When did Trek fandom start changing?

[Norsehound]

I still see some snarky comments trashing the Abrams side of the "Divide". Seems like some trek fans out there are hateful of where trek seems to be going and long for a return to the stale berman era.

Honestly though, I think you can divide the trek fandom along any number of lines, some deeper than others. But the Trek fandom is not as divided as others, like say, the BSG fandom (with one side rapidly eclipsing the other)...

 

[Phantom]

I'd need some examples of Trek fans being "dark and edgy" to understand what the OP means. Obviously people get different things from Trek. There are tech fans, military fans, shippers, SF fans and just straight up Trek fans. (To name but a few) So there have always been "splitters".

well, ok. to give an example, look to the debate in the thread I mentioned on "Trek and Liberalism"

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=275885

People used to defend the optimistic, progressive future that Trek embodied, but now, even professing Trek fans are taking shots at how "unrealistic" Trek is about certain issues.

Some other Trek fans, in my experience, have "turned" on Trek, or at least pre-JJ Trek. This is the infamous Prime/JJ split. People, both here and other places that have long histories of being pro-TNG/DS9/Voy/Ent now dismiss them outright or put them down. When people who used to enthusiastically talk about a show or shows start using words like "boring", "tired", "over and done with" about the same material, you have to go WTF?

Have we ourselves become that much more jaded and cynical than we used to be? Or is it simply a reflection of the cultural disconnect between a more optimistic view of the future Trek typically presents and our darker, grittier world we live in?

by Espaco-chica

... the attitudes expressed in the "Star Trek and Liberalism" thread, etc.

Did you have something specfic in mind, other than fan's politics are pretty much across the political spectrum?

Funny, I don't recall there being much of any Trek fans who before recently thought the Federation had any right to take the Baku's planet from them back then.

There are people who call themselves Trek fans now that make that argument. That's a huge change in attude.

And there's really no such divide between Prime/Nu Fans. If theyre posting here, most likely the hypothetical someone has has seen and liked some of the pre-Abrams Trek.

I know you've been in some of the threads in Fan Productions when certain posters started trolling on anyone mentioning productions "staying truer to the spirit of Trek" than certain other productions, with the attendent comments about "outdated", etc that went with that.

 

[Warped9]

TOS was, for many years, the big deal in television SF. And while I would say fandom in general was always evolving as people were exposed to more SF and reflected back on TOS and Star Trek in general. That's still going on.

Looking back I think fandom stated to really change (or perhaps fracture is a better word) when TNG came along. TNG attracted not only some of TOS' fans, but also fans who were never into TOS as well as some who weren't into any SF at all except TNG. And each successive series and then the reboot films signaled another fracturing.

When it was just TOS (along with TAS and the first six films) as well as tie-in merchandise it was pretty well understood what it meant to be a Trek fan. But with each new series and then reboot it got ever more subdivided.

Add into that mix people's exposure to other SF and fans projecting some of that back onto Trek (or whichever version they prefer).

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'd need some examples of Trek fans being "dark and edgy" to understand what the OP means. Obviously people get different things from Trek. There are tech fans, military fans, shippers, SF fans and just straight up Trek fans. (To name but a few) So there have always been "splitters".

well, ok. to give an example, look to the debate in the thread I mentioned on "Trek and Liberalism"

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=275885

I'd rather see specific example from the thread rather than have look at the whole 4 pages.

People used to defend the optimistic, progressive future that Trek embodied, but now, even professing Trek fans are taking shots at how "unrealistic" Trek is about certain issues.

There's nothing wrong criticizing Trek when it's unrealistic, that not going dark and edgy. And one can still admire the optimistic and progressive future while pointing that out.

Some other Trek fans, in my experience, have "turned" on Trek, or at least pre-JJ Trek. This is the infamous Prime/JJ split. People, both here and other places that have long histories of being pro-TNG/DS9/Voy/Ent now dismiss them outright or put them down. When people who used to enthusiastically talk about a show or shows start using words like "boring", "tired", "over and done with" about the same material, you have to go WTF?

These splits have been happening since TMP. It's well documented and Therin of Andor can speak more about that than I can. So let's not pretend its a Prime/JJ thing.

Curious about these people who have long histories of being pro-TNG/DS9/Voy/Ent that are now dismissing them. Frankly I don't know/recall enough of the posting history of the majority of the people here. So I doubt I could track a change of opinion. Heck from my interaction with the fanbase here all I can conclude is a lot of JJ fans are older and TOS fans. Which doesn't really mean much in the big picture.

Have we ourselves become that much more jaded and cynical than we used to be? Or is it simply a reflection of the cultural disconnect between a more optimistic view of the future Trek typically presents and our darker, grittier world we live in?

