View Single Post
Old May 20 2013, 10:53 PM   #66
Lieutenant Commander
datalogan's Avatar
Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Into Darkness and the novelverse [SPOILERS]

From my perspective, Christopher, whenever I present an argument that calls for an interpretation of the new films in any way other than straight-forward that you argue against it, saying that we should just take the film’s story straight-forward and not try to twist it to fit our desires.

Like my thoughts on how “Spock Prime” may not be from the novelverse and therefore the novelverse doesn’t have to blow up Romulus with the Hobus supernova by 2387 [which we have discussed before in different threads].
Or my thoughts about how John Harrison may not have been Khan Noonien Singh but some other Khan.

Christopher wrote: View Post
datalogan wrote: View Post
The new movie version of Khan doesn’t have to have any connection or correlation with the Khan seen in prior Trek
Which rather defeats the purpose of the filmmakers, doesn't it?
And yet, when I argue that the filmmakers have presented a straight-forward case that stable, regular long-distance “transwarp” transporters do work in the Prime universe, you take what appears to be the opposite track and try to argue away the repeated references in the films.

You admit that the technology has been presented in the films as a significant, important technology.

Christopher wrote: View Post
transwarp beaming shows the likelihood of becoming a major technology in the Abramsverse pretty soon.
But, you continue to argue that it should not, therefore, necessarily be a significant technology in the novelverse. Instead coming up with reasons—that were not presented on screen by the filmmakers—that the technology should NOT be a big deal in the novelverse.

Christopher wrote: View Post
But I'm perfectly happy to attribute that to the combined brilliance of Spock Prime and Khan and assume they enabled some additional insight that nobody in the Prime universe has had yet.
Your argument tracks seem contradictory.
Or self-serving.

Christopher wrote: View Post
Sure, if someone wanted to introduce it into the Primeverse novels, it could be justified (as long as the risk were reasonably addressed), but I'm perfectly content to let that breakthrough remain unmade for the foreseeable future.

Christopher wrote: View Post
It could be, but I do not agree with should. It depends on whether the story justifies it.
I understand the reluctance to embrace transwarp beaming into the novelverse. It just creates so many problems. But it seems like the new films are presenting such a clear case for it to exist in the Prime Universe by 2387. Or at least for Scotty to “invent” it and Spock to know about it. I think that this should be addressed eventually in the novels, just like the destruction of Romulus should be addressed eventually.

And it is my hope that when these things are “addressed” they will be done so much better by our novel writers than they were by the film writers. I actually look forward to a well-written, credible explanation of how a supernova could “threaten the galaxy” or take out Romulus unexpectedly. Or a good explanation of how even though transwarp beaming is possible--and relatively easy and reliable as presented in the films--it does not irrevocable change the face of the galaxy and lead to Starfleet ships being mothballed as a wasted resource.

I like my Star Trek with ships and not galaxy-hoping transporters.
And I like my Star Trek with science and supernovas that make sense.

I’ve seen what good authors like you, Christopher L. Bennett, can do when given a poorly-written situation within the Star Trek universe and a drive to “fix it”. Whether the editors tell you to do it or you found some story that justifies it to yourself to do it. And you do it well. Like how you took all the various crazy, contradictory time travel stories within Star Trek and sewed them together in the great story that is Watching the Clock. Or like how Kristen Beyer was told to bring back Janeway and she wrote the great story that is The Eternal Tide.

Sometimes taking on challenges can lead to great art. Don’t think of long-range transporters as some stupid little plot point in the films that you can just ignore; think of it as a challenge to overcome. I have faith in you.
[This being said, of course, but a person who couldn’t write himself out of a paper bag and doesn’t really understand how hard it can be to write to stupid requirements; I just enjoy reading the great work of others.]
datalogan is offline   Reply With Quote