If Star Trek Beyond fails

[martok2112]

I know what will happen if Star Trek Beyond bombs Fantastic Four-style.

In another 10 years we really will get a reboot, and it will differ even more from TOS than the current ones do. Roles shall be recast, tone and focus will be changed, special effects improved, characters *gasp* reimagined!

And after the hoards of angry Trekkies have vented their spleens and retreated back to the Internet, Berman, Braga, Abrams and Orci shall creep out, look upon the bloody, half-eaten remains of that poor future creative team and think:

'Ha!'

'Ha!'

well told!

 

[Tim Walker]

There was no "rich tapestry" when I became a "Star Trek" fan. There were 79 episodes being played over and over again on my local CBS station every afternoon after school. There was an animated series. That was it. The bare bones.

It's the same bare bones approach taken in the new movies. Keep the "admirable qualities" that existed long before there was a tapestry, and make it as accessible to a 14 year-old today as it was to me in 1974.

Only those of us long-time fans now in our 30s, 40s, and 50s (and older), are going to appreciate any "rich tapestry" because we followed it as it was made. Further, movies aren't really made for us any more. "Star Trek" (TOS) started out and grew as popular as it did with a young demographic. That fan demographic grew old with the franchise, but at some point, you get diminishing returns from a fan base that's growing older and shrinking.

That rich tapestry to some (and I have no problem calling it that as a life-long fan) is rightly or wrongly seen as an incomprehensible and daunting mess of excess baggage to others. A "barrier to entry" to being a fan. The feeling that one really can't fully enjoy or understand what one's seeing if they don't know how it all ties in to things from certain episodes of various Trek shows from twenty years ago or so. Probably before the would-be fan was born.

IN MY OPINION, the admirable qualities of "Star Trek" that drew me to the series when there was no tapestry to appreciate were kept and the baggage was paired down significantly so a new audience could have a feeling that they were there "at the beginning" and discovering those qualities for themselves. Qualities that have been around fifty years and are seeking new relevance. That's pretty good. IN MY OPINION.

Good points! Good argument for a reboot!

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Hipsterism in comics leads to the deconstructionist books like Ultimates that portray heroes as barely better than the villains they fight.

Incorrect. Deconstructionism is actually a well-established literary trope that implies the inversion and/or subversion of cliches. It's one of the various ways a writer can come at a familiar concept from a new angle and retell an old story in a novel way.

The "antihero" is the classic example of this; it is a deconstruction of the standard "noble hero" concept and is at least as ancient as literature itself. While a hero is considered to be a paragon of virtue and the exemplar of society's ideals, the antihero is a kind of asshole who manages to do the right thing in spite of his flaws.

Artistotle actually considered the antihero to be the more virtuous of the two. The hero, he believed, does what he does because it is in his nature to be virtuous; antiheroes manage to achieve positive behavior only through considerable effort.

Which doesn't change the fact that the Ultimates are a complete inversion of the character types designed to deconstruct the very idea of the superhero as hero, not jackbooted thug or agent of the evil state (both of which the Ultimates are portrayed as being).

Certainly not. It's an inversion of a common set of themes that are so overused they have almost become cliches.

But the use of antiheroes is not "hipsterism" by any coherent definition of the term. Not unless the writer is deliberately trying to get ahead of some arbitrary pop-culture trend. The Ultimates might have been a "hipster" concept if it came out in, say, 1955 but the ship's long sailed on that concept.

By dumbing it down to their level, it's basically "talking down" to them.

Still not hipsterism.

Besides which, a lack of high-minded pretentiousness is NOT the same thing as "dumbing down."

Not "mainstream" as in General Audience fan. Mainstream as in the subgroup that are Star Trek fans.

There's no such thing as a "mainstream sub group." You're either in the mainstream (the majority of consumers in a culture) or you're a niche (a small group of people who like for different reasons).

In arguing that Star Trek is trying to appeal to the former group, you are effectively arguing that Star Trek is "too mainstream." So what exactly does that make you?

[Hotlinked image removed. Embedded images should be hosted on web space registered to you. - M']

That is your experience. It wasn't mine, nor is it that of many many Star Trek fans.

Your uniquely negative experience doesn't seem to be shared by the MAJORITY of Star Trek fans, though, nor for the mainstream audience that exists outside of the community that you would consider "fans."

Again: "hipster" isn't the term for what you're describing. There actually doesn't seem to BE a term for what you're describing and you're better off going with a simple "I didn't like it." Because at the end of the day "I didn't like it" is about the only thing you've said that makes any amount of sense.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

TOS-only fans, reboot-only fans, TNG-era diehards, ENT defenders, Klingon-obsessives. They're all just spokes on a wheel. This one's on top, then that one's on top. And on and on it spins, crushing mainstream perception of our fandom.

I'm going to break the wheel.

We all love Star Trek. Let's keep loving Star Trek.

 

[F. King Daniel]

We all love Star Trek. Let's keep loving Star Trek.

No. You're loving it wrong and need to be told, at length, why you're not a True Fan.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Don't start with me, Danny Boy! I just re-read the DenofGeek article on why there's no new Trek series currently in development and sifted through a bunch of anti-nuTrek "we speak for all true fans" nonsense in the comments section; I'm not in the mood!

...why I immediately came here afterward is beyond me...

 

[Trekkin]

The same reason I'm currently sitting in the cinema car park, psyching myself up for the 7pm showing of Fant4sic.

You're a glutton for punishment.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Haha.

