ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Why do Zealous Fan Boys Wish for Failure?

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this May. 09 2013, 7:30 pm

Quote: Blockman @ May. 09 2013, 6:12 pm

>

>You're judged by the effort you expend bickering against the opposite side. Shows how much you truly care/how worth-it you consider their argument to be.


>


I'm not sure that's true.


Both sides make some very valid points (and some rather nutty ones...), some of which I can't agree with -- but at the end of the day those who enjoy the films will watch them, and those who don't can stop watching them (as long as their significant other allows them to...). Not bickering does not render their opinion less valid.


The points that people make regarding the film/s, as I mentioned before, become invalid when they cross into the realm of ad hominem.


Sorry if you are being ironic somehow. I'm not always very good at recognising irony.


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

Blockman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 520

Report this May. 09 2013, 8:07 pm

Don't worry bro, I notice myself using too much irony/sarcasm as well, sometimes...


 


 


lol. is that a case of it again ^^^^^^ !?!??


 


darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this May. 09 2013, 8:14 pm

The points that people make regarding the film/s, as I mentioned before, become invalid when they cross into the realm of ad hominem.


I agree but it seems to me that there are more personal attacks being directed towards the "haters" than coming from them.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 09 2013, 9:59 pm

Quote: darmokattanagra @ May. 09 2013, 8:14 pm

>

>The points that people make regarding the film/s, as I mentioned before, become invalid when they cross into the realm of ad hominem.

>I agree but it seems to me that there are more personal attacks being directed towards the "haters" than coming from them.

>


My personal problem is haters directing ad hominem attacks at Abrams and crew and wishing them personal ill will.


If you want to hate the movie, great. But don't treat Abrams like some sort of mutant beast that needs a stake driven through it (sarcasm for those keeping score at home).


 

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 10 2013, 8:21 am

[quote]


I don't think my opinion is going to change anything but I'm not going to stay silent while I am generalized and labeled a "toddler," a "loser" or an "entitled droolmonkey." Especially by those who clearly have their own "entitled, narrow-minded" view of what Star Trek is or should be.


Also, if all you're going to do is ride the fence and laugh at "nerds" and "fanwanky zealots" then why bother throwing your two cents in at all? Just sit back and enjoy the show.


 


P.S. One of the CAPTCHA words for this post is "Zealot."



[/quote]


 


Once again...POINT MISSED. Do you guys actually read the responses?


 


I don't understand what is SO difficult to comprehend here. 


 


Not liking the movie isn't the issue. Let's cut throught the BS: I don't like Enterprise and I really don't like Voyager. Neither of them did a dang thing for me. That's fine. We all have our tastes. But I don't jump up and down like a crazy person flailing my arms and setting myself ablaze over it. 


So, let's spell it our real clear here for all of the sensitive people to understand:


No like new movie = fine


Act like hateful obsessed psycho because no like new movie = not fine


 


Not sure where the difficulty in this one is guys. I'm really not.


 


Let's try this:


"I don't like the new movie...and here's why" = fine


"JJ Abrams is a @#$% and my life has been ruined by him. I hope the new movie fails miserably and Orci and Kurtzman end up @#$ed in @#$%!!!!!" = not fine


One is normal, natural behavior and invites debate and differing opinions. The other is the behavior of droolmonkey zealot toddlers. Sorry. 


The question is, which catagory do you fit into? Enough with the victim and persecution complexes. If you're handling yourself reasonably, what's the big deal? If you're acting like a jackass...well...maybe you SHOULD feel threatened by topics like this.


 


Just some food for thought.

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this May. 10 2013, 8:47 am

S'funny but of all the reviews I have read on here so far of the jj movies, I have yet to read one of these rabid rants you are referring to.


Could you perhaps point me to a couple so I can grok what you mean?

darth_timon

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 17

Report this May. 10 2013, 9:30 am

The trouble with us Trekkies as a collective fanbase is that we can be extremely obsessive. Star Trek, for some of us, is far more than a TV show. We become possessive, defensive and paranoid about it.


So, if something changes (as it did when JJ's first film came out), the reactions can be almost violent. Everyone has their own vision in their head of what Star Trek should be and suddenly everyone is up in arms at why the new thing doesn't match their vision and should be therefore be condemmed.
 


They're so passionate and arrogant they'll decry other peoples' opinions and insist that only their view of Trek is the right way, and they don't realise how bad they make themselves look.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 10 2013, 10:16 am

darth_timon,


 


The sad thing about that is that the fans who are so "passionate" as you've described fail to take the fundamental ideals and principles of what the franchise was built on and apply them to their own lives.


So many people think Star Trek is about "utopian future" or "peaceful exploration by an enlightened mankind" or whatever. But it's really not. At it's core, Star Trek is about people (and aliens) accepting each other's differences, being TOLERANT and learning to work together in spite of them to accomplish great things. 


That's really all it's about. 


So when people go into their little panic shells and behave as you've described because they're not getting THEIR vision, they are going directly against the very fabric that the franchise is built upon. 


 

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 10 2013, 10:27 am

I don't consider all negative reactions arrogance or obsessive.  If that is the case then should all positive reactions be categorized as followers and sheep who will consume anything labeled Star Trek without thinking?  


