Well I don't care. What a new Star Trek series needs is good writting, good characters, good actors and good stories. A post TNG/DS9/VOY era Trek could use as guest stars some of the characters from the three shows, but honestly if it would be set in the new Universe it would be just as fun. So I don't care, just bring back Trek to TV
Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
- Status
A great deal of entertainment is continuity for me. That's why TV shows work in the first place. If every episode was rebooted with new actors and design and shit, you wouldn't watch TV shows. Instead, you like that ten season long continuity.
And the Star Trek universe from TOS to VOY has a been a wonderfully consistent universe with great scope that got built up over the years. That's fantastic.
The new universe, what does it have to offer? Two films of coming of age and revenge plots.
And the Star Trek universe from TOS to VOY has a been a wonderfully consistent universe with great scope that got built up over the years. That's fantastic.
The new universe, what does it have to offer? Two films of coming of age and revenge plots.
It would seem Instant teleportation to where ever you want, no need for starships
basically starfleet now has similar powers to Q. Dumb Trek.For the people who actually make the shows, the continuity became a chain that hindered their storytelling. Now whether it -should- have is open to debate, but there are always going to be people who think they could have written something better than what was presented.
Furthermore, it's a historical fact that tv shows until relatively recently weren't especially continuity heavy. TOS was almost entirely one-off episodes that could be watched in basically any order. TNG also had its share of one-offs. That may not be what you prefer, but please don't claim your preference is universal. Even today, when tv shows have generally become more continuity-conscience, there are exceptions, and there are people who prefer the exceptions.
Also, I don't think most tv series actually make it to 10 seasons.
It's ludicrous to criticize the films for only having two films of...well, anything really. You said it yourself, it's -two- films. Would you judge all of TNG based on the first two episodes?
It's galling to me that Trek fans, who theoretically value a show that embraces diversity and open-mindedness, can be so close-minded and judgmental when someone tries to do something new with the franchise.
Star Trek isn't The One Ring, and we should not behave as Gollum.
Furthermore, it's a historical fact that tv shows until relatively recently weren't especially continuity heavy. TOS was almost entirely one-off episodes that could be watched in basically any order. TNG also had its share of one-offs. That may not be what you prefer, but please don't claim your preference is universal. Even today, when tv shows have generally become more continuity-conscience, there are exceptions, and there are people who prefer the exceptions.
Also, I don't think most tv series actually make it to 10 seasons.
It's ludicrous to criticize the films for only having two films of...well, anything really. You said it yourself, it's -two- films. Would you judge all of TNG based on the first two episodes?
It's galling to me that Trek fans, who theoretically value a show that embraces diversity and open-mindedness, can be so close-minded and judgmental when someone tries to do something new with the franchise.
Star Trek isn't The One Ring, and we should not behave as Gollum.
We had two films showing me how Kirk and Spock become friends in an alternate universe. I have no interest in that personally. I already know they became friends in the prime universe. Also I have no interest in seeing them fight alternate bad guys they already fought in the prime universe.
I highly doubt that. I don't think there ever was a story they didn't do because there was some conflict with canon or continuity.
Enterprise got smashed, but that's their fault. Don't do a prequel and you don't have any continuity problems.
I highly doubt that. I don't think there ever was a story they didn't do because there was some conflict with canon or continuity.
Enterprise got smashed, but that's their fault. Don't do a prequel and you don't have any continuity problems.
Frankly I think the fanbase as a whole would be happier if the people who weren't happy with the Newverse just stopped watching and talking about it instead of going on about it...at times seemingly endlessly.
Oddly, when I don't think I'm going to like something, I...don't watch it. I certainly don't go to a public message board and decry it repeatedly. I'd think that would get tiresome for me...and I'm sure it gets tiresome to read such negativity.
For that matter, if people don't like it anyway, why -do- they continue to watch it? So they can continue to talk about how much they don't like it and feel validated in doing so?
Oddly, when I don't think I'm going to like something, I...don't watch it. I certainly don't go to a public message board and decry it repeatedly. I'd think that would get tiresome for me...and I'm sure it gets tiresome to read such negativity.
For that matter, if people don't like it anyway, why -do- they continue to watch it? So they can continue to talk about how much they don't like it and feel validated in doing so?
It's a board in which people voice their opinions, frankly I'd find it boring if everyone agreed on everything. It's Star Trek, people discuss good and bad aspects of it be it the movies or certain episodes.
I tend to agree to a point.
I love to discuss Star Trek, but I'm not a huge fan of Deep Space Nine or Voyager and I tend to stay out of those forums. If I do respond to a topic I find interesting, I try to drop the attitude before responding.
It's not that people dislike the Abrams films that irks me personally, it's the sense of entitlement that some of those folks display. I also am not too fond of folks that say its for the "drooling masses" or that the movies are "least common denominator" fare.
I know where you're coming from but this one is titled the 'Future of Trek' so surely anyone who has a vague interest in what happens next can discuss their feelings/opinions. There was no attitude in my post I was simply stating what I believe to be a fact.
I'm more a believer of if I don't like something someone has said I can either choose to ignore it and move on or enter into a discussion to try and understand the positive and negative points and gain a conclusion based on them. If not, revert to the former
That pushes my buttons, too. Every time someone tries to frame the debate as "The Fans" versus "The Masses," my hackles rise and I start arming the photon torpedoes.
In real life, of course, "fannishness" exists along a spectrum. At one extreme you have the folks who know every episode by heart. At other extreme, you have the folks who think that "Star Track" has something to with Darth Vader and light sabers. But in-between, which is where the vast majority of the audience lives, you have a wide range of viewers who have had some exposure to Trek and are interested in it to varying degrees.
And, of course, there are also sorts of different flavors of fans, who gravitate to different aspects of the various shows. Some fans prefer TOS to the later shows; others prefer the 24th-century shows and movies; some people are in it for the hardware and technical stuff; some people are all about the "message" and social allegory; some people are all about their favorite characters; others just want an exciting space opera adventure; some people want to be Klingons; etc.
Anytime someone claims that all the "true" fans want the same thing, I roll my eyes and hit "Reply."
And I think it's even worse than just "real fans" vs. "the masses". When someone gets called, basically, a dumbass, stupid, or some other variation of a "drooling" idiot because they like a movie, I think that crosses a line to personal insult and I'd bet, easy, that most of the people here who like the new movies don't need to have their "fan cred" questioned. We didn't just show up in 2009.
Anyone who's getting that kind of response should be notifying the moderators.
That said, why the hell should someone be considered less of a fan just because they came to the party later? If anything we should be going out of our way to make them feel welcome.
Given the average respect Star Trek fans have historically tended to receive, taking shots at each other is just kind of sad.
That said, why the hell should someone be considered less of a fan just because they came to the party later? If anything we should be going out of our way to make them feel welcome.
Given the average respect Star Trek fans have historically tended to receive, taking shots at each other is just kind of sad.
Well, to be fair, I don't think it's usually directed at specific individuals. It's more like blanket assertions that "these movies only appeal to the masses, who just care about 'kewl' explosions. Not us real fans who understand what Trek is supposed to be."
They're not personal attacks, just sweeping generalizations that call into question the "fan cred" (love that term!) of anyone who disagrees. Which gets old.
Given the stereotypical depiction of a Star Trek fan, wouldn't we be better off -not- having fan cred?
I am fan and proud! Live long and prosper!
(Says the guy who wore a FARSCAPE baseball cap to the hardware store today.)
I got my Sheldon Cooper Bazinga shirt on every day off from work.
Exactly this. I've been a fan of Star Trek in all it's forms (Except TFF*) since September of 1966, when I was five years old.
*The only thing I liked in TFF was the ship's lounge with the tall-ship wheel.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
