Why do trekkies hate Star Trek(2009)so much?

[blu-mike]

I noticed hard core trekkies hate the reboot.like my friend he loves star trek star trek this star trek that.but he said the reboot is a "insult" Roddenberry and kept ranting on for 3 hours after we seen it lol.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by blu-mike

I noticed hard core trekkies hate the reboot.like my friend he loves star trek star trek this star trek that.but he said the reboot is a "insult" Roddenberry and kept ranting on for 3 hours after we seen it lol.

I am a "Trekker" (the term "Trekkie" is a durogatory term by the way, ) and I love the reboot. However, it did take some time for me to "get over the initial reaction.

The reason is that the major climactic plot point essentially erases everything that has come before it (in relation to the series being filmed, not in the Star Trek timeline itself.)

In a way, that in itself is a slap in the face of the mastermind behind the universe. However, after much personal deliberation, I believe that Roddenberry would have actually been excited by the film. He never shyed away from doing something drastic.

[WJWS Channel 13:Amity]

Originally Posted by blu-mike

I noticed hard core trekkies hate the reboot.like my friend he loves star trek star trek this star trek that.but he said the reboot is a "insult" Roddenberry and kept ranting on for 3 hours after we seen it lol.

There is only a small minority of Trek fans who dont like the 2009 trek film.
Most people really enjoyed it for what it was and for the fact that they didnt decide to just throw out 40 years of cannon. by having Nero and Spock be from the 24th century it, basicly said the trek you know and love still happened this is just an alternate timeline.

The fans who did hate it felt it was a little to Star Wars in feel than Trek.
But the majority of fans enjoyed it.

[AmrlKJaneway]

I'm a long time trekkie. Have all the episodes, and spend the other half of my forum time at startrek.com.
The one thing I notice about trekkies is they hate Star Trek. Normally the latest of anything. Enterprise is the worst show, VOY before it came along, ST2009 is the worst movie, NEM before it, and so on and so on...
Worse still they constantly crap on about how "Star Trek: Insert Name" is the worst show/movie EVER. Not the worst Trek, but worst ever... I put forward that we should start hating on shows about the investigation following the discovery of a body in a dumpster (ie. Law and Order, CSI) instead of focasing that energy on Enterprise and was met with comments along the line of, "I like CSI", and "Enterprise sucks" and told I was not a real trekkie by people who watch 1% of the available movies/episodes.
Long story short, don't worry about trekkies. As one I can say they're ignorant and don't know much about the business of film and TV. I guess, new timeline or not, there is still cannon violations in Trek2009 (that ship at the start with one nacelle, etc.), and that agrivates people. Also I've heard comments about how no character has ever been re-cast (this is not true though, eg. Zephram Cochrane, the Borg Queen). And more "changes" along these lines that annoy people who are comfortable with the setting (even though the show has changed things several times itself eg. Klingons and Trills).
Truth is, as far as movies go, it's the best. It still upholds many of Trek's morals and has great action for those of us who are also swayed towards Star Wars. That, and it's the most successful.
The question is, do trekkies want to see an end to Star Trek? Surely after 40+ years it needs to change, if it can't then there would be no show. Would they rather have NOTHING new and keep watching the old ones over and over and over? Myself, I would much rather new trek, and as often as possible, and if I don't like it, I won't watch it excessively (Star Trek V). There's no need to rant on for 3 hours...

[madmojo]

Me, I didn't hate it, I just didn't think it was real Star Trek. It felt like someone with a very basic knowledge of Star Trek went in, used the same character traits and then wrote a more space fantasy story around them. There's also the fact that Abrams said that he wanted the movie to be more like Star Wars, and that he didn't watch Star Trek.

But the "insult" to Roddenberry was probably the fact that the writers basically jettisoned all but the Characters and the ship by creating the alternate timeline. The Federation now uses money, Vulcan is destroyed, etc. In other words, they can make up their own rules to the universe now. Everything Roddenberry made the show about could be gotten rid of in favor of sci-fi cliches. That hasn't happened yet though, in my opinion. We've had one movie, and it doesn't dictate where the series will go. I'd have thought the other Trek movies sucked if I went just by The Motion Picture.

