View Single Post
Old May 20 2013, 11:49 PM   #69
Christopher's Avatar
Re: Into Darkness and the novelverse [SPOILERS]

datalogan wrote: View Post
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.
A lot of the time, what I'm trying to do is simply to offer balance by saying there's more than one possible interpretation of the evidence. If one person, such as yourself, presents one possible interpretation, I may not necessarily be against that interpretation, but if I see other ways it could be interpreted, I'll put them out there for consideration, just so that all the possibilities are on the table.

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].
All I can say is that official policy is that tie-ins have to follow screen canon. You're perfectly welcome to believe in your own mind that Spock Prime isn't from the novelverse, or to write fanfiction to that effect, but Pocket Books does not have as much flexibility on that point as you do. That's not my opinion, that's just the way the business works.

The only reason I can see why Pocket would not acknowledge the Hobus supernova once they got to 2387 is if, hypothetically, they didn't have a license to use concepts from the Abramsverse -- much as IDW doesn't have a license for VGR or ENT (or DS9 anymore). But in that case they'd more likely avoid mentioning it rather than contradict it outright. Tie-ins don't get to contradict canon, not on purpose.

Or my thoughts about how John Harrison may not have been Khan Noonien Singh but some other Khan.
Which were based on an incorrect assumption that Khan could only be a title and not a given name. That's not a matter of opinion but a question of fact. It can be and is a given name (though usually a surname), and it was used as the character's given name rather than a title.

Plus there's no problem with Cumberbatch's character being the same Khan. Several possible explanations have already been proposed. He could've gotten cosmetic surgery. Or he could've been light-skinned all along, since Sikhism is a religion and not an ethnic group, and there are white or mixed-race people living in India. There are simpler explanations than the one you're proposing. It's a matter of Occam's Razor.

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.
I don't think we know enough to conclude that that's what they've presented. Yes, they've established that Spock Prime is aware of the formula, but they've revealed nothing about its use or feasibility in the Prime universe. Any conclusion, either that it's commonplace there or that it's rare there, is equally speculative.

I do not disagree with your premise that transwarp beaming might be a significant technology in the Prime universe as of 2387. I'm simply saying that it doesn't have to be, that there are other possibilities that also exist, and that the novelists thus have options about how they address the issue. Again, you've offered one side of the argument, and I'm offering the other side to balance it. It's good that both sides have been voiced for people to read and consider.

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.
Maybe it will be. But the convenient thing about my idea that it's the same technology from "Bloodlines" is that in that case, it already has been addressed. Again, it's an Occam's Razor thing. I prefer to believe that both forms of interstellar transporter technology are essentially the same thing, because it would be redundant to have two unrelated technologies that achieve exactly the same effect. And "Bloodlines" has already given us a handy explanation why such technology is not in standard use, so why bother inventing a separate one?

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.
I already have one in mind. Although it would only work if I were free to contradict Countdown's portrayal of the event.

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 still say that three successful uses are not remotely enough to demonstrate reliability. No government or oversight body would approve a transportation technology for regular public use if it had only had three successful test runs. What if it fails one out of every four times? Or two out of every five? Even one in a thousand failures would kill a huge number of people if it were put into regular, everyday use.

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.
I'm not ignoring anything. On the contrary, I'm wishing that people would stop ignoring the existence of a near-identical technology in "Bloodlines" -- and the handy explanation that episode already provides.

DarKush wrote: View Post
Sure this film is made with the mass audience in mind but it is also made with an eye towards the old fans as well. I don't think you have to sacrifice a movie that is true or respectful of canon in order to appease or appeal to new fans.
But fans can dwell too much on canon. Roddenberry himself had no problem retconning the Klingons' appearance in TMP and asking fans to accept that they'd always looked that way. Canon is about the broad strokes, not the nitpicky details that are matters of individual interpretation.

As for Marcus's explanation of Section 31 to Kirk, he might very well have thought Kirk wouldn't live too long afterwards, but how could he know who Kirk might talk to before or during his mission to the Neutral Zone?
It was a private meeting in which Marcus assigned Kirk to a secret mission. I'd think it would be a given that the contents of their discussion were classified and that even a renegade like this version of Kirk wouldn't just go blabbing its contents to various and sundry.

(I didn't have a problem with Marcus's reveal of Section 31. I was just wondering why he was so open about it, when we had seen from ENT that it was a shadowy organization. Heck, in ENT it was so shadowy they just called it a section at first. I can't recall if they actually said Section 31).
It's not inconsistent with how Sloan introduced Bashir to knowledge of S31 at the end of "Inquisition," or how Admiral Zweller spoke of it to Hawk (I think it was) when trying to recruit him in Section 31: Rogue. S31 hasn't been reticent to reveal its existence to those it's trying to recruit for its missions.

With Praxis, I actually missed it the first time I saw the film, but paid more attention due to some of the comments I read on this website. My issue there was that something major like that could've easily been worked into the dialogue. While Marcus is talking about the Klingon predations he could've said something along the lines of since Praxis was destroyed-either due to the kind of build up you described or a-ha, the Narada, the Klingons have become more desperate, been striking out, yadda, yadda, yadda, and war is inevitable if we don't send a message now or something.
I don't see how that's necessary. It's purely a bit of continuity patchwork that doesn't really serve the story. And often in film, you let the images themselves tell the story with no dialogue needed. It's often more about visceral impressions than facts and exposition. Fans who know about Praxis can use their imaginations, as I did, and extrapolate reasons for Praxis's earlier destruction, while everyone else can just go "Ooh, cool space pics!"

As for Carol Marcus, I heard there had been a deleted scene that did explain it. I think this wouldn't bother the new fans but it would leave old fans' heads scratching.
I don't get why it's that puzzling. We saw that London was a major location in the film. We were told that it was connected to Section 31 and so was Admiral Marcus. It's not hard to put the pieces together and conclude that Carol grew up in London in this timeline.

Movies shouldn't spoon-feed us every detail. There's merit in leaving some things for us to figure out for ourselves.

I don't get why they just didn't let Ms. Eve use an American accent.
According to an interview on, they talked about it, but went with the British accent because American audiences associate it with intellect.

Or at least throw a line in there about her studying/living in England for a period.
They wrote it, they filmed it -- and they cut it, because it was unnecessary. As with Praxis, it's about showing rather than telling. They don't need a line of dialogue saying "I grew up in London" because her accent says "I grew up in London." That information is already there.
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog

Last edited by Christopher; May 21 2013 at 12:10 AM.
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote