Spoilers STAR TREK BEYOND

[Campe]

No, they're just expected to sit down, shut up, and watch passively as the franchises they love are torn apart and remade into what they see as cruel caricatures of themselves.

The fact that people are producing entertainment that some fans don't care for is not a good reason for them to complain.

None of the stuff they liked has disappeared - in fact, new technologies and means of distribution mean that they have easier access to all the older productions they want more quickly and easily than ever.

They have an absolute protected right to complain, but other folks have just as great a right to find that complaining repetitive and tedious and to say so.

Entertainment companies exist to produce films, TV etc for the purpose of making profits. OldTrek simply stopped being commercially viable. People who want the owners of these franchises to produce less popular and more old-fashioned versions of them may just as usefully complain about gravity.

I personally love the original series. It's why I have an appreciation of these new movies. What some may see as "tearing apart" and "cruel," I see as being a good start to bringing new fans in. But at the end of the day, if you don't like it? That's cool by me!

Let me put it this way: In Trek 2009, they wanted to show an origin story because origin stories were in then. Okay? How do you do an origin story about James Kirk, who goes through Starfleet Academy in four years and then has a career and gets to captain the Enterprise, in a two-hour movie? You can't. You have to make concessions and speed up the process a little bit.

Is it a little ridiculous that nuKirk would end up in command of the Enterprise permanently with little to no experience at the end of it? Absolutely. But, it's what the audience knows. It's what many of them want to see. And it was quite aptly addressed in Into Darkness. And say what you want about that one, but by the end, he earned that ship. He proved that he'd grown beyond the idea of not believing in the no-win scenario by sacrificing himself for his crew. (Granted, yes, he did come back to life.) But he earned the Enterprise with his sacrifice.

Spock is different. He has to be. He watched his world get destroyed and his mother die before his eyes. He's half human and was young and impressionable at that point. Of course that's going to affect him. And it works. It's not what we know from the original adventures but it works.

While I will admit, there are some aspects of Uhura I don't like, like her being attached to Spock, she is far more of an integral part than she almost ever was in her original incarnation. Her linguistic skills are key to both films.

That's been the point of these movies. To show a different take on these characters. You have to bring in modern sensibilities and hope that maybe new fans liking them will go back and watch the originals.

This hopefully sets the stage for Star Trek Beyond to bring these characters ever closer to the ones we know with some key differences. They can work in that framework. And while I still have more caution than optimism for this one, the more I see, the more I like.

 

[Franklin]

Here's what I don't understand. Remember Kirk's speech in STID?

There will always be those who mean to do us harm. To stop them, we risk awakening the same evil within ourselves. Our first instinct is to seek revenge when those we love are taken from us. But that's not who we are... When Christopher Pike first gave me his ship, he had me recite the Captain's Oath. Words I didn't appreciate at the time. But now I see them as a call for us to remember who we once were and who we must be again. Space, the final frontier....

That isn't speaking directly to Roddenberry's "vision thing?" I mean, come on. Edited to add: if this is in the movie, then how is Abrams's a traitor to "the vision?" Humans and the world they lived in were never portrayed as perfect in TOS, and Kirk would occasionally speak to that, himself (especially in "A Taste of Armageddon"). But we grow. We try. I think the vein of that spirit in TOS was conveyed beautifully in STID.

 

[Campe]

And that's a tenet of Trek I absolutely adore. That we strive to do better. Because we can. TNG, I don't think personally, got that right, until First Contact and Picard and Lily's heated conversation about "evolved sensibility" and "working to better ourselves."

Kirk's journey in STID showed that striving in spades.

Well said, Franklin!

 

[M'Sharak]

...

So are the holier-than-thou AbramsTrek superboosters.

I am mightily sick of the whole "It's ours now, shut up and go away you loser dinosaurs!" attitude that seems to be the core of every NuFandom for the last decade.

That said, what Campe98 mentioned is really going on and what you describe is a preposterous exaggeration and generalization - "seems to be" is a nice weaselly phrase. No one has taken anything away from oldTrek fans - or folks who like the original Star Wars, Ghostbusters, oldBSG etc.

