Nah, they're just louder than everyone else.there is a sizable contingent that cares about canon / continuity and the lore / worldbuilding in good faith.
Nah, they're just louder than everyone else.there is a sizable contingent that cares about canon / continuity and the lore / worldbuilding in good faith.
That's probably the only place the Bible is "definitive" .The Bible has had many translations & versions.
There isn't one 100% definitive Bible in many people's minds.
The Fans, there are giant chunks of us "WHO CARES DEEPLY".Ah, who cares?
That there is a "Bible", yes that concept is "definitive".That's probably the only place the Bible is "definitive" .
And the rest are non-fans?The Fans, there are giant chunks of us "WHO CARES DEEPLY".
I care.
To a point.
Just lowercase fans, I guess. Line toers and the like. Untrue fans.And the rest are non-fans?
Ah, sarcasm, your favorite response.And the rest are non-fans?
Can I get my Trek-O-Meter activated yet?![]()
If you were a "UnTrue Fan", you wouldn't be participating in the Fandom.Just lowercase fans, I guess. Line toers and the like. Untrue fans.
Sarcasm is my default response to what I consider ridiculous opinions.Ah, sarcasm, your favorite response.
People who like said material.Sarcasm is my default response to what I consider ridiculous opinions.
Define "The Fans" for me, please.
"The Fans" aren't a homogenous group, we are always a fractured group.Because whenever I see the term it is not used as an inclusionary term, but an exclusionary term. "The Fans" care about all this stuff.
If that's your logic, than you do with it what you will.Well, basic logic tells me that if I don't care about this stuff then I must not be a fan.
Your sarcasm comes off like disliking other fans for having different view points on "What Matters to THEM".Hence my sarcasm to these ideas.
That's why I offer a compromise solution to fix all of it.I love continuity in Trek. Even when it's dodgy. But the dodginess means I can't invest too heavily in a writer in 2018 knowing what a writer in 1966 or 1987 put on screen and perfectly lining up the new material with both examples of the old. There's a delicate dance that often has to be done, but at the end of the day it's not a life or death dance.
Hardly.Your sarcasm comes off like disliking other fans for having different view points on "What Matters to THEM".
Exactly. That's why I try to avoid "the fans." There's no consensus there.If that's your logic, than you do with it what you will.
I consider you a fan, just a different type of fan.
Cool, we can agree to disagree on what is important to each person.Hardly.
I don't know you or who you are. I don't know your first name, your face or anything about you. I don't know your job, or your interests beyond Star Trek and I'm assuming whatever is your avatar and user name.
I cannot dislike people over a fictional franchise I've never met. I will disagree on opinions because none of this here is personal. it's the most impersonal form of communication because everyone is reading in their own emotions and taking offense at it, when its all just opinion.
There is no dislike here. There's not even a personal attack here. I just disagree.
There is one part of "Fans" that we can ALL agree on.Exactly. That's why I try to avoid "the fans." There's no consensus there.
Not unreasonably so.Your sarcasm comes off like disliking other fans for having different view points on "What Matters to THEM".
Depends on a person PoV.Not unreasonably so.
It was. I mean, it was typical post-TOS Trek with the technobabble and gibberish being spouted, but it was all part of the joke. So it played on the stereotypes about the franchise and helped deliver the overall narrative.As an occasional viewer (like, ten episodes total), this was an okay half hour assuming that the technogibberish overload was part of the joke.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.