Embedded in Hank Stuever's Star Trek piece in yesterday's Washington Post was this gem:
All the church words and metaphors people come up with to describe blockbusters and devoted fandom apply: Is it faithful? Will I feel betrayed? Is it canon? Will I still believe? Summertime filmmaking is church now. Pity the producers, directors, screenwriters and actors who take on a science-fiction or fantasy project and must first make an appearance at Comic-Con or some such convention-center cathedral gathering, so as to genuflect before fans of the older version, the classic comic or the original TV show. There's a permission paradigm now: You must show fans your plans -- costume sketches; a glimpse of a vehicle or set design. You must demonstrate reverence. The just-cast star must sit on a panel and make up stories about his childhood love for [insert character here].
For months, Abrams and his team of "Star Trek" writers and actors smartly paid lip service to "Trek" fans, to set them at ease and co-opt their support. The three trailers released before "Star Trek" seemed designed to reassure. Only the third and most recent trailer seemed in any way deviant, as a voice-over tells the new, hottie Kirk (Chris Pine) that he must fulfill his destiny and follow his father's footsteps, which, as anyone knows, is "Star Wars" talk -- a little like being handed a Communion wafer in a synagogue.
Emphasis mine.
I don't know about you, but I have no shortage of clients who want to turn themselves or their products into the focal points of religious cults. They'll never say it in so many words, but that's where all the brand loyalty stuff points - toward the soap that gives meaning.
Maybe there are lessons for them in the Church of Star Trek.
LATER: This Washington Post blog brushes past - but doesn't come to terms with - a question that's been on my mind for years, namely, how does the Star Trek universe manage to have an economy, what with replicators and all? I mean, put your cash in the replicator and it's Weimar all over again, right?
Comments