Orci strikes back

[SeerSGB]

How long you been in this fandom? Or any fandom? People are going to call people on hypocrisy. In short: Bring the "A" game. Got an opinion? Great. Start citing how "X" is worse that "Y" cause "Y" is a superior product, you better be willing to back it up and then brace to get it torn down and torched.

If someone is posting their opinion on some important political issue like universal health care or gay marriage I would agree with you. I do not agree with you when it comes to frivolous things such as films. I was talking to a Star Trek fan at work a few weeks ago and he mentioned that Deep Space Nine was the worst Star Trek series without backing up his opinion. Should I have aggressively interrogated him and forced him to compare everything he didn't like to the other series? Should I then have "torn down and torched" his argument if his responses didn't satisfy me? Of course not, so why should we behave any differently on these forums?

Public forums, you don't get to say that everyone has to play the game your way. If you don't want to back up your opinion one can force you. However, people have the equal right to tear into it, and you can't force them to not to do so. When you slam something for something the rest of the franchise has done for decades, people are going to call BS and they're going to counter it and push for you to back your opinion.

You set the level of engagement, the same as the rest of us do. If you don't like defending your opinion, then don't.

 

[Tosk]

I loved several parts of Star Trek Into Darkness very much. But I refuse to be specific about why I loved them or what they were.

 

[Ovation]

And...?

 

[BillJ]

I loved several parts of Star Trek Into Darkness very much. But I refuse to be specific about why I loved them or what they were.

Strong building blocks for a great discussion!

 

[Nerys Myk]

Yep, this is a discussion board. If you post something, be it negative or positive, it will be discussed. Participation in that discussion is up to you.

 

[Opus]

If Gene were alive, he would mandate that in the future humanity no longer needs 'discussions'. It would be as unnecessary as gold, and the Columbia House Record and Tape Club.

 

[Set Harth]

Also, everyone would be naked.

 

[Opus]

Well, that goes without saying.

Although I do miss being able to get a hundred albums for a nickel...

 

[Commishsleer]

If Orci didn't want to deal with over-critical fans, many of whom actively worked on keeping the franchise alive for decades, judging his work, maybe he should work on reviving a different franchise. Maybe the Transformers? Spiderman?

That doesn't mean he has to put up with &^% from these fans (or anybody).

Orci can respond, of course. However, he ought not be surprised or offended by criticism from dedicated fandom. He would need to anticipate the same hesitation and suspicion if he were reimagining Shakespeare or Wagner, two other areas in which there is a built in and very opinionated audience. Added to that is the lore of fan involvement in making Trek a franchise with a long life. Saying that he is approaching things de novo--which is highly debateable--won't win his critics over.

Orci should have to put up with some criticism after all he can dish it out. But he doesn't have to put up with verbal abuse or personal attacks if thats what was happening.
he should be as protected from personal attacks as we are here on this or any other well moderated board.

A celebrity in my country nearly took desperate measures when she was constantly attacked on her (I think) twitter account. People were telling her to kill herself and to die when she hadn't done anything criminally or morally wrong. Just (perhaps foolishly) revealed too much of her inner self.

And now Orci doesn't have to put up with it as he is no longer interacting with the fans. Who suffers now - not him. The people who were enjoying the tweets and posts.

 

[Yorkshire Niner]

Um... okay, so where do I fit in? I don't care for big dumb Hollywood action flix, but I'm just fine with forgetting about the Trek spinoiffs (I'm quite happy to forget VOY and ENT).

Conscientious objector?

Decades of continuity from Star Trek spinoffs, derivative series created by other people. It should be thrown out.

Why? Range, variety and depth are not necessarily negative things for a fictional universe.

 

[JarodRussell]

How long you been in this fandom? Or any fandom? People are going to call people on hypocrisy. In short: Bring the "A" game. Got an opinion? Great. Start citing how "X" is worse that "Y" cause "Y" is a superior product, you better be willing to back it up and then brace to get it torn down and torched.

If someone is posting their opinion on some important political issue like universal health care or gay marriage I would agree with you. I do not agree with you when it comes to frivolous things such as films. I was talking to a Star Trek fan at work a few weeks ago and he mentioned that Deep Space Nine was the worst Star Trek series without backing up his opinion. Should I have aggressively interrogated him and forced him to compare everything he didn't like to the other series? Should I then have "torn down and torched" his argument if his responses didn't satisfy me? Of course not, so why should we behave any differently on these forums?

Eventually this is what always happens. The last resort when someone doesn't like a piece of entertainment is dissecting that opinion down to the tiniest level. It's an attempt of turning an opinion into something objective, which is a fallacy in itself.

Nitpicks are a symptom, not the cause, guys. When you see a movie, you either like the overall package or you dislike it.

So that whole "you must hold everything to the same standard" is absolute bullshit. Because there is no standard. The standard is at best "I liked it, so I overlook some flaws here and there" and "I disliked it, so I see flaws everywhere."

So stop that objectively scrutinizing bullshit. If that's your last straw in an argument to "defend" a film, just stop it.