[Samus Aran]

They're just internet loudmouths who you'd never hear a peep from if you ever saw them in person. They whine and complain about what is and is not Trek, but what they claim is the one true Trek is just their own personal and narrowly-defined idea. They treat it like it's their own creation. What type of person bashes a movie months before it even comes out, then watches it 100 times with the intention of hating every second of it just so that they can fulfill their own prophecy? Just look at the whiny cry-babies who complain that the 2009 Enterprise looks NOTHING like any ship before it. Seriously?

I hate Star Trek: Voyager and think it's the worst Trek of them all, but I'm not gonna watch every episode with a notepad in hand and then bash those who do like it.

[Moviefan2k4]

I only saw the 2009 film once, and that was mainly because my friend Robert brought it over. I'd seen the trailers, and wasn't really interested in it, mostly because of the return to the Kirk days, and the sexual content. I grew up on "TNG", so that was my main point of reference; I didn't like "DS9" too much, and "Voyager" was cool for the most part. "Enterprise" really irritated me, because it was far too advanced to be a prequel show. When I heard a new film was coming out, I was hoping for a (properly-done) sequel to "Nemesis", or a "Voyager" film, so the news of a reboot was very disappointing.

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

I'm a long time trekkie. Have all the episodes, and spend the other half of my forum time at startrek.com.
The one thing I notice about trekkies is they hate Star Trek. Normally the latest of anything. Enterprise is the worst show, VOY before it came along, ST2009 is the worst movie, NEM before it, and so on and so on...
Worse still they constantly crap on about how "Star Trek: Insert Name" is the worst show/movie EVER. Not the worst Trek, but worst ever... I put forward that we should start hating on shows about the investigation following the discovery of a body in a dumpster (ie. Law and Order, CSI) instead of focasing that energy on Enterprise and was met with comments along the line of, "I like CSI", and "Enterprise sucks" and told I was not a real trekkie by people who watch 1% of the available movies/episodes.
Long story short, don't worry about trekkies. As one I can say they're ignorant and don't know much about the business of film and TV. I guess, new timeline or not, there is still cannon violations in Trek2009 (that ship at the start with one nacelle, etc.), and that agrivates people. Also I've heard comments about how no character has ever been re-cast (this is not true though, eg. Zephram Cochrane, the Borg Queen). And more "changes" along these lines that annoy people who are comfortable with the setting (even though the show has changed things several times itself eg. Klingons and Trills).
Truth is, as far as movies go, it's the best. It still upholds many of Trek's morals and has great action for those of us who are also swayed towards Star Wars. That, and it's the most successful.
The question is, do trekkies want to see an end to Star Trek? Surely after 40+ years it needs to change, if it can't then there would be no show. Would they rather have NOTHING new and keep watching the old ones over and over and over? Myself, I would much rather new trek, and as often as possible, and if I don't like it, I won't watch it excessively (Star Trek V). There's no need to rant on for 3 hours...

Exactly like SW fans then.
What's wrong with these people?

[Trekkie313]

Even though my screenname includes Trekkie, I'm more of an average Star Trek fan. I quite liked the 2009 film and I even liked Generations and TMP which most fans dislike.

[AmrlKJaneway]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

Exactly like SW fans then.
What's wrong with these people?

Star Wars fans are worse, because they hate on movies made by the original creator and claim cannon violations and such.

No offense to you, just them. Loved Wars almost as long as Trek. Bring on Eps 7-9 before Lucas carks it (my theory anyway, 97 re-release the prelude to 1-3, 3D re-release preludes 7-9)!

[MykeHavoc]

The reboot made me a fan. Perhaps the nerds are worried their party will crashed by noobs.

[Rocket Man]

I am a longtime Trekkie, and before 2009's Trek I loved every incarnation of it. Here's the two main reasons why the reboot didn't connect with me:

1. Star Trek always had comicbook-like aspects, but this film had way, way too much of a superhero vibe. New-Kirk, New-Spock and especially the villain would have seemed more in place if they had appeared in the Marvel franchise. So would the "steampunk dairy farm" engine room.

2. Way too much nonsense. A supernova threatening to destroy the whole galaxy? Kirk is sent into exile for insubordination, then he mutineers, then he destroys Nero. I can understand that the latter act is justification for leniency, so he isn't thrown in irons. But giving him an instant promotion from Cadet to Captain, skipping the ranks of Ensign, Lieutenant, Lieutenant Commander and Commander? Come on!

