The Dark Side Of Fandom
As many of you reading this will know, I'm a bit of a Star Trek fan. Well, actually more than a bit - I'm a huge, giant Star Trek fan. I was introduced to the Bill Shatner-helmed original series as a wee lad as my mum liked to sit and watch it when it was on (Friday nights, if I remember correctly) back in the mid-to-late 70s. I loved it then, and I still love it now, movies, multiple spin-offs and all.
You may remember me posting some very positive thoughts on last year's franchise reboot, which came in the shape of the J.J. Abrams-directed feature film, entitled simply Star Trek. It would appear that I wasn't alone in really enjoying it - it's been nominated for scads of awards all over the globe, and fan reaction has been generally very positive indeed. I say generally, because there are a cadre of outspoken fans whose thoughts on the film are entirely the opposite - they absolutely hate it.
Now, this is fair enough - although the film doesn't actually re-write established Star Trek continuity, it does neatly side-step it by having the events shown in the film happen in an alternate timeline: some characters travel back in time and impact upon events in the past in such a way that the future is changed. According to current thinking in quantum physics, this leaves the timeline they left behind unchanged, and existing in parallel with the newly established timeline.
Unfortunately, time travel has not been handled consistently in Star Trek. This isn't a surprise, because quantum physics theory has changed a great deal in the time that the series has been on air, on TV and in the cinema. Previously, Trek employed a theory that meddling with a timeline would erase the one that previously existed and overwrite it with a new one. This has, however, led to a great deal of toys being thrown out of the pram by some of the naysayers, who assume that this is still the case and that Abrams and his cast and crew have "destroyed" their Star Trek. How "their" Star Trek is different to the one the rest of us have been busy enjoying all this time I'm not exactly sure.
At first it was entertaining to see some of these "Flat-Earth" Trek fans start foaming at the mouth and get all excitable that Abrams and Co. had "dared" to make such "drivel" and thrown out the hard work of people who understood what the show was really all about. However, typically, many of these disappointed fans soon turned on those who dared to admit that they had actually really enjoyed the film, and could come up with perfectly good and reasonable arguments as to why the concerns of the outspoken critical fans were actually groundless.
It's always sad to see fans turn on each other like that. At the end of the day, for years both groups had really enjoyed what Trek had to offer. Sure, not everyone liked everything, but that's impossible for any franchise to achieve. However, when someone or something new appears, it seems inevitable that some are not just disappointed, but actually angry. They seem to take it as a personal slight that creative decisions have been made that don't meet with their approval, and start to feel that anyone who doesn't feel like they do is somehow "wrong" or is some kind of blind, sheeplike apologist. Over on the official Star Trek movie forum - yes, I am that much of an anorak, please feel free to point and laugh - there are several "fans" who have taken it upon themselves to act as guardians of the franchise, certain that they could write better scripts, make better decisions and possibly even act more effectively than the people who did actually make the film in the first place. No matter how reasoned and carefully logical the film's fans are in pointing out that their problems with the film are based on personal preference rather than any flaws extant in the movie itself, these self-appointed guardians shoot them down with impatient, self-righteous arm-waving and comically pompous assertions that any kind of art - films, literature, music; you name it - can be measured against a non-subjective critical yardstick and found to be lacking.
The debate - now nearly up to 200 pages, and that's just on the chief thread about the film - dragged on, and I found myself unable to contribute further. I was turning into the sort of forum user that you see in XCD cartoons, the sort who'll say, "I'll come to bed in a few minutes, love. SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET IS WRONG!!!" and who starts whaling away at the keyboard with a lump-hammer. It frustrated me no end, and I've just realised why.
It's because I see it all the time on band forums and mailing lists. A band does anything even slightly different or off-the-wall, and suddenly it's like the D-Day landings. It doesn't matter which band: Marillion, Mike Oldfield, Genesis, Pink Floyd... even the less adventurous outfits like Iron Maiden and Metallica. Anything even slightly different will inevitably be met with delight from one quarter and eye-bleeding outrage from another.
Back when I used to post regularly to the Freaks mailing list - the first mailing list I ever joined and with the possible exception of its modern-day equivalent, The Opium Den, the one I spent most time communicating with - I would never have dreamt of backing out of a debate like the one I've described. Filled with piss and vinegar, I would happily deal out the logic bombs and not shy away from calling people's sanity into question. However, these days I find myself far less willing to argue the toss, and far more inclined to just say, "Look. It's just music/a film/a TV show. You don't like it, I do. Just admit that there's nothing quantifiably wrong with it but that it doesn't light your fire - and move on. Don't take it personally. It's just an album/film/TV show. It's entertainment. Don't belittle me for liking it, and I won't belittle you for not liking it." As the advert says: simples.
Is it an age thing? Perhaps it is. Perhaps it's some kind of need to justify your like or dislike of a certain thing - and whilst it's sometimes useful to examine your own reasons for liking or disliking something, sometimes it's just best to say, "this may or may not be rubbish. I don't care - I enjoy it" or suchlike. Then again, perhaps it's merely the maturity to step back from the argument and think: look. This is silly. There's loads of stuff I like/don't like, and plenty of people who don't share my opinion. I could sit here arguing about it, or I could just get out there and get on with the business of actually enjoying what I like without feeling like I have to defend it all the time.