Nah, its just that jaded and cynical is more noticable. The worlds not darker and grittier. We just hear about it more. than we used to. Though,when TOS was on the air the Viet Nam was raging and people were seeing it unfold in their living rooms nightly. We were hearing, seeing and even participating in the struggle for Civil Right. A struggle that wasn't all that pretty at times. Trek reflected those times and those struggles. And it wasn't always optimistic and progressive. The characters often recognized that they (we) were not perfect and still had a way to go.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I still see some snarky comments trashing the Abrams side of the "Divide". Seems like some trek fans out there are hateful of where trek seems to be going and long for a return to the stale berman era.

Fans can have very short memories. There was a huge amount of snarking about the "newbie" fans attracted to fandom by ST:TMP. (I was one of those newbies.) A few years later, some of the same fans who'd talk about the "purity of vision" of the first two seasons of TOS, and were so scathing of Fred Frieberger for Season Three, were seemingly happy to embrace ST II despite Roddenberry's lack of involvement.

Looking back on back issues of our club newsletter, before my time, there'd been much snarking about TAS. Others called the financially successful ST IV "the dumbing down of Trek for the masses". Instead of being excited by TNG, other fans predicted its failure.

And yeah, the darker themes of DS9 (and of "Unification" and ST VI) were seen by some as some kind of celebrating of Roddenberry's passing.

But fandom, like everything, is cyclic. Like fashion, music styles and graphic art. There is a constant stream of fans becoming less passionate for Trek, moving on to other pursuits, and a constant stream of new arrivals. For every episode/movie, it is somebody's first exposure to Trek.

 

[Trekkin]

And there's really no such divide between Prime/Nu Fans. If theyre posting here, most likely the hypothetical someone has has seen and liked some of the pre-Abrams Trek.

I know you've been in some of the threads in Fan Productions when certain posters started trolling on anyone mentioning productions "staying truer to the spirit of Trek" than certain other productions, with the attendent comments about "outdated", etc that went with that.

I'm not going to comment on whether they were 'trolling', because that's not meant to be discussed here. But yeah, people have been calling TOS outdated since the first airing of TNG...including Roddenberry. That's why the franchise kept steadily changing things even when TNG, VOY etc were actually on-air. You can be a fan of something, and still think it's dated or that it can be improved.

For eg. I like the original film version of 'Gone With the Wind', and do think it's reached a kind-of cinematic immortality. That doesn't mean I'd want a modern adaptation to be made the exact same way. Because even when you make allowances for the story's context and the protagonist-centred world-view, parts of it are still very, very dated.

I also don't find modern Trek to be any more cynical or 'dark' than TOS. That coupled with the fact that they've sold more tickets than any film besides TMP, and that would suggest to me the opposite of audiences wanting 'darker' Star Trek.

 

[fireproof78]

I'd need some examples of Trek fans being "dark and edgy" to understand what the OP means. Obviously people get different things from Trek. There are tech fans, military fans, shippers, SF fans and just straight up Trek fans. (To name but a few) So there have always been "splitters".

well, ok. to give an example, look to the debate in the thread I mentioned on "Trek and Liberalism"

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=275885

People used to defend the optimistic, progressive future that Trek embodied, but now, even professing Trek fans are taking shots at how "unrealistic" Trek is about certain issues.

Some other Trek fans, in my experience, have "turned" on Trek, or at least pre-JJ Trek. This is the infamous Prime/JJ split. People, both here and other places that have long histories of being pro-TNG/DS9/Voy/Ent now dismiss them outright or put them down. When people who used to enthusiastically talk about a show or shows start using words like "boring", "tired", "over and done with" about the same material, you have to go WTF?

Have we ourselves become that much more jaded and cynical than we used to be? Or is it simply a reflection of the cultural disconnect between a more optimistic view of the future Trek typically presents and our darker, grittier world we live in?

I don't really find that all that troublesome, other than people's tastes and points of view change as they age and become more aware of different facets of the world.

I know several of my friends in college who could not stand anything Star Trek, and now enjoy it from time to time. Others who loved Trek and were working to produce fan productions and props and costuming, only to move on to different projects after several years.

Also, as for optimism for the future, should I really embrace without question the Trek optimism without wondering how we get there? I mean this in seriousness. I like Trek and all, but as my understanding of economics, physics, and the like expands, there are a lot more hurdles than a 60s TV was prepared to address.

And that's fine to question it and look for a better tomorrow. It just doesn't have to be GR's vision.

 

[T'Girl]

... the stale berman era ...

I still see some snarky comments ...

Interesting when we just reverse those two lines.

Funny, I don't recall there being much of any Trek fans who before recently thought the Federation had any right to take the Baku's planet from them back then.

