Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by Vger23, Mar 17, 2015.
Maybe Wil Wheaton helped him write the post.
What's so "50's" about wanting to get married and have kids?
Precisely. Don't act like an entitled mean-spirited slap monkey.
I know it's a lot to ask.
I took that to mean a "Leave it to Beaver" type illusion of the so-called perfect good old days.
Because it was portrayed as what everyone should want and do with their lives as the norm (The 50s was full of those "normal" dynamics.), rather than living it however they want. In reality, there are plenty of people out there living happy lives in a myriad of ways, whether that's married with children, married with no children, parents in civil unions, single parents, grandparents taking care of grandchildren, etc.
On a side note, TV shows in later decades showed different dynamics: a family with a relative living with them (Mama's House, Family Matters), roommate situations, non-traditional families (like Full House or Frasier), or even just single people getting through in life with friends.
Getting married and having kids is nice, but it should be done because one wants to, not because it's dictated by society. Leave it to Beaver is a different beast than Modern Family, even though they both portray nuclear families with kids and dogs and nice houses.
So we need to be liberal, watch shows where everybody gets along, and not criticize writers and producers who really, really seem to be churning out inferior products in order to make a fat paycheck...except for the people who made Trek shows and movies after TOS since they write too many stories featuring bad guys. Those neocon jerks are fair game.
I like how he refers to Trek fans using "Jihad behavior." Any of you guys planning to fly a home made shuttlepod into Paramount studios or saw off the head of the guy who played Neelix?
Stay classy, cranky old guy. So long and thanks for the tribbles.
I think it's telling how some people take it personally, and mis-read what he is trying to communicate.
It's not about holding back on criticism. It's about not being an a-hole. Again, I know that's a hard concept for some to grasp, because being an a-hole comes very naturally to some...but that's really all he's saying.
I read it as "tolerance is the cornerstone of Star Trek philosophy, and certain sections of fandom are highly INtolerant and behave badly sometimes." Not only do I not find that objectionable...I also find it to be true.
I have to say I enjoy the irony of seeing someone preaching tolerance and making friends of enemies while simultaneously declaring people who are overly critical of a tv show to be involved in "jihad behavior" and that they should "F off."
"Nobody sets out to make a tv show." Maybe. But there are one hell of a lot of people in Hollywood who don't care enough about making a good one. Just "good enough" that they still make their millions.
Maybe he's just fed up with the slew of a-holes who call themselves Star Trek fans and decided to voice an opinion about it. Tolerance doesn't include letting people act like a bunch of rabid baboons. There's a limit. He's saying he's reached his.
I think he's also saying that there's a way to express ourselves as fans that doesn't involve spewing venom and hatred at each other or at the creators of the various shows and movies.
I, for one, think it's refreshing to see him hurl it back out there and see the reactions from some people. It's kind of the old "we can take it but can't dish it out" game.
I think it's more like the old "I'm a cranky old hypocrite who can simultaneously criticize other writers while taking a dump on the fanbase for doing the same thing" game.
Easy to be dismissive when you look at it that way, I guess.
Well he is calling for tolerance while also judging anyone who writes conservative values into the show.
No, no he isn't.
How else do you interpret that?
This. And it can also be pointed out that the kind of behavior he's talking about isn't limited to (so-called) Trek fans. See the hate-filled response to Ashley Judd's tweet here.
Where is he judging writers?
I take that to mean he's referring to the people in charge of Trek now. In any case he's declaring what it represents now.
I thought he was referring to the attack-fans.
I don't disagree with the substance of Gerrold's post, but the problem is his message is all over the place, so I bet what he's trying to tell us will fly over the head of many people who will read one thing into it when Gerrold actually meant another. He starts out like it's going to be a rant about the decline of the movie franchise (something which Shawnster isolated earlier in the thread), but then he turns on a dime and starts talking about the schisms within the fandom instead, and he ends on "everyone should just STFU and enjoy Star Trek for being Star Trek" coda.
Like I say, I agree with his sentiment broadly, but the way in which he's chosen to put it out there needed a little more thought. There's a lot of mixed-messaging going on.
Huh. This from the guy who STILL won't finish the War Against the Chtorr, and in 2012 said he wouldn't finish it unless Obama was re-elected. Which happened over 2 years ago. You left many of your fans in the ditch, sport.
Gerrold is at times a brilliant writer, nothing else ever quite weirded me out (in a good way) like The Man Who Folded Himself, but he himself comes off often like an intolerant jerk, and he does it--again--in this new FB post as well. I also read it as "STFU fans."
Separate names with a comma.