No wonder I'm an increasingly less frequent visitor to many internet forums (online forums or mailing lists). I'm increasingly of the opinion that if you haven't got anything positive to say, don't bother saying it.
If only some people would follow suit... ;-)
You may remember me posting some very positive thoughts on last year's franchise reboot, which came in the shape of the J.J. Abrams-directed feature film, entitled simply Star Trek. It would appear that I wasn't alone in really enjoying it - it's been nominated for scads of awards all over the globe, and fan reaction has been generally very positive indeed. I say generally, because there are a cadre of outspoken fans whose thoughts on the film are entirely the opposite - they absolutely hate it.
Now, this is fair enough - although the film doesn't actually re-write established Star Trek continuity, it does neatly side-step it by having the events shown in the film happen in an alternate timeline: some characters travel back in time and impact upon events in the past in such a way that the future is changed. According to current thinking in quantum physics, this leaves the timeline they left behind unchanged, and existing in parallel with the newly established timeline.
Unfortunately, time travel has not been handled consistently in Star Trek. This isn't a surprise, because quantum physics theory has changed a great deal in the time that the series has been on air, on TV and in the cinema. Previously, Trek employed a theory that meddling with a timeline would erase the one that previously existed and overwrite it with a new one. This has, however, led to a great deal of toys being thrown out of the pram by some of the naysayers, who assume that this is still the case and that Abrams and his cast and crew have "destroyed" their Star Trek. How "their" Star Trek is different to the one the rest of us have been busy enjoying all this time I'm not exactly sure.
At first it was entertaining to see some of these "Flat-Earth" Trek fans start foaming at the mouth and get all excitable that Abrams and Co. had "dared" to make such "drivel" and thrown out the hard work of people who understood what the show was really all about. However, typically, many of these disappointed fans soon turned on those who dared to admit that they had actually really enjoyed the film, and could come up with perfectly good and reasonable arguments as to why the concerns of the outspoken critical fans were actually groundless.
It's always sad to see fans turn on each other like that. At the end of the day, for years both groups had really enjoyed what Trek had to offer. Sure, not everyone liked everything, but that's impossible for any franchise to achieve. However, when someone or something new appears, it seems inevitable that some are not just disappointed, but actually angry. They seem to take it as a personal slight that creative decisions have been made that don't meet with their approval, and start to feel that anyone who doesn't feel like they do is somehow "wrong" or is some kind of blind, sheeplike apologist. Over on the official Star Trek movie forum - yes, I am that much of an anorak, please feel free to point and laugh - there are several "fans" who have taken it upon themselves to act as guardians of the franchise, certain that they could write better scripts, make better decisions and possibly even act more effectively than the people who did actually make the film in the first place. No matter how reasoned and carefully logical the film's fans are in pointing out that their problems with the film are based on personal preference rather than any flaws extant in the movie itself, these self-appointed guardians shoot them down with impatient, self-righteous arm-waving and comically pompous assertions that any kind of art - films, literature, music; you name it - can be measured against a non-subjective critical yardstick and found to be lacking.
The debate - now nearly up to 200 pages, and that's just on the chief thread about the film - dragged on, and I found myself unable to contribute further. I was turning into the sort of forum user that you see in XCD cartoons, the sort who'll say, "I'll come to bed in a few minutes, love. SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET IS WRONG!!!" and who starts whaling away at the keyboard with a lump-hammer. It frustrated me no end, and I've just realised why.
It's because I see it all the time on band forums and mailing lists. A band does anything even slightly different or off-the-wall, and suddenly it's like the D-Day landings. It doesn't matter which band: Marillion, Mike Oldfield, Genesis, Pink Floyd... even the less adventurous outfits like Iron Maiden and Metallica. Anything even slightly different will inevitably be met with delight from one quarter and eye-bleeding outrage from another.
Back when I used to post regularly to the Freaks mailing list - the first mailing list I ever joined and with the possible exception of its modern-day equivalent, The Opium Den, the one I spent most time communicating with - I would never have dreamt of backing out of a debate like the one I've described. Filled with piss and vinegar, I would happily deal out the logic bombs and not shy away from calling people's sanity into question. However, these days I find myself far less willing to argue the toss, and far more inclined to just say, "Look. It's just music/a film/a TV show. You don't like it, I do. Just admit that there's nothing quantifiably wrong with it but that it doesn't light your fire - and move on. Don't take it personally. It's just an album/film/TV show. It's entertainment. Don't belittle me for liking it, and I won't belittle you for not liking it." As the advert says: simples.
Is it an age thing? Perhaps it is. Perhaps it's some kind of need to justify your like or dislike of a certain thing - and whilst it's sometimes useful to examine your own reasons for liking or disliking something, sometimes it's just best to say, "this may or may not be rubbish. I don't care - I enjoy it" or suchlike. Then again, perhaps it's merely the maturity to step back from the argument and think: look. This is silly. There's loads of stuff I like/don't like, and plenty of people who don't share my opinion. I could sit here arguing about it, or I could just get out there and get on with the business of actually enjoying what I like without feeling like I have to defend it all the time.
No wonder I'm an increasingly less frequent visitor to many internet forums (online forums or mailing lists). I'm increasingly of the opinion that if you haven't got anything positive to say, don't bother saying it.
If only some people would follow suit... ;-)