[JSnyder4]

Originally Posted by Saquist

Expect the dead universe to continue in book form...with no officiality of course unless they change there mind again.

The people who buy the books already pretty much considered them "official" long before the movie was even announced.

But, the books are not big sellers, which simply goes to show how many people even care about it.

Ask an ENT fan if Trip is dead and they'll quote you a book to vehemently deny it. Same for TNG, DS9 and anything else.

[StarTrekXIfan]

Originally Posted by Saquist

So you don't think Villians are very important to stories...
Fascinating.

Welcome to the forum StarTrekXIFan, glad to have you aboard.

thanks for the welcome

I wouldn't necessarily say I don't think villains are important to stories, after all what would Star Wars be without Darth Vader? Or the Matrix without Mr Smith, my point was I think Nero was right for this film.

[Saquist]

That maybe true.

[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by Saquist

Canon (gasp) isn't really that important considering the errors...but throwing out everything including the baby was a bit excessive...but intresting.

Excessive? Yes. Interesting? Hell NO!!

[jerhanner]

Originally Posted by Saquist

Lord of the Rings?

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.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

Excessive? Yes. Interesting? Hell NO!!

It did not interest you?

[Saquist]

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.

It think that's true.

As a fan culture, Trek fans are a bit spoiled.

[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by Saquist

It did not interest you?

Nope. I think you are teasing me!!

[horatio]

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.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by StarTrekXIfan

thanks for the welcome

I wouldn't necessarily say I don't think villains are important to stories, after all what would Star Wars be without Darth Vader? Or the Matrix without Mr Smith, my point was I think Nero was right for this film.

Let me come back to this.

STXIFan,
Consider this,
The Villian in every story is just as important as the Hero. It is through the Villian that the the Hero must prove himself. The more difficult the Villian the greater the Hero's ascension. A weak Villian automatic MUST mean a weak hero.