Yep.

 

[eyeresist]

The same reason I'm currently sitting in the cinema car park, psyching myself up for the 7pm showing of Fant4sic.

I assume alcohol is involved?

 

[Trekkin]

No. Just the same morbid curiosity that lead to me watching Fifty Shades of Grey all seven Saw films.

 

[fireproof78]

No. Just the same morbid curiosity that lead to me watching Fifty Shades of Grey all seven Saw films.

I mean, that is an interesting film selection to watch. But, that seems to be quite a lot of punishment, but that might just be me.

Hope you did at least enjoy yourself

 

[Trekkin]

I'll try anything once. It's lead me to find some great things, and a whole lot of shit.

I had more fun then I thought I would. We always tend to have a good gab in the carpark after a bad or odd movie, and F4 managed to be both.

 

[Phantom]

There's no such thing as a "mainstream sub group."

Incorrect. It's a matter of defining your context and audience.

That's what Venn diagrams document.

Trek fans are a subset of the General Audience.

JJ Trek fans are a subset of Trek fans.

When I refer to "mainstream" fans of Trek I am referring to that subset of Trek fans that are not fans of JJ Trek. Orci and Kurtzman's writing expresses their contempt for those mainstream (ie non-JJ) Trek fans.

 

[Franklin]

There's no such thing as a "mainstream sub group."

Incorrect. It's a matter of defining your context and audience.

That's what Venn diagrams document.

Trek fans are a subset of the General Audience.

JJ Trek fans are a subset of Trek fans.

When I refer to "mainstream" fans of Trek I am referring to that subset of Trek fans that are not fans of JJ Trek. Orci and Kurtzman's writing expresses their contempt for those mainstream (ie non-JJ) Trek fans.

The part I put is bold is the kind of statement that is hurting your arguments.

I like what Orci and Kurtzman did, so I'm no longer in the mainstream? A place where I've been since the early 1970s? Trust me, I'm as mainstream as it can get. And because that's where I reside, and I like Orci and Kurtzman, they are still are contemptuous of me? Preposterous. Next, you'll tell me Abrams raped my childhood (an oldie but a goodie on these boards ).

 

[BillJ]

I like what Orci and Kurtzman did, so I'm no longer in the mainstream? A place where I've been since the early 1970s? Trust me, I'm as mainstream as it can get. And because that's where I reside, and I like Orci and Kurtzman, they are still are contemptuous of me? Preposterous. Next, you'll tell me Abrams raped my childhood (an oldie but a goodie on these boards ).

+1

And Abrams didn't rape your childhood, he just touched it in a naughty place.

 

[JWPlatt]

Orci and Kurtzman's writing expresses their contempt for those mainstream (ie non-JJ) Trek fans.

That's an interesting statement. As I often say, statements like this demand examples and a deeper analysis. It's not enough to just say so.

 

[Phantom]

There's no such thing as a "mainstream sub group."

Incorrect. It's a matter of defining your context and audience.

That's what Venn diagrams document.

Trek fans are a subset of the General Audience.

JJ Trek fans are a subset of Trek fans.

When I refer to "mainstream" fans of Trek I am referring to that subset of Trek fans that are not fans of JJ Trek. Orci and Kurtzman's writing expresses their contempt for those mainstream (ie non-JJ) Trek fans.

The part I put is bold is the kind of statement that is hurting your arguments.

I like what Orci and Kurtzman did, so I'm no longer in the mainstream? A place where I've been since the early 1970s? Trust me, I'm as mainstream as it can get.

Are you? It's perfectly possible to like both, but does the position "I like both" truly represent that mainstream Trek fan position? The presence of a opposing sentiments across large stretches of the media say otherwise.

 

[JWPlatt]

So no supporting analysis? I was looking forward to it.

 

[BillJ]

Are you? It's perfectly possible to like both, but does the position "I like both" truly represent that mainstream Trek fan position? The presence of a opposing sentiments across large stretches of the media say otherwise.

Does the people of this board represent the "mainstream Trek fan position"? Because the people here overwhelmingly liked both Abrams films. Into Darkness poll below.

Where do we look for "mainstream Trek fans" and their positions on these movies?

 

[Sindatur]

Incorrect. It's a matter of defining your context and audience.

That's what Venn diagrams document.

Trek fans are a subset of the General Audience.

JJ Trek fans are a subset of Trek fans.

When I refer to "mainstream" fans of Trek I am referring to that subset of Trek fans that are not fans of JJ Trek. Orci and Kurtzman's writing expresses their contempt for those mainstream (ie non-JJ) Trek fans.

The part I put is bold is the kind of statement that is hurting your arguments.

I like what Orci and Kurtzman did, so I'm no longer in the mainstream? A place where I've been since the early 1970s? Trust me, I'm as mainstream as it can get.

Are you? It's perfectly possible to like both, but does the position "I like both" truly represent that mainstream Trek fan position? The presence of a opposing sentiments across large stretches of the media say otherwise.

Mainstream means General Audience or Average Joe. Even if you are going to twist it into a new meaning as a Sub Category of "Mainstream Trek Fan", you will come out to fans of NuTrek, since those fans who like Star Trek of old are a smaller segment of the audience than the fans of NuTrek who aren't necessarily fans of any Prime Universe Trek.

Words have meaning, why the verbal gymnastics, rather than simply saying Fans of only PrimeTrek, which is a much smaller group than those who like NuTrek (Regardless wether fans of Prime Trek as well or only of NuTrek)?