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.
A purely subjective observation. You dislike people who denounce this film. It's an odd way to judge character.
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.
Well, at least you're consistent. Would a fresh perspective include, for example, a
Star Trek sitcom?
I disagree with you about what the "zealots" liked. I think they hated
Voyager and
Enterprise. Most of the episodes substituted a particle-of-the-week approach for vision. The science fiction in either series was light and unimaginative, and the dialog was flat. But they did have beautiful visual effects and just enough good episodes (about one in eight for
Voyager and one in five for
Enterprise in my opinion), that I tuned into the show each week. When the shows did dive into
Trek "canon" for story ideas, the result was frequently disappointing. Consider the
Voyager episode "Flashback" which supposedly tied into the movie
Undiscovered Country. The events in the episode killed a character who was later (by story chronology) seen at the end of the movie. That's exactly the sort of bad storytelling that sets "zealots" off with their obsession for detail. Then there were irregularities with the presentation of the Romulans, Ferengi, and Borg in
Enterprise. And instead of giving the "zealots" the Romulan War stories they wanted, the third season of
Enterprise gave us the Xindi War.
Right! Wait ... huh? There are no leaks? There were constant leaks up through the end of
Enterprise, and we sure know a lot about the single movie produced since even though it hasn't aired. And when was the last letter-writing campaign successful? The one to save
Enterprise actually raised money and it didn't go anywhere.
Voyager, regretfully, didn't need one. Nor did
DS9 or
TNG. And before that? Maybe the one that gave
TOS its second season, although I've read that even that campaign is in doubt.
And which film was made for lonely people hiding in their cellars?
Nemesis introduced a major new alien race from out of nowhere that apparently had been living in plain sight within the Romulan Empire ... instead of giving us Romulans, we got Nosferatu. And a clone of Picard that didn't look like Picard. Oh, and who can forget bald cadet Tom Hardy even though we know from Trek "canon" that Picard had hair in those years?
Insurrection -- well, I won't say anything bad about that film, because it's my favorite of the
TNG films -- but it was a quaint, local story even though
DS9 was in the middle of their Dominion War arc and it would have been more consistent to see the role the
Enterprise played in that, so I don't think anyone was listening to the zealots then.
First Contact? The movie with, according to canon, a Zephram Cochrane played by too old an actor and an Earth that was in no position to support an on-going space program? The movie with the dumbest use of time travel since ... er ...
Generations, and that ripped the novelty of the Borg to shreds by introducing us to the hideous notion of a Borg "queen". Nope, I don't see much fan influence there. Maybe the zealots ruined
Generations? The film that killed Kirk. Yeah, the fans were behind that one alright. Let me cut to the chase ... I have yet to see a
Trek movie that followed Trek canon faithfully, even my absolute favorite
The Motion Picture which introduced radically changed Klingons that took over two decades to "resolve" in a half-assed
Enterprise episode.
Trek didn't "die."
As I pointed out elsewhere, this upcoming film was being negotiated less than a year after the cancelation of
Enterprise. And it appears Paramount was the party that started those negotiations. Star Trek is an enduring idea about an optimistic future that isn't ever going to die. By the way, this notion of Trek dying is about as rhetorically sound as saying someone has raped their childhood. It's a ridiculous statement that should be laughed at and rebuked with a condescending reminder to "just drink your drink."
You've failed to demonstrate this point of yours that the "zealots" killed [
]Star Trek. I point the finger at generally bad storytelling.
Huh? JJ had an idea of what he'd like to see in Trek. I doubt any zealots backed him into a corner.
What if it's a big budget film with big production values, but a lousy story? I'm not saying Abrams' film has a lousy script, but the history of cinema is filled with examples of well-funded, well-shot garbage. Sometimes all the glitz is enough to convince an audience to spend enough to make a film profitable, but usually studios aren't that lucky.
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.
So a good franchise can't be internally consistant? It can't progress logically from previously shown episodes? Take a look at
Heroes, sometime. There's a show with huge potential, yet the writers keep making mistakes, ignoring details they've set previously and changing character motivations. The show's a mess and sinking in the ratings because the audience is bright enough to give up and go elsewhere for entertainment that makes more sense.
Sit down and drink yer drink, laddie.