 

[BillJ]

So stop that objectively scrutinizing bullshit. If that's your last straw in an argument to "defend" a film, just stop it.

Then, perhaps, it would be a good idea to quit dealing bullshit?

 

[BillJ]

Why? Range, variety and depth are not necessarily negative things for a fictional universe.

There's a point where you move so far away from the core of a work that you lose what made it special to begin with.

 

[Sindatur]

Also, everyone would be naked.

Well...YEAH, that's why there would be no need for discussion

 

[SeerSGB]

How long you been in this fandom? Or any fandom? People are going to call people on hypocrisy. In short: Bring the "A" game. Got an opinion? Great. Start citing how "X" is worse that "Y" cause "Y" is a superior product, you better be willing to back it up and then brace to get it torn down and torched.

If someone is posting their opinion on some important political issue like universal health care or gay marriage I would agree with you. I do not agree with you when it comes to frivolous things such as films. I was talking to a Star Trek fan at work a few weeks ago and he mentioned that Deep Space Nine was the worst Star Trek series without backing up his opinion. Should I have aggressively interrogated him and forced him to compare everything he didn't like to the other series? Should I then have "torn down and torched" his argument if his responses didn't satisfy me? Of course not, so why should we behave any differently on these forums?

Eventually this is what always happens. The last resort when someone doesn't like a piece of entertainment is dissecting that opinion down to the tiniest level. It's an attempt of turning an opinion into something objective, which is a fallacy in itself.

Nitpicks are a symptom, not the cause, guys. When you see a movie, you either like the overall package or you dislike it.

So that whole "you must hold everything to the same standard" is absolute bullshit. Because there is no standard. The standard is at best "I liked it, so I overlook some flaws here and there" and "I disliked it, so I see flaws everywhere."

So stop that objectively scrutinizing bullshit. If that's your last straw in an argument to "defend" a film, just stop it.

I nitpick and dissect stuff even if I like it. I want to know why I liked it. Personally, if my response is as simplistic as "I liked it" or "I don't like it", then I view that as a sign of a very shallow product. It has to hold up beyond the paint--to use a term--and have some substance. So if I like it, I'm going to go deeper into the "why" is to see if I really do like it or if I'm just impressed with the paint job.

And, yes, I hold all products to the same standard. Be it Star Trek, be it Star wars, be it Transformers, be it Macross. If the original/older stuff gets a pass on some of the idiocy that afflicts them, the newer stuff gets a pass on the same failings.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

That doesn't mean he has to put up with &^% from these fans (or anybody).

Orci can respond, of course. However, he ought not be surprised or offended by criticism from dedicated fandom. He would need to anticipate the same hesitation and suspicion if he were reimagining Shakespeare or Wagner, two other areas in which there is a built in and very opinionated audience. Added to that is the lore of fan involvement in making Trek a franchise with a long life. Saying that he is approaching things de novo--which is highly debateable--won't win his critics over.

Orci should have to put up with some criticism after all he can dish it out. But he doesn't have to put up with verbal abuse or personal attacks if thats what was happening.
he should be as protected from personal attacks as we are here on this or any other well moderated board.

A celebrity in my country nearly took desperate measures when she was constantly attacked on her (I think) twitter account. People were telling her to kill herself and to die when she hadn't done anything criminally or morally wrong. Just (perhaps foolishly) revealed too much of her inner self.

And now Orci doesn't have to put up with it as he is no longer interacting with the fans. Who suffers now - not him. The people who were enjoying the tweets and posts.

I never said, implicitly or explicitly, that Orci must live with death threats. Suggesting otherwise is a gross exaggeration.

 

[Commishsleer]

Orci can respond, of course. However, he ought not be surprised or offended by criticism from dedicated fandom. He would need to anticipate the same hesitation and suspicion if he were reimagining Shakespeare or Wagner, two other areas in which there is a built in and very opinionated audience. Added to that is the lore of fan involvement in making Trek a franchise with a long life. Saying that he is approaching things de novo--which is highly debateable--won't win his critics over.

Orci should have to put up with some criticism after all he can dish it out. But he doesn't have to put up with verbal abuse or personal attacks if thats what was happening.
he should be as protected from personal attacks as we are here on this or any other well moderated board.

A celebrity in my country nearly took desperate measures when she was constantly attacked on her (I think) twitter account. People were telling her to kill herself and to die when she hadn't done anything criminally or morally wrong. Just (perhaps foolishly) revealed too much of her inner self.

And now Orci doesn't have to put up with it as he is no longer interacting with the fans. Who suffers now - not him. The people who were enjoying the tweets and posts.

I never said, implicitly or explicitly, that Orci must live with death threats. Suggesting otherwise is a gross exaggeration.

No I wasn't saying he even had death threats or even close (at least I hope not). My example was what happen to one celebrity when her fans/anti-fans got out of hand.

I didn't mean to say or imply that anyone here would sanction that sort of behaviour. I apologise if anyone took it that way - it was not my intention.