No, they're just expected to sit down, shut up, and watch passively as the franchises they love are torn apart and remade into what they see as cruel caricatures of themselves.

And when they do speak up, they have to put up with the holier-than-thou NuFans lecturing endlessly to them about "nerd rage", "fear of change" and generally consigning them to the proverbial Outer Darkness for not wholeheartedly embracing the Glorious New Vision.

Phantom, you might want to take a step back. You're waxing hyperbolic.

And I guess it's time for a general reminder for everyone to be more careful with labels for groups of fans with whom you may not agree. We're all Trek fans here, so play nice.

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

This whole conversation right now, reminds me of so some of the endless debates over at TheForce.net/Jedi Council Forums...

OT vs PT, Lucas vs Disney and so on...

 

[F. King Daniel]

The clique of nutty AbramsTrek superhaters have, thankfully, lost any and all credibility outside of their own little fanclubs.

Yup. They're just like flies that you can't unfortunately swat.

So are the holier-than-thou AbramsTrek superboosters.

I am mightily sick of the whole "It's ours now, shut up and go away you loser dinosaurs!" attitude that seems to be the core of every NuFandom for the last decade.

My comment was aimed at the extreme "fans" like Para Mobius (or whatever he calls himself now), whose claims included such gems as Into Darkness really costing around $60 million to make, and that greedy old JJ Abrams embezzled the rest of the $180 million budget. There was also Leslie, a Picard/Riker slash fan writer who claimed to have written a Trek movie script (or three) for CBS once Orci's story was dropped.

These are the people I'm glad to see nobody takes seriously. It's nothing to do with reasonable people who dislike the reboot movies.

 

[Franklin]

And that's a tenant of Trek I absolutely adore. That we strive to do better. Because we can. TNG, I don't think personally, got that right, until First Contact and Picard and Lily's heated conversation about "evolved sensibility" and "working to better ourselves."

Kirk's journey in STID showed that striving in spades.

Well said, Franklin!

Well, you did alright the post above mine, too.

It's the best tenet in TOS, in my opinion. Despite all the show's shortcomings (and it had some), and despite not really pressing the envelope as far in television as some give it credit for, I'd still say the one recurring theme that made TOS stand out in the genre, and still does to this day, is its optimism about the growth of mankind.

In some ways, that's why I fear a Trek TV show, today. Maybe I'm getting old, but it seems that what tends to succeed on TV today, especially in Trek's genre, is more gritty, ironic, morally equivocal, skeptical, and cynical than any recreation of "Star Trek" could ever be and still be considered "Star Trek". (Not that I don't enjoy some of that, too.) Still, even I'm setting limits for what is or isn't something I'd call, "Star Trek", at least at its thematic heart and core.

 

[Campe]

Many want a darker Trek or just a continuation of Trek and the way the show was going at the end of Enterprise just really didn't appeal to me. It was good stuff in seasons 3 and 4 but season 3 almost went too dark and season 4 almost went too much in the way of overcatering to the fans. If it continued down either of those paths, I would have tuned out.

I don't think you're showing your age. I think it's a reality these days. In a world where we are so cynical, we need optimism now, more than ever. It's too bad a Trek series that went to that tenet (thank you for correcting me there ) would never be successful. That makes me a little sad. You can do it in a two-hour movie, just not a weekly series.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

This whole conversation right now, reminds me of so some of the endless debates over at TheForce.net/Jedi Council Forums...

OT vs PT, Lucas vs Disney and so on...

 

[Christopher]

In some ways, that's why I fear a Trek TV show, today. Maybe I'm getting old, but it seems that what tends to succeed on TV today, especially in Trek's genre, is more gritty, ironic, morally equivocal, skeptical, and cynical than any recreation of "Star Trek" could ever be and still be considered "Star Trek".

On the other hand, The Flash is doing quite well with an optimistic tone. And Supergirl is taking a similar tone and getting very strong buzz. So maybe there's still room for unironic optimism.