I don't like the new series.  The 2009 movie irked me but I was willing to live and let live because of the promise that it would be a new story, with new directions and original writing. 


Now we're presented with a movie made from cannibalized part of classic Trek and recycled stories, along with questionable casting that has genuinely hurt and disappointed some fans. And we're supposed to remain silent lest we be labeled zealot or obsessed?   

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 10 2013, 11:39 am

Not silent, but not acid spitting hate either.


I get some people don't like Trek 09 and that's fine. Like others have said, some liked Enterprise, and I personally do not.


I just don't get the personal level of hatred levied at Abrams. I really don't. I've been disappointed by movies and just don't get it.


Also, I want to have a meaningful discussion as to the pros and cons of Abrams Trek, but it keeps coming back to the emotional argument that Abrams has "ruined Trek."


Even a group called Red Letter Media liked it and they are famous for their evisceration and hatred of the Star Wars prequels.


So, don't remain quiet but don't expect silent opposition or unanimous agreement either.

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this May. 10 2013, 11:49 am

@Vger

I understand you're talking about a distinct subsection of "haters" but your response to those people is the same as your response to those with valid criticisms: "Tough sh!t! This is what Star Trek is now! Quit whinning!"

Also, being tolerant, accepting differences, IDIC, etc. is all part of being enlightened, peaceful and utopian. You don't have to like Roddenberry's "vision" or the "utopian crapola" but don't pretend it was exclusive to TNG-era Trek.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 10 2013, 11:53 am

Quote: Gawain_VIII @ May. 08 2013, 3:32 pm

Quote: bunkey @ May. 08 2013, 3:19 pm

>

>

>The original pilot "The Cage" was rejected by NBC as "too cerebral".

>Thank gods JJ Abrams has solved that problem.

>

Probably the most profound statement on these forums.


I think we, in this time, misunderstood what the studio meant,


  They called it "too cerebral" as it related to how the audience could connect with the characters, not that it was "too smart" for the general audience. The characters were very flat and at times distant so the audience really didn't have an anchor point to grab on to.


I think Nimoy even said that he played Spock more emotionally with "child like curiosity" in order to offset Hunter's more withdrawn and stoic portrayal of Pike.


For more on "The Cage" check out SF Debris review of "The Menagerie"

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 10 2013, 11:56 am

Quote: darmokattanagra @ May. 10 2013, 11:49 am

>

>@Vger

I understand you're talking about a distinct subsection of "haters" but your response to those people is the same as your response to those with valid criticisms: "Tough sh!t! This is what Star Trek is now! Quit whinning!"

Also, being tolerant, accepting differences, IDIC, etc. is all part of being enlightened, peaceful and utopian. You don't have to like Roddenberry's "vision" or the "utopian crapola" but don't pretend it was exclusive to TNG-era Trek.

>


It wasn't exclusive, but it certainly reached its zenith in TNG season 1-3.


 

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this May. 10 2013, 12:22 pm

Also, I want to have a meaningful discussion as to the pros and cons of Abrams Trek, but it keeps coming back to the emotional argument that Abrams has "ruined Trek."


Again, I don't think it's that he "ruined" or "destroyed" Trek, it's just that he didn't "save" it. Here's a few similarities between the 2009 movie and Nemesis/Enterprise:


Nemesis - For all intents and purposes, the villian is a Romulan. The plot is centered around revenge. The underlying themes are "destiny" and "nature vs. nurture." Well-established characters act out-of-character.


Enterprise - A TOS prequel that brought back the "trinity," this time including a female. Supporting characters left underdeveloped. Many episodes involved time travel. Treaded carefully over established canon while simultaneously rewriting it.


I'm not saying these similarities are good or bad, just that they should be taken into consideration by those who support this "new" direction.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 10 2013, 2:49 pm

 If Enterprise taught us anything, it's that going backwards in Star Trek doesn't work so well. The show barely survived four seasons and it botched canon so much that the only retcon they could come up with was "alternate timeline" and was subsequently given the most shitastic finale in Star Trek history. 


I think the only reason it survived as long as it did was that the characters were new, the actors were doing the best they could and fans desperately WANTED it to be good or get better. Personally I kept waiting for it to improve, but it never really did.


So Paramount says, "Hey let's go backwards again, retcon the ORIGIN of the whole franchise and some of the most beloved characters of all time. What could go wrong?"


If they had presented us with a 25th century/post TNG crew, then all the elements they added would have been fine with me. JJ Abrams could have added as much lensflare, exlposions and pew pew space battles as he wanted. He could have blown up Vulcan,  Trill  or Bajor.  It was all fair game.


I mean look at Deep Space 9. It really took a detour from Roddenberry's utopian vision and contained a lot of elements that were forbidden when he was alive, but it was accepted because it was new. It may not be the favorite of some fans, but it didn't attack our canon. It didn't UNDO anything we loved. It said, "Here's some new characters, maybe you'll like them." And it lasted seven years, so it was different, but successful.


If they had taken the entire 2009 script, changed the names, placed it in the 25th century, aside from some minor changes, the concept could have worked as is and I would have probably enjoyed it.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum