GUARDIAN: Your vessel, your beginning, all that you knew is gone.

[Amaris]

I'm sorry, that's not large enough for my needs.

 

[Woulfe]

How about a SALT MINE instead ?

;-)

 

[Ovation]

The idea that the "core fan base" has rejected the new movies has been hugely exaggerated by the media, probably because it makes a good story.

Shall I tell my New York Post story again? Why not?

Awhile ago, about the time Into Darkness came out, I was contacted by a reporter at the New York Post who was doing on a story on how all us old-time Trekkies supposedly hated the reboot.

I spent at least a half hour on the phone explaining to him that this was hardly the case and that at most we were talking about a (very) vocal minority. I went on at length about how much I'd liked the 2009 movie and was looking forward to Into Darkness.

This was not what he wanted to hear. He pretty much admitted that his editor had already determined the slant of the article: that all real Trekkies hate the new movies. When I declined to play ball, he asked me to recommend another Trek novelist who might give him the sound byte he wanted. Again, I declined to cooperate.

Sure enough, a few days later the article came out, revealing that--you guessed it!--the core fan base hates the reboot. And the only quote from me was the part where I grudgingly admitted that, okay, some fans didn't like the reboot.

So, yeah, take any articles like this with a grain of salt.

Can I borrow this story for my students? I discuss media bias in just about all my courses and try to find something amusing to illustrate the point (the content of my courses is rarely amusing as my most common course assignments are Middle Eastern history or 20th century global conflicts).

 

[Amaris]

How about a SALT MINE instead ?

;-)

Yes, yes, that will do nicely.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

What's the "core fan base"? The 2.5 million who were still tuning in at the end of Enterprise's run in 2005? Or the 0.6 million non-unique views that the Prelude to Axanar fan film has on Youtube? Those numbers are trifling next to the 8.4 million tickets sold for Into Darkness in it's first weekend alone. Do those "core" numbers matter on such a vast stage?

The article seems to have taken a vocal minority's complaints (lens flares again?) and decided that listening to them will make a difference - should TNG have been changed to please the loud 80's fans who insisted it was an inferior rip-off of TOS?


Also, I'm really looking forward to Terminator Genisys

THIS, 500%!

I also hope that any new Star Trek series or movies after movie #3 are filmed in the same set up as the Abrams ones, and also use the same ship designs, costumes designs, weapons, etc.-we don't need a retread of the Roddenberry/Piller/Berman/Braga/Sternbach/Probert/Okuda era, style-wise or otherwise (and as good as it was), just because of a few loudmouthed fans at one convention and elsewhere trapped in the past (and now nostalgic for a past era that most of them were vocally tired of [the Roddenberry/Piller/Berman/Braga era in particular]) but now want back as if all has been forgiven simply because they feel Abrams, Orci, & Kurtzman 'screwed up' Star Trek.

 

[JWPlatt]

What's the "core fan base"? The 2.5 million who were still tuning in at the end of Enterprise's run in 2005? Or the 0.6 million non-unique views that the Prelude to Axanar fan film has on Youtube? Those numbers are trifling next to the 8.4 million tickets sold for Into Darkness in it's first weekend alone. Do those "core" numbers matter on such a vast stage?

The article seems to have taken a vocal minority's complaints (lens flares again?) and decided that listening to them will make a difference - should TNG have been changed to please the loud 80's fans who insisted it was an inferior rip-off of TOS?


Also, I'm really looking forward to Terminator Genisys

THIS, 500%!

I also hope that any new Star Trek series or movies after movie #3 are filmed in the same set up as the Abrams ones, and also use the same ship designs, costumes designs, weapons, etc.-we don't need a retread of the Roddenberry/Piller/Berman/Braga/Sternbach/Probert/Okuda era, style-wise or otherwise (and as good as it was), just because of a few loudmouthed fans at one convention and elsewhere trapped in the past (and now nostalgic for a past era that most of them were vocally tired of [the Roddenberry/Piller/Berman/Braga era in particular]) but now want back as if all has been forgiven simply because they feel Abrams, Orci, & Kurtzman 'screwed up' Star Trek.

That's quite the ironic post about "loudmouthed" fans.

 

[Greg Cox]

The idea that the "core fan base" has rejected the new movies has been hugely exaggerated by the media, probably because it makes a good story.

Shall I tell my New York Post story again? Why not?

Awhile ago, about the time Into Darkness came out, I was contacted by a reporter at the New York Post who was doing on a story on how all us old-time Trekkies supposedly hated the reboot.

I spent at least a half hour on the phone explaining to him that this was hardly the case and that at most we were talking about a (very) vocal minority. I went on at length about how much I'd liked the 2009 movie and was looking forward to Into Darkness.

This was not what he wanted to hear. He pretty much admitted that his editor had already determined the slant of the article: that all real Trekkies hate the new movies. When I declined to play ball, he asked me to recommend another Trek novelist who might give him the sound byte he wanted. Again, I declined to cooperate.

Sure enough, a few days later the article came out, revealing that--you guessed it!--the core fan base hates the reboot. And the only quote from me was the part where I grudgingly admitted that, okay, some fans didn't like the reboot.

So, yeah, take any articles like this with a grain of salt.

Can I borrow this story for my students? I discuss media bias in just about all my courses and try to find something amusing to illustrate the point (the content of my courses is rarely amusing as my most common course assignments are Middle Eastern history or 20th century global conflicts).

Go for it.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

That's quite the ironic post about "loudmouthed" fans.

Hey, I call it as I see it. And I defend the franchise and like it in spite of a few weak episodes and movies.

