I think it's also because if all we did was say "Star Trek is awesome" all the time, it wouldn't be very interesting around here. Everyone's going have elements they like, and elements they don't like. That's what makes it interesting.
This sounds to me a bit like people on the 10th floor saying the first floor is completely unnecessary.I genuinely dislike TOS. It's hammy acted, and has poorly developed characters. The 24th century Treks were richer and had better storylines, as well as top-notch acting. Sir Patrick Stewart, Avery Brooks, Nana Visitor and Robert Picardo were by a light year the best actors in the 24th century Trek, better than any TOS cast member lol.
I guess that virtually everybody registered on these forums is a ST fan. This being the case why do we spend so much time criticising it. I know that ST is not perfect but to read a lot of the posts on here you might think that you were reading a "I Hate Star Trek" forum.
Any opinions?
For the record I like all the series and all the films, so there.![]()
I genuinely dislike TOS. It's hammy acted, and has poorly developed characters. The 24th century Treks were richer and had better storylines, as well as top-notch acting. Sir Patrick Stewart, Avery Brooks, Nana Visitor and Robert Picardo were by a light year the best actors in the 24th century Trek, better than any TOS cast member lol.
Dead on.Because everyone has their own idea of what Star Trek should be and shouldn't be, as well as what parts of Star Trek they like and don't like.
It also helps that the internet is a perfect outlet for anonymous bitching...welcome to Fandom 101!
In like manner no one is more critical of a professional sports team than a die hard fan of said team.It's true in a way, because for many people, if you really like something, you're more likely to examine it and pick it apart. That's definitely true of me.
True.People here tend to be passionate about Trek, they care about it. Otherwise they wouldn't take the time to criticize it in that much detail.
I genuinely dislike TOS. It's hammy acted, and has poorly developed characters. The 24th century Treks were richer and had better storylines, as well as top-notch acting. Sir Patrick Stewart, Avery Brooks, Nana Visitor and Robert Picardo were by a light year the best actors in the 24th century Trek, better than any TOS cast member lol.
This sounds to me a bit like people on the 10th floor saying the first floor is completely unnecessary.
No, I totally agree with you. I didn't mean to suggest that the majority of viewers are like that, simply that my perception of the most vocal viewers who post here seem to suffer from these tendencies. In other words, the loudmouths from the niche of the niche of the niche.![]()
HEAR, HEAR!I genuinely dislike TOS. It's hammy acted, and has poorly developed characters. The 24th century Treks were richer and had better storylines, as well as top-notch acting. Sir Patrick Stewart, Avery Brooks, Nana Visitor and Robert Picardo were by a light year the best actors in the 24th century Trek, better than any TOS cast member lol.
I guess that virtually everybody registered on these forums is a ST fan. This being the case why do we spend so much time criticising it. I know that ST is not perfect but to read a lot of the posts on here you might think that you were reading a "I Hate Star Trek" forum.
Any opinions?
For the record I like all the series and all the films, so there.![]()
HEAR, HEAR!I genuinely dislike TOS. It's hammy acted, and has poorly developed characters. The 24th century Treks were richer and had better storylines, as well as top-notch acting. Sir Patrick Stewart, Avery Brooks, Nana Visitor and Robert Picardo were by a light year the best actors in the 24th century Trek, better than any TOS cast member lol.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.