Can we drop the "alternate timeline" nonsense?

[fireproof78]

Also, disagreeing on opinions should not be viewed as a personal attack.

But it's the Internet! Everything's personal, dammit

I'm offended!!!!!!!

*Not really *

Also, this discussion reminded me of a quote from SF Debris (as much of Star Trek discussion is wont to do). While I don't whole-heartedly agree with his assessment I do like the way he phrases it and it feels relevant to this discussion. It is a quote from his TMP review

“Few things I’ve done have raised more ire than talking about [Star Trek: The Motion Picture]. Let me therefore preface this review with some remarks. As always, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If you like this movie, then I’m happy for you, and I mean that sincerely. If this film brings you joy, good for you. This is fine … Right up until the point someone decides ‘it’s not enough that I like it, everyone who doesn’t is WRONG!' Now you’re just being an asshole. If you think there’s a message or something in the film other people might be missing, okay. If you think the film is under appreciated, okay. If you think any of these facts makes you more intelligent, more sophisticated, or in any way better: why don’t you inflict your personality on someone else.”

 

[Terok Nor]

I'm fine with it being an alternate universe/timeline or whatever it is. At least this way all the other Trek stories are still in continuity. It's not like this is the first parallel universe/timeline in Trek. The real Spock has been left in a better place than Next Generation left him which is a plus. I could never quite get on board with Spock spending the rest of his days on Romulus.

All that being said I'm not especially attached to this new timeline/universe so whatever happens in it isn't going to bother me too much. As far as I'm concerned they have carte blanche to do whatever they want because this isn't "my" Trek. The Wrath Of Khan remake was badly judged however. And Khan is now a white English dude? I must have missed the explanation for that one.

Trek works best on tv. Hopefully when the day comes it will be the official universe that returns to our screens. I'd like to see what happened a few hundred years after the last 24th century outing.

 

[martok2112]

Completely agreed about the whole "opinion" thing.

Reasonable folk will understand that their opinions, and those of others, are just that.....opinions. An opinion is not fact. And unlike facts, opinions are often gleaned from dubious sources. (hearsay, word of mouth, lack of research, prior experience without the benefit of giving new experience a chance).

Opinions drawn from actual experience of actual events are more credible than those gleaned from the examples I cited above. It gives validity to the opinion, but still does not make the opinion fact.

Sadly, in this day and age, especially with the Internet to spread one's deluded views, too many people overvalue/confuse their own opinions for facts, and expect everyone else to accept their word as the gospel truth, else they be morons/unbelievers/whatevers.

 

[Franklin]

The right to express an opinion does not imply the right to have that opinion viewed as other than boring or dumb if that's how the listener perceives it.

Agreed. To wit:

I have had so many conversations or email exchanges with students in the last few years wherein I anger them by indicating that simply saying, "This is my opinion" does not preclude a connected statement from being dead wrong. It still baffles me that some feel those four words somehow give them carte blanche to spout batshit oratory or prose. And it really scares me that some of those students think education that challenges their ideas is equivalent to an attack on their beliefs.
-Mick Cullen

NO, IT’S NOT YOUR OPINION. YOU’RE JUST WRONG

While not quite the same concept, the central thesis would seem to still apply. There are more than a large few on this message board who could probably benefit from a close reading of this article.

Bookmarked for future use (might make it required reading for all my students from now on).

I saved it even before scrolling down and seeing that you did, too Ovation. I will be making good use of the piece in the classroom, myself (especially since I teach political science). Finding this made it worth visiting the site this morning. Thanks for sharing, Karzak.

 

[hux]

I was all set to enjoy "new continuity" but then Into Darkness sat on my face like a sweaty, obese, stench-ridden whore and shat shards of glistening OldTrek turds into my mouth whilst calling me a fucking gullible twat.

 

[Franklin]

I was all set to enjoy "new continuity" but then Into Darkness sat on my face like a sweaty, obese, stench-ridden whore and shat shards of glistening OldTrek turds into my mouth whilst calling me a fucking gullible twat.

OK. Really. OK. I see, I guess. Umm, I think I'll just put my lunch back in the refrigerator and have it later.

 

[Campe]

I was all set to enjoy "new continuity" but then Into Darkness sat on my face like a sweaty, obese, stench-ridden whore and shat shards of glistening OldTrek turds into my mouth whilst calling me a fucking gullible twat.

Um... this is helpful... how?

Also, ew.

 

[Jedi_Master]

turds

Saving for future use.

 

[Kemaiku]

turds

Saving for future use.

Please tell me you're growing roses or something similar.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

I was all set to enjoy "new continuity" but then Into Darkness sat on my face like a sweaty, obese, stench-ridden whore and shat shards of glistening OldTrek turds into my mouth whilst calling me a fucking gullible twat.

