[starbase63]

http://trekweb.com/article....s.shtml

Once again, JJ has reiterated that the movie really isn't for us: " 'We made this film not for Trekkies but for future fans of Star Trek,' Abrams said," should we read that as fans of Trek in general or fans of his interpretation of Trek?

Chris Pine even is quoted as saying "JJ's prescription for realizing the role and this goes for all of us- was to create our own and not worry too much about obeying the laws of the original Star Trek world."

[williamLX]

Good thing if you ask me! The laws of the original Trek were strangling the films and greatly reducing the audience. The failure of Insurrection and Nemesis clearly show that there are not enough die hard trekkies who will pay to see any Trek movie to make a film a lucrative enough product for Paramount. Something had to change, as simple as that. They may not be identical but I still think there is far far more potential for Kirk et al than there ever has been for Picard an co.

[jtrek79]

trek needs new people,i ll welcome them all

[starbase63]

Originally Posted by williamLX

Good thing if you ask me! The laws of the original Trek were strangling the films and greatly reducing the audience. The failure of Insurrection and Nemesis clearly show that there are not enough die hard trekkies who will pay to see any Trek movie to make a film a lucrative enough product for Paramount. Something had to change, as simple as that. They may not be identical but I still think there is far far more potential for Kirk et al than there ever has been for Picard an co.

How were the "laws" strangling Trek?

You don't think it was more an issue of writers not turning in Trek quality stories than some notion that they couldn't work within canon...which I think is bunk...

[RedShirtWalking]

See, when I read that I take from it that it's not specifically for Trek fans.

This film needs to appeal to a wider audience and the studio knows it. The past several films were supposedly for fans, and look how well they did.

I think we've had enough comments from Orci and Kurtzman that they were faithful to canon to not have to worry about a throwaway sentence by JJ.

[williamLX]

Simple as this Trek canon was so complicated (and often contradictory) that just about any film will break it in some way (they all have to date). Many Trekkies (the really really sad nerd ones who make Trek so unfashionable, such as The Saint on this forum) kick up such a fuss about all such infringements that they generate a negative vibe about the film/series (look to the demise of ST: Enterprise) that essentially making a film for Trekkies is a no win scenario for Paramount. Therefore in making a new film designed to have a wider appeal (and therefore to make money) the best option was to totally not worry about canon at all, and in doing so bring the look up to date and make the film generally more appealing.

[starbase63]

Originally Posted by RedShirtWalking

See, when I read that I take from it that it's not specifically for Trek fans.

This film needs to appeal to a wider audience and the studio knows it. The past several films were supposedly for fans, and look how well they did.

I think we've had enough comments from Orci and Kurtzman that they were faithful to canon to not have to worry about a throwaway sentence by JJ.

Thing is, this isn't the first time he's said it.

And now that we know the bulk of the movie is in an alternate timeline, we know how they say they respect canon...by completely side-stepping it!

You realize of course, if the movie underperforms or even fails and Paramount reverts to form, who are they going to blame for the bad showing at the box office? You don't think they'll blame the general public, do you?

[starbase63]

Originally Posted by williamLX

Simple as this Trek canon was so complicated (and often contradictory) that just about any film will break it in some way (they all have to date). Many Trekkies (the really really sad nerd ones who make Trek so unfashionable, such as The Saint on this forum) kick up such a fuss about all such infringements that they generate a negative vibe about the film/series (look to the demise of ST: Enterprise) that essentially making a film for Trekkies is a no win scenario for Paramount. Therefore in making a new film designed to have a wider appeal (and therefore to make money) the best option was to totally not worry about canon at all, and in doing so bring the look up to date and make the film generally more appealing.

The thought that canon is complicated is hogwash.

Is it contradictory? Yes, at times. Put together a franchise with over 700 hours of material and some things won't add up perfectly, but overall Trek canon works pretty well at the core.

Main problem is no one takes the time to do a little research. Is it just laziness or apathy?

[CAPTAIN MOUSE]

Originally Posted by williamLX

Simple as this Trek canon was so complicated (and often contradictory) that just about any film will break it in some way (they all have to date). Many Trekkies (the really really sad nerd ones who make Trek so unfashionable, such as The Saint on this forum) kick up such a fuss about all such infringements that they generate a negative vibe about the film/series (look to the demise of ST: Enterprise) that essentially making a film for Trekkies is a no win scenario for Paramount. Therefore in making a new film designed to have a wider appeal (and therefore to make money) the best option was to totally not worry about canon at all, and in doing so bring the look up to date and make the film generally more appealing.

Well stated post!

[williamLX]

700 hours in not a little time, and even watching all 700 hours would not be enough as human memory being as it is, by the time you are a few hours into this mountain you will have forgotten some of the little details that sad nerd trekkies hate to see ignored or contradicted.