Star Trek Fundamentalism

[Plumster]

A split in fandom is upon us it seems to me.

1) There are those who, no matter what, will denounce this film as divisive, destructive and evil. They agitate, they snipe, they cry rape.

I despise them, they sicken me, they killed Trek.

2) There are those who welcome a new beginning and a chance to what a fresh perspective will bring to the franchise. They are what Trek is about, they are open minded and willing to give it a chance.

I love these guys, they are Trek.

The irony inherent in the juxtapostion of my own position is obvious but I'll press on anyway.

Those whom I despise have had this coming for years and I'm laughing my socks off at them - they like to tell us what Trek is, they like to tell us that Voyager was worth watching week in and week out, they like to keep Trek as a dirty little secret moulded in their own image, increasingly inward looking and obsessed with it's own belly button rather than scanning the horizon and seeking out new life and new civilisations. A few thousand zealots ruined a casual audiences enjoyment of Trek and it all it could have been, the casual audience watched it because it was good and not inward looking and not concerned about something that might have happened in an episode 20 years previously. The zealots did this to Trek, they were responsible for it's decline and death. These cretins forgot Trek is a business too and that it needs Joe Public to watch it as well, they disenfranchised the millions who kept it going by watching it and bringing in the advertising revenue and sales of the product around the globe.

And do you know what really pisses the Zealot's off?

The studio is not listening to them any more, no more letter writing campaigns that are noted, no more 'leaks' from the cast over plot details not to their liking and no more making a film for a few lonely people hiding in their cellars.

I love that, I can't tell you how amusing I find this.

Trek died and what lived on, in the form of characters we love, is what will be imagined up on the screen in May. We might love it,we might hate it but it had to happen and it had to be done to show once and for all that geriatric actors running around in wigs and corsets on shaky sets is not what Trek is or should be, that idiot aliens with the de rigour bumpy foreheads frying eggs in the mess while in the 'Delta Quadrant' is not really entertainment.

Trek may die in May but what it takes with it once and for all is the idiots, the zealots and fundamentalists who contributed to it's demise. Fuck them and fuck what they did. JJ's vision of Trek is down to them if you think it through, they are to blame for all of this one way or the other actually.

If a big budget film with a big production value cannot reinvigorate the franchise then I am happy to consign Trek to posterity and reflect, at leisure, on the bits I loved while ignoring what I hated as well as those who killed a friend while protesting 'we told you so'.

You screwed it up with your love of registry numbers, canon violations, lack of imagination and self important demographic that reduced Trek to a soap opera set in outer space.

You only have yourselves to blame - have the guts to identify yourselves and justify your ignorance.

I dare you.

 

[Jax]

Amen

If your against us then get outta my way before we knock you down and go to the toilet on you

 

[Lashmore]

Splits like this, I recently learned have happened with the opening of most trek series.

So...its just an expected tide. Nothing of any true value.

 

[Plumster]

Splits like this, I recently learned have happened with the opening of most trek series.

So...its just an expected tide. Nothing of any true value.

I believe there is more to this than that. Yes - Enterprise agitated the base but this can sink the franchise because it's going mainstream. Enterprise was still 'niche' viewing and the studio won't be doing that again on Trek.

IMO.

 

[Lashmore]

Ermm...the franchise was sinking before this movie. Without this movie it would have sank, this movie has given it the chance to either continue sinking, or be reborn.

This movies doing more for the possibility of revival than any of the fans are. As noted in other topics, its not the fans that matter this time, its first time viewers.

 

[Plumster]

Ermm...the franchise was sinking before this movie. Without this movie it would have sank, this movie has given it the chance to either continue sinking, or be reborn.

This movies doing more for the possibility of revival than any of the fans are.

The franchise was at the bottom of the Channel mate - it showed on the shipping charts as a submerged hazard.

And that's my point, regardless of what happens on this movie, it had to happen because what it became was not relevant or interesting.

 

[Lashmore]

The franchise was at the bottom of the Channel mate

Where did I say anything that was opposite of that? Why need to repeat in other words pretty much what I was saying?

Example: treks on the hospital bed with no heartbeat, abrams is the doc about to zap the body and see if that works.

 

[Plumster]

The franchise was at the bottom of the Channel mate

Where did I say anything that was opposite of that? Why need to repeat in other words pretty much what I was saying?

Example: treks on the hospital bed with no heartbeat, abrams is the doc about to zap the body and see if that works.

As long as I stick to the rules, I can say what I like. And if agreeing with you is a sin, then I'm off to hell.

Now can we get on with the debate on the OP or have you finished? Perhaps you are one of these Zealot's that bother me so much, these spoiling tactics are very much a part of their M.O's.

Who are you? And what's with that beard?

 

[Lashmore]

Actually I'm all for the movie being a success...

Assumption is the weakness of most here.

It was more the wording you used, speak outloud your first sentence of the your 2nd reply to me, the 'mate' makes it sound as if your correcting me, when I was saying the same thing. then again, i could simply be assuming tone, my bad.

Again, i'm all for the movie.

I find trek ship designs and shapes silly as it is so although the new enterprise sticks with the same rough silly shape we've had with the 60's...its a lot more acceptable to my eyes the abrams version of it.

I like the art direction from what I've seen of the new movie in all ways too, bar the uniforms. That's one thing I kidna woulda liked them to skip the 60's look of. yes they are a little different but still snicker-worthy. Thats only one thing I find a little icky, and soemthign that doesn't matter.

As for who am I? And whats with the beard? Buy me dinner first, bub.

 

[Plumster]

Actually I'm all for the movie being a success...

Assumption is the weakness of most here.

It was more the wording you used, speak outloud your first sentence of the your 2nd reply to me, the 'mate' makes it sound as if your correcting me, when I was saying the same thing. then again, i could simply be assuming tone, my bad.

Again, i'm all for the movie.

I find trek ship designs and shapes silly as it is so although the new enterprise sticks with the same rough silly shape we've had with the 60's...its a lot more acceptable to my eyes the abrams version of it.

I like the art direction from what I've seen of the new movie in all ways too, bar the uniforms. That's one thing I kidna woulda liked them to skip the 60's look of. yes they are a little different but still snicker-worthy. Thats only one thing I find a little icky, and soemthign that doesn't matter.

As for who am I? And whats with the beard? Buy me dinner first, bub.

Hahaha - mate is a UK colloquilism for friend - nothing more.

I'm assuming nothing though - I have firm views on this subject and those who may be at the root of Trek's problems. I simply say it as I see it.

As for dinner, you are not my type.

 

[Nardpuncher]

We just have to be careful that if someone sees a picture of the new com panel and says it looks a bit like an iPod, or that the walls in the corridors are quite bright, that doesn't mean they don't like the movie, are too old, are close-minded and are everything wrong with Trek.

I'm eagerly anticipating the new movie, but there are people who are very against it...just be careful not to counter that by being their polar opposite.

 

[Plumster]

We just have to be careful that if someone sees a picture of the new com panel and says it looks a bit like an iPod, or that the walls in the corridors are quite bright, that doesn't mean they don't like the movie, are too old, are close-minded and are everything wrong with Trek.

I'm eagerly anticipating the new movie, but there are people who are very against it...just be careful not to counter that by being their polar opposite.

I treid to cover that in my OP.

The irony inherent in the juxtapostion of my own position is obvious but I'll press on anyway.

 

[Lashmore]

Mates also used too common with a smart ass comment on these boards, hence why I tend not to say it myself although Australian vocabulary and myself use mate a lot IRL.

Non Aussies/British use it as a derogation too often.

As for me being a part of treks problem, well probably. The main problem is keeping viewers. As said in other topics I'm a lover of the setting, and a general disliker of what I've seen on tv/theatre bar a few rare gems.

Most of my knowledge of trek is taken from www.ditl.org the culture sections, history sections, technology and ship sections all that. Why? Because I like the settings and as only someone that's been published (non-trek) only in Australia, I use the text based medium for role-play to keep those creative juices going. Currently I role-play on a trek based text simulation.

Again I'm all for the revision, I've felt over the past 15 years treks gotten too repetitive and bland and in much need of a manual reboot. I hope this movie succeeds in such.

I agree arguing over canon 'facts' is pointless, canon has broken its own canon many times over for it to be 'canon' anymore. I also agree that the die-hard fans that keep watching no matter how bad it gets helped in killing trek, I've said it elsewhere. Just because it said 'Star Trek' in the title they kept on watching and ignored the fact that the quality kept slipping. It's those that refused to note the decline in quality and scripts is what kept Trek limping further down the rabbit hole and beceoming lost.

I hope Abrams leap into the briar patch and into the rabbit hole to go fetch Trek is successful, but I'd be the first to join you in saying to them, "I told you so."

 

[Plumster]

Non aussies/british use it as a derogation too often.

Fair one. Not me though. Well, not on this occasion anyway.

As for Aussies, we love them here. How would we get served in any of our bars in the UK without the Aussies working illegally in them?

And I love this story - true by all accounts....

British gentleman arrives in Sydney for a business trip and presents himself to the Australian Immigration Officer at the airport.

Immigration Officer asks a few questions along the lines of 'How long you here for and what do you intend to do'?

British gentleman replies that he is here for business for 1 week.

Aussie Immigration Officer asks 'Do you have a criminal record'?

British gentleman replies 'No Sir I do not - I had no idea that one still needed a criminal record to get into Australia'.

Interesting link - not seen that before - thanks.

 

[Lashmore]

I trip people out with tracing my family line. On one end of the family tree it traces to a certain retired soldier of that list of crew and criminals that were in the first fleet.

The retired soldier was the only paying passenger onboard who wanted to make a new life. Hence my reply often about my link to the criminally based first fleet, "hey I'm a paying customer."

Then again, the rest of the family lines that trace back that far in my family are criminals.

Best of Both Worlds.

I've been to England, and I quizzed at least two so called 'Australian' bartenders there. The results turned out to be such: They were British 'pretenders' and not Australian at all- keep an eye out for that.

 

[Plumster]

I trip people out with tracing my family line. On one end of the family tree it traces to a certain retired soldier of that list of crew and criminals that were in the first fleet.

The retired soldier was the only paying passenger onboard who wanted to make a new life. Hence my reply often about my link to the criminally based first fleet, "hey I'm a paying customer."

Then again, the rest of the family lines that trace back that far in my family are criminals.

Best of Both Worlds.

I've been to England, and I quizzed at least two so called 'Australian' bartenders there. The results turned out to be such: They were British 'pretenders' and not Australian at all- keep an eye out for that.

Really?

How fucked up is that? Pretending to be Australian. Mind you, Kiwi's have been getting away with it for years..!!

Were you affected by the fires?

 

[Lashmore]

Gonna move this to PM's...you know how the mods here like to lock things that go off topic. Even if the off topic is productive as this is.

 

[Plumster]

Gonna move this to PM's...you know how the mods here like to lock things that go off topic. Even if the off topic is productive as this is.

Roger roger.

 

[RealTime]

Fundamentalists, on either side, didn't "kill" Star Trek. They are far too few in number to have had any effect. More likely, the show's producers and their bosses were attempting to target audiences that simply weren't there.

Star Trek was never dead anyways.


RT.

 

[JNG]

We might love it,we might hate it but it had to happen and it had to be done to show once and for all that geriatric actors running around in wigs and corsets on shaky sets is not what Trek is or should be, that idiot aliens with the de rigour bumpy foreheads frying eggs in the mess while in the 'Delta Quadrant' is not really entertainment.

Trek may die in May but what it takes with it once and for all is the idiots, the zealots and fundamentalists who contributed to it's demise. Fuck them and fuck what they did.

So let me get this straight...people who enjoyed Trek and so watched it were the ones who "contributed to its demise," and people who didn't watch it were saving it?

Dingaling.