When the movie first came out I was eleven, so I wasn't a part of the dialog then. However I am one of the fans who thinks that harvesting the particles for the benefit of more than a few hundred people was the correct thing to do. It was after all a Federation planet.

There are people who call themselves Trek fans now that make that argument. That's a huge change in attude.

But is this really a resent change, or were there in fact multiple positions on the part of the fans right from the start?

One of the reason I like this movie is that it presents different possibilities as to who's actually right, the final determination is up to each audience member. Most Star Trek movies are more black and white.

People used to defend the optimistic, progressive future that Trek embodied, but now, even professing Trek fans are taking shots at how "unrealistic" Trek is about certain issues.

Optimistic during TOS was simply that Humanity survived to have a future at all, a matter that was in some doubt during the 1960's.

Progressive (in America) is a term which is linked to one of the major political parties, and denotes moving in a political/social direction that not all agree with. And in terms of a desirable future isn't the one that I personally envision for Star Trek.

There is much about the world of Star Trek which is positive and fires the imagination, and that I will advocate moving toward. But some aspects of Star Trek are disturbing and I would council against our society attempting to obtain.

To put it mildly I have problems with the prime directive.

.

 

[Nightdiamond]

It used to be Picard vs Kirk, now it's Nu Trek vs Prime Trek.

I don't think certain fans necessarily want Trek to be darker, but to be more entertaining.

Especially with other shows taking risks and being edgier and edgier.

Fans wants suspense. They want to be shocked, they want interesting dialog. They want risk taking with stories and characters. They want the unusual.


The lighthearted style of TNG didn't always allowed that. And then the infamous fatigue set in.

And that's the problem; how do you keep Trek optimistic without becoming boring?

Game of Thrones is very entertaining but hardly optimistic. Star Trek was largely optimistic (no inter human conflict) but was eventially seen as boring.

 

[BillJ]

Funny, I don't recall there being much of any Trek fans who before recently thought the Federation had any right to take the Baku's planet from them back then.

Me.

I always thought the Federation had the right to take the planet. Going all the way back to the film's release.

 

[Trekkin]

Considering one of the early incarnations had the crew split over what to do in the situation, evidently the idea that the issue might not be black/white was thought up before the movie was even finished. They tweaked it when they changed their minds of course, but the idea of a 'grey' situation is still there in the movies roots.

Was it Patrick Stewert who said he'd have given the Baku the boot? I'm positive I've heard that, but I can't find the source.

 

[stardream]

Any fanbase that has been around as long as Trek's is going to have division. It happened with Doctor Who, Tolkien and Star Wars. Old versus New, this writer versus that writer, this actor versus that actor...this story arc versus that one, shippers versus hard science geeks. Its what happens and we can't stop it. Its also happened with one of the oldest of them which was a fandom before 'fandom' was a thing...Sherlock Holmes.


As far as dark and gritty is concerned...I believe that even those fans who want the most realistic bleak storylines still deep down want it to still have an element of hope...that things WILL get better. The bad times are a temporary setback.

I've said it myself over and over...a dark story is not necessarily a hopeless story.

 

[T'Girl]

Was it Patrick Stewert who said he'd have given the Baku the boot?

It's surprising (sometimes delightfully so) just how different Stewart and Picard are.

 

[Mudd]

The more accurate version of the question would be "When did Trek fandom start bitching about change?"

I'd say about 1975 or 1976, the first time that it was suggested that any Trek revival might not feature all of the original cast.

One could argue, I guess, that early complaining about the decline of story quality during the third year on NBC ought to count, but there really was not much that you could point to as "Trek fandom" in those days - to the extent fans were in contact with one another through conventions, fanzines etc. they were just cliques of folks within general science fiction fandom .

 

[fireproof78]

Funny, I don't recall there being much of any Trek fans who before recently thought the Federation had any right to take the Baku's planet from them back then.

Me.

I always thought the Federation had the right to take the planet. Going all the way back to the film's release.

Agreed. It seemed like a ridiculous, over-the-top moral situation that was forced in to black-and-white.

Even studio execs were confused as to the situation, since what was presented in the original script was that the Baku had reached a population level that could not sustain meaningful population growth.

Any fanbase that has been around as long as Trek's is going to have division. It happened with Doctor Who, Tolkien and Star Wars. Old versus New, this writer versus that writer, this actor versus that actor...this story arc versus that one, shippers versus hard science geeks. Its what happens and we can't stop it. Its also happened with one of the oldest of them which was a fandom before 'fandom' was a thing...Sherlock Holmes.


As far as dark and gritty is concerned...I believe that even those fans who want the most realistic bleak storylines still deep down want it to still have an element of hope...that things WILL get better. The bad times are a temporary setback.

I've said it myself over and over...a dark story is not necessarily a hopeless story.

"Dark and gritty" and "realistic" should not always be confused together, in my opinion. You can have more realism in characterization, or even in technology presentation without going Game of Thrones

I think the point about hope is the most important part. TOS was about a hopeful, optimistic, future that humanity survived all the wars (Eugenics Wars included) and worked together in cooperation.

The idea that the vision must be embraced whole-heatedly, and without question, is something I disagree with.

 

[Nightdiamond]

This is a!so the same Picard who urged Data to consider submitting (sacrificing) himself to a risky experiment because it would save or make human lives easier.

So there is a shade of grey when you consider the past actions of the participants.

But I could never get into dilema because the movie just wasn't interesting enough. It was too much like a TV episode.

I don't think Game of Thrones has aa particular formula, only that's it set in an interesting world where doing the right thing doesn't always save the day, and the characters are interesting.

From oddballs to sadists to rational moral people who still do crazy things once in a while.

That's pretty different than start with a problem, use a little science and action, solve the problem by the end and you clearly know whos the bad guy and who's the good guy.

 

[Noname Given]

TOS was, for many years, the big deal in television SF. And while I would say fandom in general was always evolving as people were exposed to more SF and reflected back on TOS and Star Trek in general. That's still going on.

Looking back I think fandom stated to really change (or perhaps fracture is a better word) when TNG came along. TNG attracted not only some of TOS' fans, but also fans who were never into TOS as well as some who weren't into any SF at all except TNG. And each successive series and then the reboot films signaled another fracturing.

When it was just TOS (along with TAS and the first six films) as well as tie-in merchandise it was pretty well understood what it meant to be a Trek fan. But with each new series and then reboot it got ever more subdivided.

Add into that mix people's exposure to other SF and fans projecting some of that back onto Trek (or whichever version they prefer).

honestly, the 'Trek/Not Trek' type of divergence started with TAS - and then again, when TMP came out, there was a big "It really doesn't feel like Trek, the characters are 'off' and the Enterprise is too different, and the Bridge has TWO turbolifts'...etc.

To try and claim 'divergence' started with TNG (I did start a BIG divergence to be fair that I saw); is whitewashing what were pretty large divisions previously that happened with both TAS and the TOS feature film run.

ST II:TWoK did unify a lot of rfandom as many who only cared for TV TOS did see that TWoK did get the characters back more to their TV attitudes and portrayals.

 

[Jeffe525]

Agreed to most everything above. There has never been complete agreement as to what Trek should be and what direction it should go in. If there was, we would have little need for forums such as this.

 

[fireproof78]

TOS was, for many years, the big deal in television SF. And while I would say fandom in general was always evolving as people were exposed to more SF and reflected back on TOS and Star Trek in general. That's still going on.

Looking back I think fandom stated to really change (or perhaps fracture is a better word) when TNG came along. TNG attracted not only some of TOS' fans, but also fans who were never into TOS as well as some who weren't into any SF at all except TNG. And each successive series and then the reboot films signaled another fracturing.

When it was just TOS (along with TAS and the first six films) as well as tie-in merchandise it was pretty well understood what it meant to be a Trek fan. But with each new series and then reboot it got ever more subdivided.

Add into that mix people's exposure to other SF and fans projecting some of that back onto Trek (or whichever version they prefer).

honestly, the 'Trek/Not Trek' type of divergence started with TAS - and then again, when TMP came out, there was a big "It really doesn't feel like Trek, the characters are 'off' and the Enterprise is too different, and the Bridge has TWO turbolifts'...etc.

To try and claim 'divergence' started with TNG (I did start a BIG divergence to be fair that I saw); is whitewashing what were pretty large divisions previously that happened with both TAS and the TOS feature film run.

ST II:TWoK did unify a lot of rfandom as many who only cared for TV TOS did see that TWoK did get the characters back more to their TV attitudes and portrayals.

Which is interesting because TWOK also created a riff between Meyer coming in as an outsider and establishing his own point of view on Trek that even GR disagreed with.

I was thinking about this a little bit more, and I think one aspect of fandom is a reflection of society. Fandom has shifted a little bit in terms of the accessibility of episodes, movies and the like being faster and able to instantly share your opinion. That has resulted in less appreciation of the production time needed to craft art (TV, music, movies, etc) and a greater inclination to want instant gratification.

It creates an odd reaction in society, that's for sure.

 

[Tracy Trek]

I think I know what you mean. When I was younger I was very wide eyed optimistic about Trek. Now that I'm older and more cynical, I find myself rolling my eyes over certain things like (for example) no conflict among humans or no conflict among members of the Enterprise crew. I mean the Enterprise D, because I feel like there was conflict on the original series. With Spock and McCoy anyway.