Difference in late-00s fandom that hasn't been recognized

[Kegek]

Re: Difference in late-00s fandom that hasn't been recognize

^
Well, I think the heated criticism over Enterprise as an unworthy entry in the franchise - or its believed betrayal of Trek canon - were also two major problems in that forum, at least that was the case when I was present.

And this forum will certainly get plenty of that, assuming people still care about those things.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Re: Difference in late-00s fandom that hasn't been recognize

mada101 said:
As such, it runs the danger of alienating the classic fanbase as well as the people looking for a total reboot.

And my point in posting was: TAS, TMP, ST II, ST IV, TNG, ST V, the TNG movies, DS9, VOY and ENT have all "run the danger" of alienating fans. All of them did alienate some fans, but all of them also brought in new fans.

JJ Abrams' movie will alienate lots of current fans, but it will also bring in many new fans, and win back lots of old ones.

 

[Capt.April]

Re: Difference in late-00s fandom that hasn't been recognize

Therin of Andor said:
There were TOS fans enraged by the fact that they were making ST:TMP - and daring to replace Spock (with Xon), redesign the Enterprise, order new theme music, change the uniforms and give the Klingons a spinal column that stretched over their heads. After joining a ST club in 1980, I met diehard TOS fans who'd always refused to watch TAS or read ST novels, because they weren't "real".

A sector of the ST community will always be opposed to change. Not very IDIC of them.

Very good points..I'd forgotten but now I remember them well

I guess it just showes that everything 'old' is 'new' again!

 

[Plum]

Re: Difference in late-00s fandom that hasn't been recognize

Lord Garth said:
Admit it, the ST XI forum isn't anywhere near as bad as ENT was. Deep down you know it.

Very true.

... I donno about most, but me... as a Trekkie since I was, like, 6 in '73, watching TOS reruns, I'm excited we finally have a new Star Trek instead of the Trekker era shows.

Goes to show, the old show is still the thing. It's still Kirk, Spock, and McCoy that is and shall ever be Star Trek. So nah, nah, on Picard, Data, and #2.

 

[ancient]

Re: Difference in late-00s fandom that hasn't been recognize

The heat over ENT came from it being the umpteenth infraction by B&B.

Abrams hasn't gained a dubious track record yet...

 

[Holytomato]

Re: Difference in late-00s fandom that hasn't been recognize

"Abrams hasn't gained a dubious track record yet..."

ohhhh but he already has. Didn't you get the memo?

"He's not Roddenberry!"

"He's not B & b!"

"He's not Meyer!"

"He's not 1966!"

 

[Classic Fan]

Re: Difference in late-00s fandom that hasn't been recognize

Kegek said:


And Classic Fan, there are elements of TMP's visual design one can see in "The Cage" - a subtler colour scheme, for instance.

Oh yeah, that much is obvious. What we saw was the closest they could get to what was designed. However, items such as equipment, interfaces etc, were all intended, like TMPs, to be flush and backlit touch controls, but alas, we didnt get that until '79.

I do however, like the wrist communicators from TMP, then TWOK came along and gave us huuuuuuuuge communicators the size if cigar boxes, never made sense to me.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Re: Difference in late-00s fandom that hasn't been recognize

Kegek said:
^
Well, I think the heated criticism over Enterprise as an unworthy entry in the franchise - or its believed betrayal of Trek canon - were also two major problems in that forum, at least that was the case when I was present.

And this forum will certainly get plenty of that, assuming people still care about those things.

Well, that was what I was trying to say.

They can't complain about it being an unworthy entry yet because it...well...hasn't been entered. Same with it being a betrayal of canon.

However, what I expressed pleasure about was that at least ONE of that forum's problems - the shipper issue - shouldn't be a problem in here.

Thank the Emissary for small favors.

 

[Lord Garth]

Re: Difference in late-00s fandom that hasn't been recognize

Don't get me wrong, I fully expect hecticness, I just don't think it'll ever be like before again.

It's my contention that any general negative reaction to this movie would've been much stronger if it were done 20 years earlier or even 10 years earlier and there wasn't Berman Trek* to serve as a filter or a buffer-zone, than now.

