That would mean waving the white flag. Verbal gymnastics are all one has when every piece of tangible evidence is against your position.
If Star Trek Beyond fails
- Thread starter Dales
- Start date
- Status
That would mean waving the white flag. Verbal gymnastics are all one has when every piece of tangible evidence is against your position.
The white flag? As in "last lap?" After all, we've been going 'round and 'round on this quite a while.
By the way, I'm not only in the mainstream among fans, I was there back when it was just a trickle.
(OK. I know. I'll show myself out.)
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?
But what about those 100 or so "Star Trek" fans at the panel at the "2013 'Star Trek' Convention" in Las Vegas? WHAT ABOUT THEM!?
By the way, I'm not only in the mainstream among fans, I was there back when it was just a trickle.
This is what I'm absolutely tired of: the insinuations that if I like the Abrams films that I'm not a Trek fan, traitor to "Roddenberry's Vision" or part of the lowest common denominator audience.
By the way, I'm not only in the mainstream among fans, I was there back when it was just a trickle.
This is what I'm absolutely tired of: the insinuations that if I like the Abrams films that I'm not a Trek fan, traitor to "Roddenberry's Vision" or part of the lowest common denominator audience.
As I am. I make no demands for there to be a Star Trek membership card, or bouncer, but I'm still trying to figure out where the goal posts are that Abrams films missed for being Star Trek.
If others don't like them, that's fine and I wish everyone well in their entertainment pursuits. But, this is not favorite sport's teams. Liking Abrams films does not preclude one from liking any other Star Trek series or film.
Meh, most everyone I know who likes Star Trek likes the new movies - and a lot of us go back to September 8 1966.
Given the international success of the new movies, it's really on the folks who keep declaring that "most" serious fans don't like them to produce some real evidence.
Given the international success of the new movies, it's really on the folks who keep declaring that "most" serious fans don't like them to produce some real evidence.
By the way, I'm not only in the mainstream among fans, I was there back when it was just a trickle.
This is what I'm absolutely tired of: the insinuations that if I like the Abrams films that I'm not a Trek fan, traitor to "Roddenberry's Vision" or part of the lowest common denominator audience.
As I am. I make no demands for there to be a Star Trek membership card, or bouncer, but I'm still trying to figure out where the goal posts are that Abrams films missed for being Star Trek.
If others don't like them, that's fine and I wish everyone well in their entertainment pursuits. But, this is not favorite sport's teams. Liking Abrams films does not preclude one from liking any other Star Trek series or film.
With apologies to Will Rogers: I'm not a member of any organized fan group, I'm a Trekker.
I think they were expressing their contempt for the self-righteous, self-appointed "this is not Star Trek, and anyone who thinks otherwise are idiots" lot.
I love all Trek from TOS through JJ Abrams.
The notion that folks who hate these films represent a "mainstream" of anything is just arrogant, insular nonsense. If anything the opposite is true.
I mean, the fact that a couple of Facebook pages dedicated to hating the movie are run by a convicted sex offender and a delusional pedagogue does not place them in any kind of mainstream movement.
I mean, the fact that a couple of Facebook pages dedicated to hating the movie are run by a convicted sex offender and a delusional pedagogue does not place them in any kind of mainstream movement.
In context: "Mainstream" is the broad group in which sub-groups may exist. "mainstream subgroup" is a contradiction in terms.
"Star Trek fans" are a subset of science fiction fans (and arguably, intermediate of that, fans of space opera), and science fiction fans are a subset of fiction readers/viewers. The "mainstream" refers to that which appeals to the broadest base of the superset and implies that what will be true for the mainstream will usually be true of an equal proportion of the sub-groups.
A group that deviates significantly from the mainstream is referred to as a "niche" or a "cult." Such a group is not considered part of the mainstream because it does not reflect mainstream trends in some important way.
To be perfectly clear on this point:
Is correct
Is incorrect.
JJ Trek DETRACTORS are a subset of Trek fans.
Thank you for giving me the Venn Diagram idea, because it works out roughly like this:
But what about those 100 or so "Star Trek" fans at the panel at the "2013 'Star Trek' Convention" in Las Vegas? WHAT ABOUT THEM!?
Maybe they're the same 100 posters who rated STID below a "C"?
But what about those 100 or so "Star Trek" fans at the panel at the "2013 'Star Trek' Convention" in Las Vegas? WHAT ABOUT THEM!?
Maybe they're the same 100 posters who rated STID below a "C"?
Based on everything I've seen elsewhere, I think it's fair to wonder if those folks were handpicked because of their opinions.
If this is going to keep drifting back to talking about fans or making unsupportable statements concerning fan groups (or concerning the attitudes of the writers thereto,) rather than talking about the movie, then the thread may not have a reason to remain open much longer.
Just sayin'.
Just sayin'.
Eww. I'm a Trekkie. Trekkies are like men with the self-confidence to wear pink shirts. Trekkers found the Trekkie label embarrassing somehow and relabeled themselves. I say take ownership of the original label and make it your own!
I liked the movies just fine. But I dislike the lens flare as a crutch and bad habit, and I dislike the alternate reality because it makes me feel disconnected from the Star Trek I knew - like going home to find that your real family has been replaced by Twilight Zone clones or androids. Otherwise, I'm fine with any movie they want to make, even if I end up not liking it. That said, I've bought every one. I only go to a theater once or twice a year to see a movie. If there is a Star Trek release, it is always one of them. In 2013, The Hobbit was the other - unfortunately.
You can see here, the Death Star crashing into the nearby forest moon of Endor because the deflector shield was somehow repurposed as a tractor beam when a drunk Imperial Officer decided to play with the ground circuitry.In context: "Mainstream" is the broad group in which sub-groups may exist. "mainstream subgroup" is a contradiction in terms.
"Star Trek fans" are a subset of science fiction fans (and arguably, intermediate of that, fans of space opera), and science fiction fans are a subset of fiction readers/viewers. The "mainstream" refers to that which appeals to the broadest base of the superset and implies that what will be true for the mainstream will usually be true of an equal proportion of the sub-groups.
A group that deviates significantly from the mainstream is referred to as a "niche" or a "cult." Such a group is not considered part of the mainstream because it does not reflect mainstream trends in some important way.
To be perfectly clear on this point:
Is correct
Is incorrect.
JJ Trek DETRACTORS are a subset of Trek fans.
Thank you for giving me the Venn Diagram idea, because it works out roughly like this:
Don't cross the red and blue wires!!!!
oh, you are referring to Darth Sophie's choise, are you not
This is awesome.TOO LAATE!!!!!! (or as translated from some languages in Star Wars: "Som Peetch Alaaaayyyyyyyy!!!!!"
- Status
Similar threads