In retrospect, I am now quite thankful about my decision to have rejected the "Adult-O-Rama" and instead decided to see STID in a more upscale theater.

 

[Ovation]

I was all set to enjoy "new continuity" but then Into Darkness sat on my face like a sweaty, obese, stench-ridden whore and shat shards of glistening OldTrek turds into my mouth whilst calling me a fucking gullible twat.

So, you're saying you enjoyed Into Darkness, then?

 

[JWPlatt]

Don't mince words, Bones...

 

[Jedi_Master]

turds

Saving for future use.

Please tell me you're growing roses or something similar.

Nah, just saving it to be copy-paste fill in if I am forced to quote hux.

 

[mos6507]

The article you linked specifically says that opinions of things like color, food taste, and fave TV shows are completely legit things to mention as an opinion. So how does the article help to invalidate an opinion over whether nuTrek is good or bad?

The rhetorical tactic typically used to rebut those who don't like nuTrek is to compare the criticism against prime-Trek. In other words, to try to claim that double-standards are at play. For instance, those who criticize nuTrek as too "pew pew" will cite the battle in Wrath of Khan, etc... However, the execution of any film is more than just the presence of this or that raw component. It's how it's done. The "action" component in Wrath of Khan doesn't play out the same way in Into Darkness at all. Wrath of Khan is Horatio Hornblower. Into Darkness is Star Wars-esque. That's enough of a stylistic difference to justify people preferring one or the other.

Lastly, most nuTrek bashers focus on bashing the film. NuTrek defenders beyond a point give up trying to defend the films and attack the critics. I don't think they stick to the high road. And if that doesn't work, just try to end the debate by posting an oversized screengrab of Rotten Tomatoes in order to try to ram home the idea that if you aren't part of the majority of people who say they liked it, that there's something "wrong" with you.

 

[BillJ]

Lastly, most nuTrek bashers focus on bashing the film. NuTrek defenders beyond a point give up trying to defend the films and attack the critics. I don't think they stick to the high road. And if that doesn't work, just try to end the debate by posting an oversized screengrab of Rotten Tomatoes in order to try to ram home the idea that if you aren't part of the majority of people who say they liked it, that there's something "wrong" with you.

What complete and utter bullshit.

Do you know when those screen grabs get posted? When someone comes in here trying to say the Abrams films are failures. Guess what? You are more than welcome to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts.

It's like me trying to argue that First Contact was a failure because I don't like it.

The Abrams films have been moderate financial successes that seem to be well liked by most who see them. So get the fuck over it.

 

[Campe]

Lastly, most nuTrek bashers focus on bashing the film. NuTrek defenders beyond a point give up trying to defend the films and attack the critics. I don't think they stick to the high road. And if that doesn't work, just try to end the debate by posting an oversized screengrab of Rotten Tomatoes in order to try to ram home the idea that if you aren't part of the majority of people who say they liked it, that there's something "wrong" with you.

Point 1: I think the statement that people attacking the critic instead of the film in some instances is fair. That does go on in certain circles. But it is the exception rather than the rule.

Point 2: Again, while it's the exception rather than the rule, while the critics may attack the film as opposed to the fan, there are occasions when that's not true as fans of the new films are called "not true Trek fans." Additionally, they will attack the creator and cast of the films, often wishing them death. Additionally, they will create hate groups surrounding their dislike of the films and their level of attack on the product is rather juvenile. For instance:

Somebody on the Star Trek board asked what we all thought the plot of the new movie will be and here is my response: The Search for How to Further Crap on Gene Roddenberry's Great Vision of the Future by Producing Lame Pieces of Cinematic Fecal Material that is Star Trek In Name Only! Let's see if this gets deleted or if I get thrown out.

Link. There is immaturity all around. Focusing it on only the nuTrek fans is ridiculously unfair.

Point 3: There are those who take their hate so far that they spread lies about the production of Star Trek Beyond saying it won't happen and that the return to the Prime Universe is just so close, you can taste it. When pressed for details, they simply claim "inside information." Well, Beyond is in production. And every article I read about a new Trek series just says it isn't coming at this time.

tl;dr - It goes both ways.

 

[M'Sharak]

The article you linked specifically says that opinions of things like color, food taste, and fave TV shows are completely legit things to mention as an opinion. So how does the article help to invalidate an opinion over whether nuTrek is good or bad?

The rhetorical tactic typically used to rebut those who don't like nuTrek is to compare the criticism against prime-Trek. In other words, to try to claim that double-standards are at play. For instance, those who criticize nuTrek as too "pew pew" will cite the battle in Wrath of Khan, etc... However, the execution of any film is more than just the presence of this or that raw component. It's how it's done. The "action" component in Wrath of Khan doesn't play out the same way in Into Darkness at all. Wrath of Khan is Horatio Hornblower. Into Darkness is Star Wars-esque. That's enough of a stylistic difference to justify people preferring one or the other.