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Rocket Man

2. Way too much nonsense. A supernova threatening to destroy the whole galaxy? Kirk is sent into exile for insubordination, then he mutineers, then he destroys Nero. I can understand that the latter act is justification for leniency, so he isn't thrown in irons. But giving him an instant promotion from Cadet to Captain, skipping the ranks of Ensign, Lieutenant, Lieutenant Commander and Commander? Come on!

The supernova theatened Romulus, not "the entire galaxy."

I can understand your gripe about the way things are run though; everybody just kinda fell into place in the chain of command and ranking system like it was all willy-nilly. I assumed that, since this is supposed to be a utopian society and everybody was training for a specialized field, they simply shuffled the cadets into the positions they were training for and let their desired careers fly. As for Kirk, he's always gotten off easy for all the stuff he does.

[Rocket Man]

^ When Old-Spock explains via flashback how he ended up in the alternate timeline there is a voice-over in which he says along the lines of: "A star was about to go supernova and threatened to destroy the galaxy. So I took the Red Matter (whatever that is) and stopped it, but in doing so was a tad late, hence Romulus was destroyed."

This quote is, of course, inaccurate, but the galaxy destroying supernova is definitely in there.

I was like: "Wow, Leonard Nimoy's Spock should know better! Is he going senile?"

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Rocket Man

^ When Old-Spock explains via flashback how he ended up in the alternate timeline there is a voice-over in which he says along the lines of: "A star was about to go supernova and threatened to destroy the galaxy. So I took the Red Matter (whatever that is) and stopped it, but in doing so was a tad late, hence Romulus was destroyed."

This quote is, of course, inaccurate, but the galaxy destroying supernova is definitely in there.

I was like: "Wow, Leonard Nimoy's Spock should know better! Is he going senile?"

I remember the voice-over and stuff, but I can't recall the exact wording. I don't remember him mentioning the entire galaxy, but I could be wrong and you might be right (in which case, it is rather silly. It must take one hugemongous star to produce a galaxy-destroying supernova ).

[thedarkangel1975]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

Exactly like SW fans then.
What's wrong with these people?

Exactly. I like both series but some hardcore fans make you want to hate both series. My opinion about why people did not like the new Trek, because the film was different and even to me the film did not feel like a Star Trek film and that is why I liked the film so much. The film was refreshing.

[P@t_Mtl]

I can speak for others as to why they dislike it.

For me, being a fan of Star Trek since roughly 1973 or 74, I liked it a lot. I have enjoyed pretty much all the series and movies made, some more and some a bit less but I would never go and say something like

"Star Trek INSERT NAME HERE, is crap"

You have to remember that here on the Internet people act in ways they would not in real life. Most of the time their comments will be just absolute, either ITS EPIC for each film that tickle their fancy until the next one come's along or they will say ITS CRAP if they disliked it. Most people on the Internet are not able to articule much beyond these simple feelings. Plus in general, those that dislike are usually the loudest ones and the ones we remember the most.

[Col. Zombie]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

I am a "Trekker" (the term "Trekkie" is a durogatory term by the way, ) and I love the reboot. However, it did take some time for me to "get over the initial reaction.

Sincere question: I've heard this before but I am curious to know what in the hell is the difference? Besides, the "er" and the "ie" what makes the difference between "derogatory" and "acceptable?"

Honestly it sounds like nerds arguing semantics, but I am sure there is some reason behind it.

[Rocket Man]

Almost forgot, regarding the topic: I don't actively hate the movie. There are quite a few episodes in all five series that are much worse.

However, compared to Trek as a whole, the movie was rather trite. A dumbed down spectacle geared towards maximum blockbusterness.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Col. Zombie

Sincere question: I've heard this before but I am curious to know what in the hell is the difference? Besides, the "er" and the "ie" what makes the difference between "derogatory" and "acceptable?"

Honestly it sounds like nerds arguing semantics, but I am sure there is some reason behind it.

I once heard something like this

Trekkie was for the true fans those that only enjoy the original series, while Trekker is for those that enjoy allthe series. In any case, it does not matter since I am neither, I am just a fan of Star Trek