RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,526
Posts: 5,512,517
Members: 25,138
Currently online: 542
Newest member: Bazzzz85

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Literature

Trek Literature "...Good words. That's where ideas begin."

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 1 2013, 04:09 AM   #166
Charles Phipps
Commander
 
Charles Phipps's Avatar
 
Re: Into Darkness and the novelverse [SPOILERS]

Back on topic,

I am curious if in the "mainverse" that Marcus was actually an Admiral or the events of the U.S.S. Kelvin and/or the destruction of Vulcan rocketed him into the position. In the "mainstream" universe I don't know if we ever got any information about Carol Marcus' father and David's grandfather.

Likewise, I'm curious about his version of Section 31 as well. Is it that large (having its own shipyards and massive facilities) or is that a result of Vulcan's destruction resulting in a complete and utter change in the direction of Starfleet at a fundamental level? These are all questions I'd love to see answered.

While the two universes have split, knowing how the two universes are changing and how they differ would be interesting. Sadly, I don't think anyone is going to publish a book about how they differ on specific points.

I'm also curious if we'll be seeing mainstream Scotty having invented transwarp beaming (obviously later in life than 2009 Star Trek universe). It'd be quite interesting to see its incorporation into the novelverse, though I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't get much of a role or downplayed.

I'm also curious if Praxis exploded prematurely in this universe or if it's just in the process of melting.
__________________
Check out the United Federation of Charles:
http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
Charles Phipps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2013, 04:30 AM   #167
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Into Darkness and the novelverse [SPOILERS]

Charles Phipps wrote: View Post
In the "mainstream" universe I don't know if we ever got any information about Carol Marcus' father and David's grandfather.
Nothing canonical. I'm not sure if any novels mentioned anything either.


Likewise, I'm curious about his version of Section 31 as well. Is it that large (having its own shipyards and massive facilities) or is that a result of Vulcan's destruction resulting in a complete and utter change in the direction of Starfleet at a fundamental level? These are all questions I'd love to see answered.
We don't know that S31 has its own shipyards. It seems to operate largely by suborning other Starfleet personnel and facilities, manipulating events so that they do things that advance S31's goals, even if they don't know that's who they're serving.


I'm also curious if we'll be seeing mainstream Scotty having invented transwarp beaming (obviously later in life than 2009 Star Trek universe). It'd be quite interesting to see its incorporation into the novelverse, though I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't get much of a role or downplayed.
I keep saying, the technology already existed as far back as TNG: "Bloodlines." It's just called a subspace transporter there instead.
__________________
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
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2013, 04:36 AM   #168
Charles Phipps
Commander
 
Charles Phipps's Avatar
 
Re: Into Darkness and the novelverse [SPOILERS]

We don't know that S31 has its own shipyards. It seems to operate largely by suborning other Starfleet personnel and facilities, manipulating events so that they do things that advance S31's goals, even if they don't know that's who they're serving.
That's a very good point. It also seems unlikely they could assemble their own shipyards on their own. It seems more likely Admiral Marcus just created the Vengeance on his own--though, I did note that the crew is private security versus Section 31 or Starfleet. Which means they probably don't have the numbers to crew it.

Especially after Khan's destruction of their base.

I liked the Vengeance an abnormally large amount and wonder if it's unique to the Abramsverse. The idea of a 'Dreadnought-class' vessel larger than regular destroyer-sized vessels would be awesome.

I keep saying, the technology already existed as far back as TNG: "Bloodlines." It's just called a subspace transporter there instead.
I'll have to check that out.
__________________
Check out the United Federation of Charles:
http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
Charles Phipps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2013, 07:26 AM   #169
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "Don't blame me--I voted for Jaresh-Inyo!"
Re: Into Darkness and the novelverse [SPOILERS]

Christopher wrote: View Post
DarKush wrote: View Post
But since they went the Khan route I think they should've cast a nonwhite actor. I think Khan is popular enough name/brand/character, if not his actual story, that it trumps him being a run of the mill brown skinned terrorist.

Plus Khan being a villain with some positive traits might have also undermined the dehumanized stereotype. Perhaps having a person of color back as Khan might dredge up those kind of vile feelings, but it might also present an intelligent, formidable brown skinned person that fans can possibly admire and understand. That might have changed perceptions in a way of turning Khan into a white guy, which avoids the issue, have not done.
You could well be right. After all, Harrison/Khan wasn't the real terrorist here; Marcus was. At least until the climax, he was a relatively sympathetic antagonist, acting to defend his people from the real monster, Marcus, who was trying to use them to start a war. That could've been a nice way of subverting terrorist stereotypes -- to show us a dark-skinned guy who seems to be a terrorist and then turn it around. Although that would've worked better if they'd left out the massive urban destruction in the climax -- but then, they should've done so anyway, because it really didn't contribute anything to the story.
I don't agree, actually -- I think the attack on San Francisco was thematically important, because it established a link to the issues of terrorism in the modern world.

To wit: Al Qaeda grew in strength and sophistication to the point where it was able to attack the United States on 9/11 because the United States had provided so much assistance and aid to the anti-Soviet mujahideen forces in the 1980s; al Qaeda then built on the weaponry and organization these movements had developed, recruiting and growing. So 9/11 was the unintended blowback of the U.S.'s involvement in (and subsequent abandonment of) Afghanistan.

The attack on San Francisco parallels this. Khan is unleashed by Admiral Marcus and Section 31 in their bid to militarize Starfleet and launch a war against the Klingon Empire that they can claim is "justified." When Khan turns on them and attacks San Francisco, this is the unintended blowback of their decision to try to use Khan against the Klingons, in the same way 9/11 was the unintended blowback of the U.S.'s decision to use the mujahideen.

(If anything, Khan's attack on San Francisco should have been given greater attention and weight in the plot -- though the movie was getting a bit long by that point, yeah.)
__________________
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it." - George Orwell, 1946
Sci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2013, 10:50 PM   #170
DarKush
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Into Darkness and the novelverse [SPOILERS]

Christopher,

In reply to your response to my last post...

Certainly TWOK could've been written to provide a meeting or confrontation between Kirk and Khan, but I am a loss to say how that would've pulled that off in the confines of the film/story that we got. And they didn't have to write Khan as so far gone as they did in TWOK, though I do think his madness increased as the film went on.

As for hurting Kirk, it didn't have to be solely physical pain. Khan realized that Kirk was goading him, that Kirk wanted him to beam down to the asteroid so he didn't. He understood at that point that he could wound Kirk more deeply by killing his friends and destroying the Enterprise while leaving Kirk stranded and helpless to prevent it. By the end though Khan had become so unraveled and hellbent on getting revenge that Kirk's taunting worked, and when Khan took the bait it sealed his doom.
DarKush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 12:06 AM   #171
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Into Darkness and the novelverse [SPOILERS]

DarKush wrote: View Post
Certainly TWOK could've been written to provide a meeting or confrontation between Kirk and Khan, but I am a loss to say how that would've pulled that off in the confines of the film/story that we got.
But that's the point. They didn't have to tell the exact same story. They made it up, after all. There were lots of possible stories they could've told.


As for hurting Kirk, it didn't have to be solely physical pain. Khan realized that Kirk was goading him, that Kirk wanted him to beam down to the asteroid so he didn't. He understood at that point that he could wound Kirk more deeply by killing his friends and destroying the Enterprise while leaving Kirk stranded and helpless to prevent it.
Again, whether you can rationalize it is beside the point. I do understand the characters' motivations in story. I'm not talking about the characters. I'm talking about the actors. I'm talking about my regret that I didn't get to see the actors play off each other.
__________________
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
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 10:11 AM   #172
DarKush
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Into Darkness and the novelverse [SPOILERS]

^
You asked me a question about the characters, specifically Khan's actions, and I gave you my thoughts on why he did what he did. As for the actors unfortunately there's nothing that can be done about your regret of them not being put in a scene together. As a fan I think I can relate to that sense of regret for many TV shows and movies.

As for TWOK I was fine with the movie we got. Keeping them apart made it unique and I still love the scene where Kirk first gets a visual of Khan while on the Enterprise bridge. His reaction was priceless. There was interaction between them, just not face-to-face or rather them being in the same physical space at the same time. To be fair I can't ever really say if they had gone a different route that I wouldn't have liked it more or better, that's just a hypothetical.
DarKush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 04:35 PM   #173
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Into Darkness and the novelverse [SPOILERS]

^Yes, there was the appearance of interaction between the characters, but it was created in the editing bay and the special-effects lab from entirely separate performances filmed weeks apart. Again, I'm talking about the craft of acting, not the structure of the story. When two actors are able to play off of each other, to have a real conversation and play off of each other's delivery and emotion, there's an added energy and vitality to the performance. They can bring things out in each other that wouldn't be there if they do their scenes separately while some off-camera assistant just feeds lines to them. It makes their performances better, richer, more interesting to watch. (Or listen to. Animation voice director Andrea Romano, famous for her work on productions like Batman: The Animated Series and Avatar: The Last Airbender, prefers to have her actors together in the studio and playing off one another whenever possible, rather than recording their lines separately as has long been the norm in animation, because of the richer and more dynamic performances it generates. Comedies like Futurama and The Simpsons also generally try to get the cast to record together because the performances are funnier when they can play off one another.) So as a rule, it's better from a performance standpoint to have the actors together. I'm not interested in arguing whether the story needed them to meet. I'm saying that both Shatner and Montalban could've given us better-acted, more interesting performances if they had been able to meet. Their performances in the movie we got certainly weren't bad (although Meyer pushed them way too far toward melodrama at times), but what I'm trying to convey here is that they could've been better if the actors could've played off each other directly.

It turns out that the reason the film was structured the way it was, without Kirk and Khan meeting, was because Montalban had to film his scenes weeks before the main cast came in to film theirs, in order to accommodate his shooting schedule as the star ofFantasy Island. So it wasn't something that was done because it was the best way to tell the story; it was something the filmmakers were forced to do for entirely external reasons. It's very possible that they wanted Kirk and Khan to meet face-to-face but had to settle for keeping them apart. In early drafts, there was a final confrontation between Kirk, Khan, and David.
__________________
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
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 09:35 PM   #174
DarKush
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Into Darkness and the novelverse [SPOILERS]

^
Christopher I'm not arguing with you about this. I don't disagree that the performances could've been better if Shatner and Montalban had acted together, but it's a hypothetical that unfortunately can't be proven or unproven.
DarKush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 09:44 PM   #175
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Into Darkness and the novelverse [SPOILERS]

It just seemed to me that you misunderstood what I was actually trying to get across, that I was making a point about the performances rather than the plot.
__________________
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
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 4 2013, 05:01 AM   #176
Cap'n Calhoun
Cadet
 
Re: Into Darkness and the novelverse [SPOILERS]

Christopher wrote: View Post
Paper Moon wrote: View Post
That's actually awesome. Hadn't heard that; if you don't mind my asking, do you have a source?
IIRC, it was one of Roberto Orci's comments in a thread on TrekMovie.com, but I can't seem to find the quote at the moment. Maybe I'm misremembering and I read it somewhere else.
Here you go. From source: http://trekmovie.com/2013/05/15/stic...d-open-thread/:

54. GermanTrekker - May 15, 2013
@boborci: Khan does work for me in this one! But I also understand some of the critics who say Khan is a Sigh from India and should therefore be portrayed by a non-caucasian actor. There is a very interesting article on wikipedia that says Khan was orgiginally supposed to be a Nordic-superman named Harold Ericcsen in the first draft of “Space Seed”. So my question to the writing team: did you took anything from the development history of the character or is this just a coincidence? (“Nordic” look of Cumberbatch plus the name John Harrison that comes very close to Harold Ericcsen, which you couldn´t use of course)

58. boborci - May 15, 2013
54. Not a coincidence. Inspired by Ericsen. In fact, we shot the movie using the name Ericsenn but decided it would give it away so we cheated the name Harrison into everyone’s mouth!

Last edited by Cap'n Calhoun; July 4 2013 at 05:01 AM. Reason: Capitalization
Cap'n Calhoun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 4 2013, 02:15 PM   #177
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Into Darkness and the novelverse [SPOILERS]

^Thanks.
__________________
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
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 5 2013, 12:51 AM   #178
Ben
Lieutenant
 
Re: Into Darkness and the novelverse [SPOILERS]

I always thought it was really cool that Kirk and Khan don't actually meet face-to-face. Accident or not, I think it's great.
__________________
Ben
Ben is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.