Do you want ongoing novels on the Kelvin Universe

[David Strickhouser]

All valid points. That "diversity of appeal" is what makes the franchise welcoming.
Personally, I just did not like the direction of the new film franchise. For new fans coming to Star Trek, those films may be their benchmark, and that's fine. So novels directed to that universe would appeal to them.

 

[Christopher]

Personally, I just did not like the direction of the new film franchise. For new fans coming to Star Trek, those films may be their benchmark, and that's fine. So novels directed to that universe would appeal to them.

I think the same complaint could be leveled against most of the Trek films. Even the TOS and TNG movies were very different from the shows they were based on. They've mostly been geared more toward action, more superficial in their storytelling, more focused on fighting bad guys than exploring ideas, etc. Movies just aren't the ideal medium for telling Trek stories. But the Prime Universe movies exist in the context of the richer, deeper TV universe, so their shortcomings aren't as evident. So far we have nothing but a couple of movies for Kelvin, so that hampers that universe's ability to really establish itself. If the new TV series were to be set in Kelvin, it would be an opportunity to deepen and flesh out that universe in the way only a TV series can -- since of course a TV series would have to be focused more on plot and character and less on action and spectacle, purely for reasons of budget and practicality.

And it's the same with novels. Of course novels would not be written exactly like movies, any more than our novels are written exactly like TV episodes. Each medium has its own strengths, and moving to another medium lets you do things you couldn't do in the previous medium, which is why it would be pointless just to try to copy the same approach. Sure, when I wrote Seek a Newer World, I tried to capture the flavor of the '09 movie -- bigger action and spectacle, more irreverent humor, etc. -- but I also took advantage of the freedom of the novel medium to flesh out the characters and ideas more, to get into their heads and explore their feelings and relationships, to slow down and give them long conversations, all the things that you could do in a novel better than in a movie.

Even with just the Prime timeline, there are people who like the novels better than the shows. A lot of people like Kirsten Beyer's Voyager novels better than they liked the show. I may have heard a comment or two to that effect about my Enterprise novels. Our goal is to complement and expand on the canon, not merely to duplicate it. So if there were Kelvin novels, I doubt they'd be in exactly the same vein as the movies. What would be the point?

 

[David Strickhouser]

Fair points.
But would "Kelvin" novels appeal to the broad, general audience the studio is trying to capture?
That's an issue I have with the film series. The studio mindset is seems, to me, to be: we have a property - STAR TREK film franchise; the broad, general audience knows it by "the pointy-eared fellow", spaceships zooming to and fro firing weapons, "beam me up", and those elements of TOS that have been in the collective audience's mind for fifty years. Again, a broad, general audience.
Two hours to take your mind off your issues and enjoy popcorn and candy.
I feel core fans are more "vested" and expect more than "action-adventure"; they want issue-driven/human condition storytelling. Broad, general audiences (which the studio needs to make a financial profit) do not.
Perhaps that is why Star Trek works best on the small screen, where it began. My opinion.

 

[Christopher]

Fair points.
But would "Kelvin" novels appeal to the broad, general audience the studio is trying to capture?

They don't have to. You're trying to granularize fandom, to be a gatekeeper and divide it up into mutually exclusive categories with no overlap. That's not how fandom works. It's a continuum. Yes, there are going to be people who like one flavor of Trek but not another, but there are also going to be people who like both. I've been a fan of ST since 1974, and I like the new movies just fine. Sure, there are things about them that I think are overly implausible or superficial, but I feel the same about a lot of the earlier movies. And there's a lot about them that I like. I think their casting is amazingly good, and that they do a good job with the characters.

Despite the hostility that people on the Internet like to manufacture, there are plenty of people who like both the new movies and the old continuity just fine. Fandom is not granular. It's not a bunch of walled-off warring camps, despite the constant efforts of a vocal few to make it feel that way. Nothing is going to appeal to everyone, but everything is going to appeal to someone, and there will always be people who bridge the categories. Fandom should be about looking for that common ground, sharing our mutual enthusiasm for the universe despite the differences in what specific parts we're enthusiastic about. Infinite diversity in infinite combinations.

 

[The Wormhole]

I feel core fans are more "vested" and expect more than "action-adventure"; they want issue-driven/human condition storytelling. Broad, general audiences (which the studio needs to make a financial profit) do not.

Meh, the action adventures are typically the more popular movies and even episodes. Everyone claims they want Star Trek to be about peaceful exploration, parables about the human condition with positive uplifting morals, and yet one of the most popular TNG episodes is the one in an alternate timeline where the Enterprise is intentionally depicted as a warship.