 

[Amaris]

What's the "core fan base"? The 2.5 million who were still tuning in at the end of Enterprise's run in 2005? Or the 0.6 million non-unique views that the Prelude to Axanar fan film has on Youtube? Those numbers are trifling next to the 8.4 million tickets sold for Into Darkness in it's first weekend alone. Do those "core" numbers matter on such a vast stage?

The article seems to have taken a vocal minority's complaints (lens flares again?) and decided that listening to them will make a difference - should TNG have been changed to please the loud 80's fans who insisted it was an inferior rip-off of TOS?


Also, I'm really looking forward to Terminator Genisys

THIS, 500%!

I also hope that any new Star Trek series or movies after movie #3 are filmed in the same set up as the Abrams ones, and also use the same ship designs, costumes designs, weapons, etc.-we don't need a retread of the Roddenberry/Piller/Berman/Braga/Sternbach/Probert/Okuda era, style-wise or otherwise (and as good as it was), just because of a few loudmouthed fans at one convention and elsewhere trapped in the past (and now nostalgic for a past era that most of them were vocally tired of [the Roddenberry/Piller/Berman/Braga era in particular]) but now want back as if all has been forgiven simply because they feel Abrams, Orci, & Kurtzman 'screwed up' Star Trek.

I've been a Trekkie since 1984. Star Trek has been one of my long time loves. Have you ever been in a long relationship, whether as friendship or something more, and one day you just see someone with new eyes, and fall in love all over again? That's what happened with me and Star Trek when I saw the 2009 film.

In short, I agree.

 

[JWPlatt]

That's quite the ironic post about "loudmouthed" fans.

Hey, I call it as I see it. And I defend the franchise and like it in spite of a few weak episodes and movies.

I think you meant 'despite' which is more supportive - not that you are spiteful toward the weak episodes.

In any case, part of my point was that everyone who posts is just like you, calling it as they see it. When each point of view sees the others as wrong, what does that say to you?

 

[Dukhat]

When each point of view sees the others as wrong, what does that say to you?

It says that someone needs to step away from the computer and do something more productive with their time

 

[Skellington]

the “nonsensical science and the rubbish plot.”[/I.

Nonsensical science is hardly new to Trek (which has long used it as a milk skin under which it does its thing), though the last two movies did seem to have an inordinate amount of it.
The plots themselves were nonsensical on several points, granted, though as with the science that doesn't make them rubbish provided that they tell a good story overall.

The rest of the article as reported seems to consist of facile arguments at best. Particularly, a return to Prime (whatever that means; the premise of Voyager, for instance, can't credibly share a universe with certain episodes of TOS or certain of the movies) seems very unlikely. If the franchise births another TV show in the next ten years then it's likely to be either an ostensibly Abramsverse show or some kind of reworking of the original concept (eg a cold reboot of TOS or the original concept). The alternative would probably involve going forward only in the sense of the show's chronological setting - way too constraining for a creative team, in my opinion.

 

[Amaris]

the “nonsensical science and the rubbish plot.”[/I.

Nonsensical science is hardly new to Trek (which has long used it as a milk skin under which it does its thing), though the last two movies did seem to have an inordinate amount of it.
The plots themselves were nonsensical on several points, granted, though as with the science that doesn't make them rubbish provided that they tell a good story overall.

The rest of the article as reported seems to consist of facile arguments at best. Particularly, a return to Prime (whatever that means; the premise of Voyager, for instance, can't credibly share a universe with certain episodes of TOS or certain of the movies) seems very unlikely. If the franchise births another TV show in the next ten years then it's likely to be either an ostensibly Abramsverse show or some kind of reworking of the original concept (eg a cold reboot of TOS or the original concept). The alternative would probably involve going forward only in the sense of the show's chronological setting - way too constraining for a creative team, in my opinion.

Plus, when you go too far ahead, you start to lose the relatability to 21st century society. The great thing about TOS, or one of the great things I should say, is that it was set in the future, but not so far that we couldn't identify with them.

 

[Melakon]

Because acccording to it, we may hear a new quote from the Guardian in the near future:

GUARDIAN: Time has resumed its shape. All is as it was before...

Any chance of the Guardian of Forever coming back would likely have to be allowed by Harlan Ellison, and that seems unlikely.

 

[Dukhat]

Because acccording to it, we may hear a new quote from the Guardian in the near future:

GUARDIAN: Time has resumed its shape. All is as it was before...

Any chance of the Guardian of Forever coming back would likely have to be allowed by Harlan Ellison, and that seems unlikely.

Plus they'd have to recast the Guardian as a white British guy, and they probably wouldn't want to do that twice in a row

 

[JWPlatt]

Because acccording to it, we may hear a new quote from the Guardian in the near future:

GUARDIAN: Time has resumed its shape. All is as it was before...

Any chance of the Guardian of Forever coming back would likely have to be allowed by Harlan Ellison, and that seems unlikely.

Wow, I'm amazed and amused at the wholly literal take on what I wrote. The whole thing with Guardian is about losing Prime to the Abramsverse. Or from the characters' point of view it was losing what they were to be to what the alternate reality had become. The quotes just fit the situation well - that's all - and I was toying with the unlikely event of a return to Prime in the films. In no way was I even remotely suggesting that they will bring back the Guardian.

 

[Melakon]

When you say "acccording to it", meaning the article, it sounds as if you're paraphrasing.

 

[JWPlatt]

It's a wishful extrapolation - not paraphrasing.

 

[Mudd]

the “nonsensical science and the rubbish plot.”[/I.

Nonsensical science is hardly new to Trek (which has long used it as a milk skin under which it does its thing), though the last two movies did seem to have an inordinate amount of it.

Did they? The plots of TWOK and TSFS turn more crucially on nonsensical foolishness they decide to call "science" than any other Trek movies I can think of.

 

[Ovation]

By a considerable margin at that.