Alex Kurtzman signs 4 year contract extension worth $160 Million

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I get choked up seeing this after having seen Endgame.


youtu.be/Y63i2NR9-LE

[Frustration]

Is there such a thing as an "illegitimate" fan?

Only from the perspective of a person whose opinions about what's important in entertainment are incompatible with others'. Although when we're talking about an entire franchise whose roots stretch back into the 1960s, it can easily be the case that people who consider themselves fans of a recent subset of the franchise might reject the franchise as a whole if they were aware of it.

I myself doubt that the people who consider themselves fans of Discovery, and never watched Star Trek before, can be said to be Star Trek fans. Their ideas of what 'Star Trek' means are necessarily very different from existing fans.

[clearspira]

It is as far as them having a vote as legitimate fans of the franchise.

That kind of cuts to the heart doesn't it?

Is there such a thing as an "illegitimate" fan?

Yes. Every franchise has someone who follows it solely because they want to fit in with a crowd. Perhaps because its cool. Or popular. Or a girl they like enjoys it. Being a fake fan is the very definition of being an illegitimate fan.

Y'know what? During the nineties to early noughties I was a member of several comic book and gaming groups. I wasn't quite the nerd in the back of Games Workshop painting my Warhammer figures but I was close. And I can count the amount of jocks and girls I saw in those clubs on one hand. Come the mid nougties when games and comics became cool? Millions of them suddenly appeared from somewhere, all of them swearing that they had been fans since they were in nappies. All of them wearing the same Captain America T-shirts that I used to be insulted for. Those are illegitimate fans because they were either unwilling to support their favourite franchises when it needed support, or only appeared when they thought there was some cultural capital to be gained.

I am far more willing to believe that those people enjoy comics and games now in 2021 than I was in 2005 because a decade and a half has passed since then and we are now dealing with Gen Z raised on a diet of Twitch and the MCU.

Weeaboos who claim to be anime fans despite only watching Dragonball Z or ''gamer girls'' who cackhandedly hold a controller whilst playing Mario but make thousands because they have their cleavage out are borderline examples to me. Not as illegitimate as the fans who appeared out of society's ass in 2005 but they hardly have much respect among the lifetime fans either.

So your believe gate keeping is good, and suddenly having a million more fans is somehow bad for your favorite franchise.

I never said it was bad for the franchise as clearly it isn't. 99% superhero films were shit for fifty years precisely because the market didn't seem to be there and thus no investment. Now we have the MCU. The question was ''is there such a thing as an illegitimate fan''? and I gave you my opinion based on what is in my opinion the meaning of the word illegitimate. And IMO, just because you are a good wallet does not make you a fan.

I think glory chasers are illegitimate fans. Why don't you ask a Formula 1 fan of what they think of someone who only discovered they were a Formula 1 fan when Lewis Hamilton appeared? Or a football/soccer fan who only likes whatever team is winning the Premier League that year? Fandoms HATE these kind of people the world over. Especially as they tend to be obnoxious about it.
''Ooh, Manchester United is winning this year. Suck it.''
''But last year you were an Arsenal fan.''
''Yeah, suck it.''

I also think you are illegitimate if you call yourself a fan of something but have only absorbed one small part of it.
''I'm an anime fan.''
''No you're not. You're a Dragonball fan. You know piss about any other anime. Stop lying to me.''

[Thebestoftherest]

Except every movie is someone first, just because they don't see all of the movies doesn't make them illegatimate.

[Yukaphile]

I figure, really, do I even need Star Trek now? I figure fans were asking themselves the same thing in the early 2000s, since now I have other sci-fi verses to lap up. Stargate, and Babylon 5. Yeah, I avoid it since I know I'd hate it. If a new Stargate show landed, as much hesitation as I feel, I'd check it out, in all honesty. Though with what they did to SGU, I'm hesitant to see how much more damage can be done. Perhaps I shouldn't say that, though, since they may take it as a challenge. And I think we have a bad habit as fandom to just shrug off bad storytelling with the dismissal "give it time, it'll get better." That should never excuse a poor foundation. NEVER. Because now it's everywhere, infected everything, imo.

[CharlesPhipps]

Only from the perspective of a person whose opinions about what's important in entertainment are incompatible with others'. Although when we're talking about an entire franchise whose roots stretch back into the 1960s, it can easily be the case that people who consider themselves fans of a recent subset of the franchise might reject the franchise as a whole if they were aware of it.

I myself doubt that the people who consider themselves fans of Discovery, and never watched Star Trek before, can be said to be Star Trek fans. Their ideas of what 'Star Trek' means are necessarily very different from existing fans.

Unless they like both, in which case the entire argument falls apart.

