At no point in answering your question of whether or not I understand the benefits of a shared and consistent continuity was I attempting to address the question of appropriate behavior on the part of the fanbase.
Lets get to the point... saying
"whiney fanboys on the Internet" has no substantive part of your argument, yet you are attacking people with it.
I only started posting in this thread because
3D Master questioned someone else's fan standing over Kirk having kissed a green alien woman. I hold you in the same position as him because not only can't you argue your points without attacks, you aren't able to support your own cases because you are unwilling to see the points of the other side (or the failings of your own stance).
If you had no intension of seeing why people on the other side of this issue are upset, why post in a thread like this one at all?
No, it's a sign that I'm intolerant of intolerance. That I believe in giving new works of art a legitimate chance and not assuming that only one fundamental premise for a work of art is valid...
No. It's not that I don't see where others are coming from. I do. It's that I think they're wrong, and more to the point, that the attitudes they're espousing are actually dangerous to artistic freedom.
Intolerance of intolerance is intolerance.
But from this I'm guessing that you will attack anyone who is critical of anything. And you are placing yourself in the position of the
thought police? You'll kindly let us know exactly how we should react to other things in the world I suppose. Everyone should have the exact same taste (defined by you) and anyone who thinks differently should be beaten into submission... is that it?
That is not an expression of artistic freedom... that is totalitarianism.
And you will of course deny this, but you are being intolerant of others having a differing point of view... and you are doing it from a position of having already gotten what you want. You got what you want, other people didn't get what they wanted (and are unhappy about it), but you have to keep attacking the other side because they don't agree with you? Sorry, but that is saying that you want us all to march in lockstep, think only with approved thoughts and don't question authority.
And I know you are going to say...
but wait, I just want to give something new a chance. But that isn't what you are showing. You want us all to see it as you see it, and are intolerant of anyone who has a differing point of view. Totalitarian states often use the same terms about wanting to eliminate dangerous attitudes.
If we were to take the same attitudes some people are exhibiting towards this new film and apply it to, say, Shakespeare, we would never have gotten something like West Side Story.
Or
Forbidden Planet (which is based on Shakespeare's works too).
But that isn't what we are talking about, and if you actually believe that of the other side, then you are arguing without knowing what you are arguing against (which is exactly what I said before).
I gave a number of examples of long-standing works of art that have had multiple, different interpretations and continuities. You countered by claiming that they were all set in "the present" and that therefore they had to be given multiple continuities as time has gone one. I countered by pointing that one of the examples of works with multiple incarnations that is not set in "the present" is King Arthur. Yes, I'm aware that it has had many transitions -- in fact, that is why I mentioned it in the first place. And it has gained new interpretations well after it has ceased to be considered to have been set in "the present."
Spider-man, Superman, Batman, Bond... those works are very extensive and have been ever growing... like Star Trek. The
King Arthur story stopped growing and has not had additional story arcs added for years. It is one story, done in a number of different ways... same is true of all Shakespeare's works.
I'm astonished that you hold such a beautiful and classic story in such low regard. As far as I'm concerned, comparing Star Trek to The Wizard of Oz is a compliment.
I never said low regard, it is not comparable in the same way that the
King Arthur story isn't (or Shakespeare's works for that matter).
There are very few artistic canvases as extensive as Star Trek's. With a small canvas, you can't help but paint over the same area again, and again, and again. Star Trek has let tons of people express different visions in a collaborative work of art. This movie marks the first time that someone has decided to paint over someone else's work rather than pick a blank area on the canvas to start.
Your examples fail to take this into account. That failure then extends to your argument (which was already failing due to intolerance and lack of empathy).
I've explained already: I get angry at people that seek to inhibit other people's creativity and artistic freedom, so I argue back at them. It's really that simple.
Who is inhibiting here?
What is
is. This is a done deal. What is going to happen already happen (even if we haven't seen it all yet). So you are angry at people who are upset over something that can't be undone? No one here (to my knowledge) has any power to inhibit other people's creativity and artistic freedom with regards to Star Trek XI.
Unless you know of someone reading this that might pull the plug on this picture and destroy all evidence of it, no one here has any ability to inhibit others.
Though (again) you really seem to be one of those doing most of the attempted inhibiting of others. Was that what you wanted? Reread your arguments, you are pushing all the types of positions you
say you dislike only from your own point of view.
Fair enough. But don't imply that I'm not a true Trekkie, or that I don't understand the benefits of a shared and consistent continuity, just because I think that Star Trek should try a separate continuity.
I didn't imply anything... I stated that you are (based on your posts) incapable of seeing beyond your own arguments. You are in good company (most people here are as intolerant as you), but that isn't a good reason for that stance.
No, you're talking about feelings. I'm talking about artistic freedom and always have been.
And yet you advocate totalitarianism... which isn't freedom. And we are talking only about feelings because no one here can effect the artistic freedom of those making Star Trek XI.
Unless there is some
kill switch for Star Trek XI that we all might trigger by expressing our points of view, that is a false argument. You aren't and
can't effect their artistic freedom one way or the other.
The fact that you actually think you can is far worse than the
strawman argument people (like you) bring about others supposedly thinking Trek science is real. You are (appearently) living in a delusional world where we all have the power to stop this movie from coming out and you are fighting against that. Do you know how bizarre a position that is?
I have no empathy -- nor sympathy -- for people who want to inhibit other people's works of art.
I'll ask again... is there some
kill switch for Star Trek XI that I don't know about? Are you telling me that we could actually stop this movie and only you stand between us and this movie disappearing from history?
Please show us how in the world we can inhibit these people's works... at all!
Let me digress for a moment... with a non-Trek story.
I moved into my neighborhood about 11 years ago. It was a nice little suburban neighborhood with nice families... a pleasant place to live. A number of years ago our city made a deal to bring the Best Buy corporate campus here. In order to do this a number of businesses and a ton of houses had to be destroyed, with those people having no say in the matter. Illegal tactics were use to get those people out of their homes and businesses, and they eventually won a case against the city and Best Buy in the state supreme court.
Their homes and businesses are still gone and the Best Buy corporate campus is still here.
My home wasn't threatened (I live on the other side of the street) but I can have both empathy and sympathy for those people. But nothing will bring back what they lost.
You have no empathy... nor sympathy, for people even though Star Trek XI is inevitable at this point (even if you still harbor the delusion that only you can protect it). And what makes it worse is that you are displaying the worst qualities of what you claim to be fighting against.
“The man who fights too long against dragons becomes a dragon himself”
Try to read your own posts from someone else's point of view... see what you are actually presenting. You aren't in a position to
save Star Trek XI (nor is it needed to be saved), so ask yourself what you've actually accomplished in all those posts.
Pretty much every non-sci-fi movie is a movie for people who aren't fans of Star Trek - just look at the audience for Harry Potter; if they want to get non-fans in the seats, then they should just make other movies that don't have built-in barriers to their greed.
)
