[SeerSGB]

Originally Posted by starbase63

Exactly what came to my mind as well...hardcore Whovians are every bit as rabid as Trek fans.

On the music side you have Beatlemaniacs and Deadheads...

Let's not leave out the Transformers fans; you think Orci and Kurtzman are catching from ST fans, that's nothing compared to what they went through with the Transformers fanbase. Robotech fans (aka protoculture addicts) that are nice and rabid at times (and talk about canons fights, pbbft you've not seen nothing yet), The Gundam Fanbase...the list goes on and on. Rabid fans is nothing new, kind of in the job description.

[Captain Hackett]

If they decide to tweak the TOS canon a bit, it is fine with me. What I care most is they stick with Gene's vision and write a great and epic story.

[NCC-73515]

I'm absolutely sure they did. I thought this statement of Orci would satisfy all the critics, hopefully someday everyone will be happy...

[sir num nums]

What... I am happy.

[Oregon_Coast_Trekkie]

Originally Posted by RedShirtWalking

But there's a vast difference in being loyal to canon and being a slave to insignifcant details. I think the vast majority of people take canon to mean the story elements that make up Star Trek and the characters we have loved for so long---not the button sequence that was used to open Kirk's "safe" in his quarters or how the Bridge of the Enterprise is designed or even what the uniforms look like.

This film can absolutely tell a brand new story with a brand new look and new actors and still be 100% loyal to established events in Star Trek. I suspect that's exactly what will happen, too.

I totally agree with you 100%. However, there is the population of Star Trek fans who think there is no such thing as an "insignificant deatail." And truthfully, those are the people who speak of Star Trek with the loudest voices, and in turn, make it "geeky." Somebody actually said in a Trekmovie.com forum, "If Abrams can't get something as simple as the font right on the hull, or the color of the railing right on the bridge, how can we trust him to get the meaning of Star Trek as a whole?"

It is people like that, who think that you DO need to pay attention to all of those little things, who will be alienated by this movie.

But I want to stress, I agree with you totally. I'm not going to fret if the exact shade of colors aren't matched. I just want a good movie and a good story.

BTW, good SNL reference with the "Kirk's safe combination."

[MissionTrek08]

Originally Posted by Oregon_Coast_Trekkie

I totally agree with you 100%. However, there is the population of Star Trek fans who think there is no such thing as an "insignificant deatail." And truthfully, those are the people who speak of Star Trek with the loudest voices, and in turn, make it "geeky." Somebody actually said in a Trekmovie.com forum, "If Abrams can't get something as simple as the font right on the hull, or the color of the railing right on the bridge, how can we trust him to get the meaning of Star Trek as a whole?"

It is people like that, who think that you DO need to pay attention to all of those little things, who will be alienated by this movie.

But I want to stress, I agree with you totally. I'm not going to fret if the exact shade of colors aren't matched. I just want a good movie and a good story.

BTW, good SNL reference with the "Kirk's safe combination."

All good points raised, and it underscores the difference between fans (a large group with broad interest levels) and fetishists (a quite small group who require a certain, set pattern to continue deriving pleasure from the material and who strongly resist any change to that pattern).

Certainly both groups deserve to have their say, beyond that it's up to individuals to consider the source when it comes to praise and criticism, I think.

[DS9TREK]

Originally Posted by Bright Eyes

True enough; regrettably, Mr Davies is also on record as saying that American SF producers listen too much to the fans about how to make their shows, and that he doesn't want to listen to them.

The LA Times article is Paying Customers Only, but the reference is here:

http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/fo...p?topic=4349.0

Joss Whedon said something similar about never listening to what the fans want. "Never give them what they want, only what they need." Of course that only works up to a point. If you don't listen at all you won't know what they need...

[RedShirtWalking]

Originally Posted by DS9TREK

Joss Whedon said something similar about never listening to what the fans want. "Never give them what they want, only what they need." Of course that only works up to a point. If you don't listen at all you won't know what they need...

...and that might explain why Star Trek has been around in one incarnation or another for forty-plus year and Firefly was on for 14 episodes and a marginally successful film. LOL

[MissionTrek08]

Maybe TREK works because they never gave fans ONLY what they want?

Challenging fans to expand their understanding and appreciation for what the ST universe is keeps it dynamic and growing, instead of stale and lifeless. Exploration of unknowns never ends, certainly not after one five-year mission.

[Sinister]

Originally Posted by DS9TREK

Joss Whedon said something similar about never listening to what the fans want. "Never give them what they want, only what they need." Of course that only works up to a point. If you don't listen at all you won't know what they need...

that's really interesting, I had never heard that. It may explain why I liked the TV show but was not impressed by the movie. Then again, I suspect that many fans WANTED to know what reavers were, I didn't, and was thus dissappointed by the explanation of the space boogeymen.

Certainly explaining the force for fans that wanted to know, didn't go well for Lucas.