 

[Phantom]

What you don't realize, Phantom, is first, while I'm not old, old school, I am older than most of the people who you discuss. Also, what you don't know is the almost religious fanaticism that has come out of the reactions of the anti-reboot fans. Look at many of the Facebook groups these days and you can see how holy and mighty the Roddenberry vision has become in some of these groups.

So because some of the GR defenders can get that way too justifies the NuFans' bad attitude?

First, Roddenberry was a man. He was a man that created what it is we're talking about today but he is a man.

After reading the "unauthorized" (ie, "honest") GR bios and behind the scenes books, I'm well aware of just how flawed a man GR was.

Second, at the beginning, he was only interested in making a dime off of his idea. Nothing wrong with that. I respect that a creative-type wants to make a living off of his ideas. Then, the fans created this legend about him and he bought into it.

Actually, he was interested in both. Making a buck and engaging in the traditional s-f creator's persuit of commenting on the human condition. Trek wasn't his first soapbox. That would be The Lieutenant. Ultimately killed the show and po-d NBC because he went crusading.

When Next Gen came along, we had a whole new Roddenberry who spouted this idea about no conflict in the ranks of Starfleet and everyone was happy all the time!

Some of that came from Gene, but a lot of that was apparently Maizlish.

Well, these fans have taken this to a level of ridiculousness. They lie, they bully, they play the martyr and they attack anything they don't like. They have taken it to the point where Roddenberry is their God and they put it and their desire to "decanonize" these new movies to a new level. I've fought this battle for months and I'm sick of it. So you'll pardon me if I take umbridge to what you say here because I hate these generalizations.

So you're basically agreeing with me than, only going the other way with it.

I don't like those people either. But "they do it too" doesn't justify the bad attitude.

I have my issues with every iteration of Star Trek including these reboots. But I find them entertaining. If you have a problem with that, I'm sorry. But I've done my best to keep my negativity towards the "dinosaurs" as YOU put it to a minimum. So don't take it out on me.

I'm just using phrases I have personally had used on me.

You seem to be perceiving a personal (as in you personally) slight. Unless you're one of the people behaving as I spoke about, you're in the clear.

I am mightily sick of the whole "It's ours now, shut up and go away you loser dinosaurs!" attitude that seems to be the core of every NuFandom for the last decade.

Straw man.

I have had those exact sentiments (and on a few occasions, those exact words) expressed towards me across numerous fandoms for many years now.

The point is simply that fandom can be expanded to incorporate the new.

Ok, then we can expect to see Paramount/CBS giving us more Prime universe Trek then? I'm not holding my breath waiting. There is no attempt at "big tent". They've put Prime Trek on the shelf and are catering to the NuFan crowd.

And no, a few tie-in novels and comics is not the same as putting into production new, on-air/big screen Trek set in the original continuity.

There have been purist fans condemning every new incarnation of Star Trek, from the animated series to the movies to TNG to ENT. They were all rejected as "not real Trek" at first, and there were always purists who pretended that there was an insurmountable divide between the old and the new, but there were also plenty of fans who just quietly liked both. And in the long run, that inclusive attitude has always won out over the fabricated us-vs.-them mentality. Because fandom is a big tent with room for everybody, and the people who are willing to come together into a larger group and share their fandom are always going to have a numerical advantage over the ones who use their fandom to exclude and shut out the people they disagree with.[/QUOTE]

See above. Having been effectively "shut out" as an Old School fan numerous times and derided by the now dominant NuFans exactly as I described, I can tell you that there is little desire on their part to "come together".

You don't have to look for proof any farther than the attitudes oft expressed about people who openly dislike JJTrek right here on this board.

No, they're just expected to sit down, shut up, and watch passively as the franchises they love are torn apart and remade into what they see as cruel caricatures of themselves.

So don't watch it then. There are plenty of TOS reruns and old movies for you to enjoy; nobody ever tied you to a chair and forced you to watch the new ones.

Ah, I knew I'd missed one: the "shut up and enjoy what you already have" argument.

What if we want NEW stuff of like kind? SoL I guess...

And when they do speak up, they have to put up with the holier-than-thou NuFans lecturing endlessly to them about "nerd rage", "fear of change" and generally consigning them to the proverbial Outer Darkness for not wholeheartedly embracing the Glorious New Vision.

So stop displaying nerd rage and a general fear of change and people will stop accusing you of it.

Thank you for just proving my point.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In some ways, that's why I fear a Trek TV show, today. Maybe I'm getting old, but it seems that what tends to succeed on TV today, especially in Trek's genre, is more gritty, ironic, morally equivocal, skeptical, and cynical than any recreation of "Star Trek" could ever be and still be considered "Star Trek".

On the other hand, The Flash is doing quite well with an optimistic tone. And Supergirl is taking a similar tone and getting very strong buzz. So maybe there's still room for unironic optimism.

I think the tone has changed with the genesis of that cynicism. Most of the younger generation these days have grown up in a country and a world that seems deliberately set on a path to decline. Higher cost of living and fewer opportunities; higher expectations and fewer rewards; corporations have all the power even (especially?) when they're proven incompetent; politicians are rewarded for being corrupt and punished for trying to make a difference.

The reason this SEEMS like something new is because most of us grew up on that same diet of optimism and expected things to be better than they were before. There seems like a lot of wasted potential in a society that generates under-achievers as its number one domestic product.

That's what a lot of people didn't get about STXI. Reinventing Kirk's story along those lines IS a generational thing. It's the story of a guy with enormous potential finally being given a chance to realize that potential and climb his way out of mediocrity. STID carried that theme with the "Prove you're ready!" narrative but then did us one better: "Show us what you really stand for." As before, we find out that Kirk is willing to sacrifice just about anything for his "family," the crew of the Enterprise. Not for Marcus, not for the Federation, not even for revenge. Its his PEOPLE that matter most to him.

That's optimism for the young cynic of the 21st century. Your society turned its back on you and your government is run by a bunch of assholes who've betrayed everything you've ever believed in and marginalized or killed everyone you've ever respected. SCREW THEM. You still have a greatness inside you, you and your brothers and sisters. Stick together and do what's right.

 

[Campe]

You seem to be perceiving a personal (as in you personally) slight. Unless you're one of the people behaving as I spoke about, you're in the clear.

As I've indicated, I've tried to not behave in that manner. Am I perfect? Absolutely not. And you responded to my post. So yeah, I am going to take it a little personally.

Regardless, I think we're more or less on the same page here. Probably both a little heated over situations in the past that we've both dealt with. I say we call it a misunderstanding, shake hands (so to speak) and move on. Cool?

 

[Franklin]

In some ways, that's why I fear a Trek TV show, today. Maybe I'm getting old, but it seems that what tends to succeed on TV today, especially in Trek's genre, is more gritty, ironic, morally equivocal, skeptical, and cynical than any recreation of "Star Trek" could ever be and still be considered "Star Trek".

On the other hand, The Flash is doing quite well with an optimistic tone. And Supergirl is taking a similar tone and getting very strong buzz. So maybe there's still room for unironic optimism.

I'd like to hope so. To that end, I'll be keen to see how "Batman v. Superman" ends.

 

[Phantom]

The fact that people are producing entertainment that some fans don't care for is not a good reason for them to complain.

In other words: if you don't like it, just "sit down and shut up". If you're paying for a good or service (crudely put) and you don't feel you're getting what you want you have every right to complain.

None of the stuff they liked has disappeared - in fact, new technologies and means of distribution mean that they have easier access to all the older productions they want more quickly and easily than ever.

And, as I asked above, if we want MORE of the stuff we prefer? SoL, right?

Entertainment companies exist to produce films, TV etc for the purpose of making profits. OldTrek simply stopped being commercially viable. People who want the owners of these franchises to produce less popular and more old-fashioned versions of them may just as usefully complain about gravity.

There is no showing that Old Trek is no longer commercially viable. Berman's vision of Old Trek may have been (and I'd actually agree with you if that is what you were saying), but the implication is given That the Old Trek setting is no longer viable.

Put it in the hands of a not-burned out creative team (my suggestion is as always Coto and the Reeves-Stevenses) and turn them loose.

Here's what I don't understand. Remember Kirk's speech in STID?

There will always be those who mean to do us harm. To stop them, we risk awakening the same evil within ourselves. Our first instinct is to seek revenge when those we love are taken from us. But that's not who we are... When Christopher Pike first gave me his ship, he had me recite the Captain's Oath. Words I didn't appreciate at the time. But now I see them as a call for us to remember who we once were and who we must be again. Space, the final frontier....

That isn't speaking directly to Roddenberry's "vision thing?" I mean, come on. Edited to add: if this is in the movie, then how is Abrams's a traitor to "the vision?" Humans and the world they lived in were never portrayed as perfect in TOS, and Kirk would occasionally speak to that, himself (especially in "A Taste of Armageddon"). But we grow. We try. I think the vein of that spirit in TOS was conveyed beautifully in STID.

And that's a tenet of Trek I absolutely adore. That we strive to do better. Because we can. TNG, I don't think personally, got that right, until First Contact and Picard and Lily's heated conversation about "evolved sensibility" and "working to better ourselves."

Kirk's journey in STID showed that striving in spades.

Well said, Franklin!

I'll admit that ID was a lot better than 09. It was still too broad and shallow, and too much Frat Boy Kirk at times, but it was an improvement.

It's still not Prime Trek though.

Phantom, you might want to take a step back. You're waxing hyperbolic.

Am I honestly? I can tell you that I've had those exact phrases used on me so many times across multiple fandoms that I've lost count. "Nerd Rage" in particular has become a meme. You don't become a meme without becoming so common that you become considered almost ubiquitous.

And I guess it's time for a general reminder for everyone to be more careful with labels for groups of fans with whom you may not agree. We're all Trek fans here, so play nice.

Fair enough.

This whole conversation right now, reminds me of so some of the endless debates over at TheForce.net/Jedi Council Forums...

OT vs PT, Lucas vs Disney and so on...

Yes, the NuFan mentality has infested Star Wars fandom too, unfortunately.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I have had those exact sentiments (and on a few occasions, those exact words) expressed towards me across numerous fandoms for many years now.

Unless your behavior on those other "fandoms" was considerably more aggressive than it is here (and it's pretty damn aggressive as is) I'm gonna have to call bullshit.

Mainly because everyone who enjoyed the new movies ALSO enjoyed the old material too. Moreover, this isn't the first time you've made that accusation but even IN CONTEXT it appears to be more projection than anything.

See above. Having been effectively "shut out" as an Old School fan numerous times and derided by the now dominant NuFans exactly as I described, I can tell you that there is little desire on their part to "come together"

And surely it never occurred to you that hobbyhorsing on "I hate the reboot series and how dare you not respect me for that!" is not something anyone would want to come together with?

Why do YOU feel the need for your negativity to be heard by everyone and anyone whenever you feel the need to express it?

So don't watch it then. There are plenty of TOS reruns and old movies for you to enjoy; nobody ever tied you to a chair and forced you to watch the new ones.

Ah, I knew I'd missed one: the "shut up and enjoy what you already have" argument.

What if we want NEW stuff of like kind?

Start an STO character. They brought back the entire cast of Voyager for the last season, plus all the old Voyager aliens, even Voyager itself, with all new storylines and plots and locations.

FYI: moving the game in this direction basically made it unplayable for me, because I DETEST Voyager and am actively disinterested in any of the species of the Delta Quadrant, let alone a game that heavily focusses on them. Which is a shame, IMO, because I feel that Voyager fans are just an extremely vocal minority and pandering to them exclusively is probably a bad move.

You will notice, however, that I do not spend any time on the Gaming forum trolling about how much I hate the Voyager plotlines in STO. I don't bring it up in these discussions either, and I generally tolerate Voyager because there were PARTS of it that were actually enjoyable and I try to extract those parts whenever the opportunity presents itself (example: Basics Part I and II were descent episodes, even if the ones immediately before and after them were crap). I do the same thing with Nemesis, by the way, which I consider to be the WORST TREK MOVIE EVER MADE; I tend to skip the entire movie and go straight to the space battle at the end because it's the only part of the film that doesn't make me want to claw my own eyes out with salad tongs.

Thank you for just proving my point.

I can't take credit for that.

 

[Campe]

It's still not Prime Trek though.

I'm not trying to be mean or degrading to Prime Trek because I do love most of it, but that, in my mind is a good thing.

How much baggage does Prime Trek have behind it? 736 adventures. That's enough to watch one a day for two years and still have some left over.

Every season from the start of DS9 to the end of Enterprise, the franchise hemorrhaged viewers. It became more difficult to bring in new viewers because they said, "30 seasons of Star Trek? I have to watch all of that to know what's going on? Pass." And the existing fanbase was tuning out little by little.

Now, you have this brand new series with no real strings and new fans who see them and love them. Maybe they're just watching them and saying, "Okay, that's great, when's the next one coming out? There's more? Eh, I can wait." Then there are others saying, "This is amazing! And there's MORE?!? THAT much more?" And they'll watch. I have friends who have done both. And I think it's great.

It doesn't belittle the old stuff. It draws attention to it. I'm sorry they're not producing new Prime stuff. Maybe someday they will bring something in that will make everyone happy. But for now, this is what we have. I respect you don't like it. But I don't know what else to do about it at this point for those who don't.

 

[Phantom]

Many want a darker Trek or just a continuation of Trek and the way the show was going at the end of Enterprise just really didn't appeal to me. It was good stuff in seasons 3 and 4 but season 3 almost went too dark and season 4 almost went too much in the way of overcatering to the fans. If it continued down either of those paths, I would have tuned out.

I don't think you're showing your age. I think it's a reality these days. In a world where we are so cynical, we need optimism now, more than ever. It's too bad a Trek series that went to that tenet (thank you for correcting me there ) would never be successful. That makes me a little sad. You can do it in a two-hour movie, just not a weekly series.

I disagree, actually. Yes, you can make an optimistic show that isn't "Gee golly gosh" about it set in the Prime universe that still has something to say.

I would examine the theme of how big powers respond when they're no longer "king of the heap". The post-Dominion War era is perfect for such a show. With the big powers all torn apart, and the rise of newer upstart powers (I'd borrow the Typhon Pact from the tie-ins), how would the Federation rebuild? How would a people who blithely swanned though a safe, almost-perfect universe deal with having the harsh reality of an imperfect universe slap them across the face? What do good people do when the world goes to hell around them?

I've heard the premise described as "winning the war, but struggling to win the peace afterwards".

You want to know why I know that question can work commercially? Because it in some ways already is. It's called The Last Ship, which touches on similar themes.

You seem to be perceiving a personal (as in you personally) slight. Unless you're one of the people behaving as I spoke about, you're in the clear.

As I've indicated, I've tried to not behave in that manner. Am I perfect? Absolutely not. And you responded to my post. So yeah, I am going to take it a little personally.

Regardless, I think we're more or less on the same page here. Probably both a little heated over situations in the past that we've both dealt with. I say we call it a misunderstanding, shake hands (so to speak) and move on. Cool?

Fine by me. I often mix direct responses to posts with original and/or related thoughts, so I can see how you might get that idea.

We're cool.

 

[Franklin]

In some ways, that's why I fear a Trek TV show, today. Maybe I'm getting old, but it seems that what tends to succeed on TV today, especially in Trek's genre, is more gritty, ironic, morally equivocal, skeptical, and cynical than any recreation of "Star Trek" could ever be and still be considered "Star Trek".

On the other hand, The Flash is doing quite well with an optimistic tone. And Supergirl is taking a similar tone and getting very strong buzz. So maybe there's still room for unironic optimism.

I think the tone has changed with the genesis of that cynicism. Most of the younger generation these days have grown up in a country and a world that seems deliberately set on a path to decline. Higher cost of living and fewer opportunities; higher expectations and fewer rewards; corporations have all the power even (especially?) when they're proven incompetent; politicians are rewarded for being corrupt and punished for trying to make a difference.

The reason this SEEMS like something new is because most of us grew up on that same diet of optimism and expected things to be better than they were before. There seems like a lot of wasted potential in a society that generates under-achievers as its number one domestic product.