*The best way to refer to what's now erroneously still called "Modern Trek" since he was the one constant near/at the top from 1987-2005 (exlcuding the overlap with TFF-TUC), and it sounds better than "Middle Trek".

For sub-groups -- in the context of production history -- I divide "Classic Trek" into 1966-1979 (GR) and 1982-1991 (post-GR), then I divide "Berman Trek" into 1987-1994 (pre-saturation) and 1994-2005 (post-saturation). What I call "Modern Trek", most call "Nu Trek".

I'll probably end up using Nu Trek eventually too, just so people know what I'm talking about.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Re: Difference in late-00s fandom that hasn't been recognize

Lord Garth said:
Don't get me wrong, I fully expect hecticness, I just don't think it'll ever be like before again.

It's my contention that any general negative reaction to this movie would've been much stronger if it were done 20 years earlier or even 10 years earlier and there wasn't Berman Trek* to serve as a filter or a buffer-zone, than now.

*The best way to refer to what's now erroneously still called "Modern Trek" since he was the one constant near/at the top from 1987-2005 (exlcuding the overlap with TFF-TUC), and it sounds better than "Middle Trek".

For sub-groups -- in the context of production history -- I divide "Classic Trek" into 1966-1979 (GR) and 1982-1991 (post-GR), then I divide "Berman Trek" into 1987-1994 (pre-saturation) and 1994-2005 (post-saturation). What I call "Modern Trek", most call "Nu Trek".

I'll probably end up using Nu Trek eventually too, just so people know what the I'm talking about.

How about "red-headed-stepchild-Trek?" I think that pretty much sums it up, far better than "middle-trek."

 

[Kegek]

Re: Difference in late-00s fandom that hasn't been recognize

Lord Garth said:
Don't get me wrong, I fully expect hecticness, I just don't think it'll ever be like before again.

It's my contention that any general negative reaction to this movie would've been much stronger if it were done 20 years earlier or even 10 years earlier and there wasn't Berman Trek* to serve as a filter or a buffer-zone, than now.

*The best way to refer to what's now erroneously still called "Modern Trek" since he was the one constant near/at the top from 1987-2005 (exlcuding the overlap with TFF-TUC), and it sounds better than "Middle Trek".

I'd started calling it that myself; as Berman is the most significant constant in the era - he really defined it more than anyone else - it seems very appropriate. It's the most visually and stylistically consistent period of Star Trek, and definitely the longest.

For sub-groups -- in the context of production history -- I divide "Classic Trek" into 1966-1979 (GR) and 1982-1991 (post-GR), then I divide "Berman Trek" into 1987-1994 (pre-saturation) and 1994-2005 (post-saturation). What I call "Modern Trek", most call "Nu Trek".

I call it Abrams-Trek, following the logic of Berman Trek, Bennett-Meyer Trek, and, uh, I'm not sure about the first one. Given Roddenberry's involvement in early TNG, 'Roddenberry Trek' doesn't quite cut it. Classic Trek, whatever.

 

[Lord Garth]

Re: Difference in late-00s fandom that hasn't been recognize

I've spun-off some thoughts (to use that word in an understatement) into another thread in the Science & Technology forum called "Quantifying subjectivity using vector calculus".

Between both of these threads you're getting my latest, cutting-edge thinking about Star Trek.

 

[nerfherder]

Re: Difference in late-00s fandom that hasn't been recognize

In addition to being jaded, I think a lot of fans feel that Star Trek has already been, to some degree or another, spoiled by DS9, VOY, ENT, or the GEN movies (depending on which you tend to vilify.) The shock and outrage a fan may have felt watching his/her beloved TOS/GEN Trek becoming corrupted has already subsided, leaving the fan with a numb sense that Trek is no longer the shiny, flawless thing it once was. From this mindset, Trek XI - even if it a "revisioning" of some kind - probably isn't going to screw up Trek any more than has already been done (or if it does, so what? What's one more nail in the coffin at this point?) On the other hand, by going back to TOS basics, Star Trek may in fact be redeemed, polished off and renewed to its original glory. So, many Trek fans may indeed feel jaded, but at the same time feel optimistic that the sins of B&B Trek may be washed away by this new Abrams vision.