RAMA
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.