Mind you, this kind of directly explains why so many people were losing their shit at Paramount/CBS throwing shit tons of money at Star Trek DISCO and Picard. If they're people who dismissed the new shows as something "real" Trek fans hate but it has millions of fans and viewers (some of which are presumably people watching both because they love Star Trek) then it means the whole argument that dismisses them is bullshit.

I have watched Star Trek since TNG and watched TOS on reruns since I was like fucking eight.

I still like DISCO and Picard.

Lower Decks is better than Voyager and Enterprise both too.

[Yukaphile]

I'm happy you like it. Sincerely.

My bigger question is why CBS hides their viewing numbers. That really just raises a lot of eyebrows for me. Of course, they say it's a whole different story if you go with Canadian numbers, but I don't live there, so I can't speak to that. I will confess, what the modern Trek shows and what going to classic sci-fi gems like Stargate has done for me is opened my eyes enough to see Star Trek has never had the perfect continuity I once thought it did. It was never really that much adherent to actual physics, which is kinda sad, because I've yet to see a Star Trek show tackle something like a supervolcanic eruption in the way Stargate did, or apply basic physics where needed - again, they need to take out the Wraith cloning facility, so Sheppard just throws a ship at the planet, lol. That's mass and velocity which is sufficient to get the job done. So if Star Trek has never had the best continuity or best adherence to actual physics, why should I care now, with so many other alternatives I can choose from?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Basically, Science Fiction convention isn't about modulating what we know to expand physical theory but to project more about social theory. In other words, the physics deductions and subversions are a macguffin to create an extraordinary social circumstance, and aren't supposed to be seen as complete as a requisite for story purposes.

[Yukaphile]

Disagree. I think what makes Stargate one of the best sci-fi series I've ever seen is their willingness to explore actual real-world physics not even Star Trek ever did - the aforementioned supervolcano being one, but there were others. Look at how highly regarded "A Matter of Time" is, and the physics are almost spot-on there. Plus the honesty about their military intentions, which is appreciated. Star Trek shies too hard away from militarism, when let's be real, a lot of militaries have finely honed traditions and rituals of honor that go back generations and centuries. Military doesn't always = bad. How about Carter's admission that a clone wouldn't make a fully-grown adult with your memories, as so often happens in bad sci-fi, but a new being? THAT is very much appreciated and it shows that the creators wanted that fundamental grasp on real science. If they didn't have the real physics as a basic stepping stone, it wouldn't make something as imaginative and unique as, say, the Intergalactic Gate Bridge all the more interesting as a concept. People didn't tune in to Stargate because they wanted social commentary, hell, it never really worked out well when they did - just look at SGU to see what I mean. Or even something within SG-1's own history, "Emancipation." Cut from broadcast when it's about showing off how much of a strong Feminist woman Carter is, but it just came too soon off the premiere.

[clearspira]

Disagree. I think what makes Stargate one of the best sci-fi series I've ever seen is their willingness to explore actual real-world physics not even Star Trek ever did - the aforementioned supervolcano being one, but there were others. Look at how highly regarded "A Matter of Time" is, and the physics are almost spot-on there. Plus the honesty about their military intentions, which is appreciated. Star Trek shies too hard away from militarism, when let's be real, a lot of militaries have finely honed traditions and rituals of honor that go back generations and centuries. Military doesn't always = bad. How about Carter's admission that a clone wouldn't make a fully-grown adult with your memories, as so often happens in bad sci-fi, but a new being? THAT is very much appreciated and it shows that the creators wanted that fundamental grasp on real science. If they didn't have the real physics as a basic stepping stone, it wouldn't make something as imaginative and unique as, say, the Intergalactic Gate Bridge all the more interesting as a concept. People didn't tune in to Stargate because they wanted social commentary, hell, it never really worked out well when they did - just look at SGU to see what I mean. Or even something within SG-1's own history, "Emancipation." Cut from broadcast when it's about showing off how much of a strong Feminist woman Carter is, but it just came too soon off the premiere.

Stargate cut out most of its feminist bullshit after season 1 which actually makes it rather unique among the big sci-fi franchises. They could have made Carter into Rey, or Carter into the female Doctor, or Carter into Micheal. But they balanced her so that, whilst she is frequently the most competent person in any room, there are others who are better in their fields than she is. O'Neill and Shepherd are better pilots, Teal'c and Ronan are tougher, Daniel knows more than her when it comes to archaeology.

This is how you make a beloved strong female character. This is also proof that men do not hate strong female characters. It is a lesson that any Stargate reboot probably won't learn based on current trends.

Its ironic that whilst SGU has about 500% more politics in it even they didn't really load down on the feminism given how James was fanservice and Chloe spent most of her time being rescued. Even TJ's main role for season 1 was really just ''she is carrying Young's baby.'' Again, very refreshing. You don't get that anymore.