Lenny Nurdbol wrote:
Because these "fanzines" (not really what I'm talking about, but discrete blueprint packs) expanded upon--built upon--the little genre known as Tech Fandom... This is the legacy of Franz Joseph & Friends... Pushing the envelope of analyzing and blueprinting everything that ever was in Star Trek... Taking this universe as though it were plausible and scientifically sound and real... But I of course can't expect the uninitiated to possibly understand...
Don't talk to me about fans who never had any connection... I say this for 2 reasons:
First, anyone serious enough and talented enough in drafting and blueprinting can analyze things and put 2 and 2 together... And draw and make assumptions and Build upon previous works and Extrapolate from previous works... They don't have to be "blessed" by Gene Roddenberry or any other deity connected to the show; they simply have to be able to Do Their Homework Right...
I can also talk about another fan who spent years reading and re-reading hundreds of Trek books and Documenting tiny bits of trivia for inclusion in a massive timeline... He wasn't "blessed" either, just a Fan... But he did his work well...
If these are so well researched, why doesn't the S.S Aurora have the same nacelles it did in the episode? Why doesn't the Independece-class freighter match the S.S Huron from "Pirates of Orion"? I love those old fan-made blueprints too, but they took plenty of liberties with the source material. Not that it's a crime to do so - I just don't think they're as well researched as you believe.
Also, Franz Joseph was not a fan of Star Trek! His daughter Karen was. You *really* should read that link I keep giving you.
She is the reason Tech Fandom exists. He blueprinted the Enterprise for her.
Secondly, and this is really obvious... The blind worship of anyone who takes the center seat...
Let me throw some names around here: J.J. Abrams, Roberto Orci, and Alex Kurtzman... It took the combined intellect of these kids to create something which no man has ever created before, and I think you have a good idea of what I'm talking about... Basically, the least talented persons together in the right place and the right time--and with NO qualifications whatsoever or even a liking of Star Trek (half of them weren't even Born when TOS first aired)...
Star Trek and Into Darkness co-writer Roberto Orci is a die-hard fan. He even has shelves of Trek novels. I know you disagree, but I thought the movie was a loving tribute to Star Trek - there were references to episodes, movies, novels and please tell me you recognized the influence of Roger Sorensen's 1983 Kobayashi Maru blueprints on the movie veraion of the USS Kobayashi Maru? The man himself did and was thrilled. The movie artists were given that blueprint pack and the cover of Julie Ecklar's novel (depicting the Spaceflight Chronology version) to work from. See here for details: http://johneaves.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/3869/
It seems Into Darkness takes some pretty big cues from novels too.
Finally the people in charge are looking beyond "canon" for inspiration. I love it.
I'd sooner see Kraith and other old zine series become elevated to something worthy of being filmed or cataloged long before I give this trio any credit...
You see, there's a big freaking difference here: the people who did Kraith were Fans and it was a work of Love trying to flesh out a background for Vulcans and Surak's Construct... Oh, and yeah, they Did have some contact with deities--D.C. Fontana was one... The trio I mention above are nothing but talentless hack kids who'd just as well make Transformers 4 thru 40 and cash-in on every cent they can wring out of robo-brained fan tots... Now read my lips: They Do Not Understand Science Fiction... The closest they get to SF is Comic Books... They've no love for Trek--it's just the latest and greatest cash cow that's fallen into their lucky laps to fuel their millionaire lifestyles!
Harve Bennett and Nicholas Meyer were not Star Trek fans. They're on record as such. Being a Trekkie is most definitely not a prerequisite to making a good Star Trek film. An understanding of what made Trek great definitely is... but I think you and I are going to disagree on what that is, exactly. Abrams tapped into the Trek that I
love. IDIC and all that, right?
As much as I would love JJ Abrams' money, I won't hate on the guy just for being rich. Jealous, yes. Hate? No. Do you really think the other Trek filmmakers weren't financially very well off also?
I was born in January 1984. Does that make me less of a fan? We may have different viewpoints on what makes good Star Trek, we may like different elements of it to different extents. I have hundreds of novels, comics, manuals, fan materials. I don't love or even like them all, but I love Trek.