Originally Posted by jerhanner
Now, I'm more of a Ringhead than a Trekhead, I admit. That being said, LotR was different from Trek in a few important regards:
* There was only one canon source for LotR: 3 books + The Hobbit (& The Silmarillion for the hard-core fans). Trek has 6 series, 11 movies, and countless books as canon, never mind the concept of time travel and alternate universes.
* Even the most die-hard LotR fan had to admit that the movie would have to make drastic changes. Was I happy to see Faramir's character changed so drastically? No, but I know it had to happen from a movie-making point of view, ie, there were a lot of non-Ringheads who were gonna see the movie. If Peter Jackson didn't appeal to a wider audience, the movie would have tanked, and I think the LotR fan base was way more accepting of that than the Trek fan base.
Perhaps this has something to do with Professor Tolkien's attitude towards his own work, always about to change and his hope that someone else would continue it after his death?
On the other hand, Roddenberry felt similarly.
To me, the question is not about change for the better or worse, although you involuntarily compare e.g. Ben Cross to Mark Lenard, but whether something works in a story or not. To stay with the Sarek example, as much as I liked the conflict between Sarek and Spock, it would not have fitted into this story. Lost planet, lost mother and then a father who does nto appreciate your work with humans, that's too much.
By the way, you forgot the 12-parter History of Middle-Earth for the ultra-hardcore Tolkienies