That's what a lot of people didn't get about STXI. Reinventing Kirk's story along those lines IS a generational thing. It's the story of a guy with enormous potential finally being given a chance to realize that potential and climb his way out of mediocrity. STID carried that theme with the "Prove you're ready!" narrative but then did us one better: "Show us what you really stand for." As before, we find out that Kirk is willing to sacrifice just about anything for his "family," the crew of the Enterprise. Not for Marcus, not for the Federation, not even for revenge. Its his PEOPLE that matter most to him.

That's optimism for the young cynic of the 21st century. Your society turned its back on you and your government is run by a bunch of assholes who've betrayed everything you've ever believed in and marginalized or killed everyone you've ever respected. SCREW THEM. You still have a greatness inside you, you and your brothers and sisters. Stick together and do what's right.

Interesting. I like that. Further, contrast it to the period when TOS was being created and first aired. Civil rights legislation was being passed, there was the War on Poverty, and in general, the idea of activist government working for a better future had the most support it may ever have. Then look at what happened as Trek went on the air, the worm turned on Vietnam, MLK and RFK were assassinated, the economy started to tank, and within about five years after TOS was cancelled (but while it was taking off in syndication), Watergate occurred.

While TOS was born in the shadow of the Cold War, it's optimism was derived from showing a world where we didn't destroy our civilization just when our government was trying to make inroads on things like poverty and racial equality. From that perspective, TOS presented us a possibility of what could happen if peace prevailed and our leaders worked for good.

As you put so well, that feeling and attitude is lost on younger generations (the prime demographic), today. It can still exist, I suppose, but it had to be established in another, more contemporary, and maybe even less pollyannaish way.

 

[Phantom]

I have had those exact sentiments (and on a few occasions, those exact words) expressed towards me across numerous fandoms for many years now.

Unless your behavior on those other "fandoms" was considerably more aggressive than it is here (and it's pretty damn aggressive as is) I'm gonna have to call bullshit.

Mainly because everyone who enjoyed the new movies ALSO enjoyed the old material too. Moreover, this isn't the first time you've made that accusation but even IN CONTEXT it appears to be more projection than anything.

See above. Having been effectively "shut out" as an Old School fan numerous times and derided by the now dominant NuFans exactly as I described, I can tell you that there is little desire on their part to "come together"

And surely it never occurred to you that hobbyhorsing on "I hate the reboot series and how dare you not respect me for that!" is not something anyone would want to come together with?

Why do YOU feel the need for your negativity to be heard by everyone and anyone whenever you feel the need to express it?

Ah, I knew I'd missed one: the "shut up and enjoy what you already have" argument.

What if we want NEW stuff of like kind?

Start an STO character. They brought back the entire cast of Voyager for the last season, plus all the old Voyager aliens, even Voyager itself, with all new storylines and plots and locations.

FYI: moving the game in this direction basically made it unplayable for me, because I DETEST Voyager and am actively disinterested in any of the species of the Delta Quadrant, let alone a game that heavily focusses on them. Which is a shame, IMO, because I feel that Voyager fans are just an extremely vocal minority and pandering to them exclusively is probably a bad move.

You will notice, however, that I do not spend any time on the Gaming forum trolling about how much I hate the Voyager plotlines in STO. I don't bring it up in these discussions either, and I generally tolerate Voyager because there were PARTS of it that were actually enjoyable and I try to extract those parts whenever the opportunity presents itself (example: Basics Part I and II were descent episodes, even if the ones immediately before and after them were crap). I do the same thing with Nemesis, by the way, which I consider to be the WORST TREK MOVIE EVER MADE; I tend to skip the entire movie and go straight to the space battle at the end because it's the only part of the film that doesn't make me want to claw my own eyes out with salad tongs.

Thank you for just proving my point.

I can't take credit for that.

You just did (and proved my point again). You want me to "sit down and shut up" because I'm not an unabashed and total fan of NuTrek. Then you cast aspersions on my opinions and myself by calling my experiences "bull****" and accusing me of "projecting" and "hobbyhorsing".