Lastly, most nuTrek bashers focus on bashing the film. NuTrek defenders beyond a point give up trying to defend the films and attack the critics. I don't think they stick to the high road. And if that doesn't work, just try to end the debate by posting an oversized screengrab of Rotten Tomatoes in order to try to ram home the idea that if you aren't part of the majority of people who say they liked it, that there's something "wrong" with you.

Can it, mos.

Tosk took the time to read the linked essay and then point out specifically why what it says doesn't apply here. He gets full credit for effort.

You clearly did not bother reading the piece, wasting an opportunity to post something meaningful in favor of spewing more of the same old petulant bananas about how critics of nuTrek have only the most honorable of intentions and have been so unfairly treated by those attacky "nuTrek defenders". No points for you.

You're supposed to know better, and I'm going to be more benevolent than I should by stopping short at reminding you of that. Now go to your room until you're able to interact properly with others.

 

[Franklin]

The article you linked specifically says that opinions of things like color, food taste, and fave TV shows are completely legit things to mention as an opinion. So how does the article help to invalidate an opinion over whether nuTrek is good or bad?

The rhetorical tactic typically used to rebut those who don't like nuTrek is to compare the criticism against prime-Trek. In other words, to try to claim that double-standards are at play. For instance, those who criticize nuTrek as too "pew pew" will cite the battle in Wrath of Khan, etc... However, the execution of any film is more than just the presence of this or that raw component. It's how it's done. The "action" component in Wrath of Khan doesn't play out the same way in Into Darkness at all. Wrath of Khan is Horatio Hornblower. Into Darkness is Star Wars-esque. That's enough of a stylistic difference to justify people preferring one or the other.

Lastly, most nuTrek bashers focus on bashing the film. NuTrek defenders beyond a point give up trying to defend the films and attack the critics. I don't think they stick to the high road. And if that doesn't work, just try to end the debate by posting an oversized screengrab of Rotten Tomatoes in order to try to ram home the idea that if you aren't part of the majority of people who say they liked it, that there's something "wrong" with you.

Debating and having opinions on the artistic qualities of Abrams's Trek movies will be open to far more subjectivity than calling the movies abject failures or even successes. If the "essence of 'Star Trek'" was not captured for someone, that's a visceral feeling which will be all the stronger if examples can be given of where the "essence" was lost. However, if someone else says they think it captured what "Star Trek" is perfectly, and gives their own reasons, that's a difference of opinion where both parties are better off agreeing to disagree.

The problems come when we make generalizations to back up our opinions. Generalizations are helped by evidence from the empirical world.

Especially if one is going to generalize about the "correctness" of their opinion, it would be helpful if it's backed up empirical evidence or force of numbers. For example whether or not Paramount was unhappy with the box office, that the Trek movies grossed well relative to other movies of 2009 and 2013 lends credence to saying they were at least not flops.
Saying that the movies were unpopular with movie goers flies in the face of the consensus of critical reviews, polls, and such. It doesn't mean someone has to revoke their individual opinion of not liking it, but it must mean that whatever justifiable reasons they have for it, they should at least admit they are in an empirically verifiable minority. And again, in areas of individual taste, that doesn't make the opinion wrong, it just places it on a continuum of opinions where there are fewer people. It doesn't mean the 13 percent of reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes who didn't like STID are wrong or without valid arguments on the face of it (or on some facts), but they would still have to realize and admit they are in a small minority who felt that way.

 

[DaveyNY]

There's a lot of fixations here that I personally find a waste of time, but at this point I'm far more annoyed by the various posts that seem to want to police what does or doesn't constitute a 'worthwhile' topic of discussion, or what's worthwhile for folks to spend their time thinking about – as though casting that judgement against people isn't the most arrogant goddamn thing in the universe. Or, to put it another way: I remember the old days of the Enterprise forum, when the series was still on the air and the forum filled with Stewie types (remember him?) who did nothing but complain about how the show wasn't doing what they wanted the way they wanted, or that it was focusing on the wrong topics, or the continuity was messed up, or whatever, and the response to that – quite reasonably – was, if you don't like what the series is doing, don't gripe about it. Just take a break and stop watching.

So, in a similar vein, I think if someone doesn't like what gets discussed here, just take a break and stop reading.

Oh Wow..., I actually had forgotten about Stewie...
Those were certainly interesting times for the Mods.
I had to duck a few times myself.
<chuckle>

I like the last two movies, though I personally call them JJ-Trek when referring to them.

 

[Mudd]

People can prefer whatever they like, but "objectivity" doesn't enter into it - taste is subjective by definition.