 

[David Strickhouser]

As I posted, my opinion, from a second-generation (from the time of TOS) fan who argues internally with himself about the direction of Star Trek.
Yes, we need a fan base to grow into the future, but I have a fear (perhaps unwarranted) that each succeeding generation will dismiss TOS as "ancient" and latch onto whatever iteration of the franchise is currently "hot" as the definitive.
Perhaps an irrational fear; there nonetheless.

 

[Idran]

Well, why does there have to be one singular definitive? Though admittedly I say that as exactly the sort of fan you're talking about, one that came in during late TNG and sees the modern day Litverse as their definitive version of Trek.

 

[Christopher]

Yes, we need a fan base to grow into the future, but I have a fear (perhaps unwarranted) that each succeeding generation will dismiss TOS as "ancient" and latch onto whatever iteration of the franchise is currently "hot" as the definitive.
Perhaps an irrational fear; there nonetheless.

I don't see why that's something to fear. Reinventing the franchise for new generations is what will keep it alive and active. Sure, some people will only be interested in the new iteration, but there will always be those who seek out the original. I'm sure there are plenty of people who just like Sherlock or Elementary or the Robert Downey, Jr. Sherlock Holmes movies, but there are also people who are inspired by them to seek out the original 60 stories and novels. Again, fandom is diverse. On the other hand, if there were no new versions or reinventions of Sherlock Holmes today, then a lot fewer people would be aware of the character at all. Reinvention is not something to be feared.

As a society, we're too driven by fear these days. The reason Star Trek had such an impact in the '60s is because it wasn't based in fear of the other or fear of the new. When people were mired in constant dread of nuclear war and race riots and a society that seemed to be barrelling toward self-destruction, here was a story offering hope, showing a future where we solved our problems and not only survived but thrived. Star Trek is about rejecting fear as the filter through which you see the world.

 

[David Strickhouser]

I don't see why that's something to fear. Reinventing the franchise for new generations is what will keep it alive and active. Sure, some people will only be interested in the new iteration, but there will always be those who seek out the original. I'm sure there are plenty of people who just like Sherlock or Elementary or the Robert Downey, Jr. Sherlock Holmes movies, but there are also people who are inspired by them to seek out the original 60 stories and novels. Again, fandom is diverse. On the other hand, if there were no new versions or reinventions of Sherlock Holmes today, then a lot fewer people would be aware of the character at all. Reinvention is not something to be feared.

As a society, we're too driven by fear these days. The reason Star Trek had such an impact in the '60s is because it wasn't based in fear of the other or fear of the new. When people were mired in constant dread of nuclear war and race riots and a society that seemed to be barrelling toward self-destruction, here was a story offering hope, showing a future where we solved our problems and not only survived but thrived. Star Trek is about rejecting fear as the filter through which you see the world.

Something just occurred to me...
I am as bad as the Talosians from "The Cage": I just keep wanting to relive the old "thought records".
The novels I read are the TOS paperbacks from Pocket; only the TOS stories (currently reading "Crisis of Consciousness" by Dave Galanter.) I collect the John Byrne NEW VISIONS comic book series; his use of TOS screenshots and photo-manipulation to create original stories set in that period are great.
But it's still TOS.
I don't know... .

 

[Idran]

Hey, there's nothing wrong with that either. There's plenty of people whose interest is purely in TOS. Everyone can enjoy a fandom in their own way, and none is innately any better than the other. You love TOS, and that's good. Other people love other parts of Trek, and that's also good.

Trek's awesome, however you shake it.

 

[David Strickhouser]

Just noticed ... been promoted to Ensign.
Very nice.

 

[Greg Cox]

One positive side to reboots: they tend to call attention back to the previous versions, increasing the the odds that modern audiences might check them out. Sure, a certain percentage of the audience is only going to be interested in the hot, new version and have no interest in the older versions, but the latest version may also pique the curiosity of new viewers, who may or may not be inspired to revisit the older material, to varying degrees.

And, again, this isn't a binary, either/or thing. It's a spectrum with extremes at both ends. Some may want to delve deeply, going all the way back to TOS, while others may simply choose to sample one or all of the latter-day series. And that's all good.

It's funny. I occasionally see people pronouncing the new movies a failure because they're not driving enough people to go back and watch the "real" STAR TREK, which strikes me as missing the point. Yes, ideally, it would great if the new stuff increased awareness of the earlier material, but that's not the main goal nor the standard by which the reboot should be judged. The idea is to move the franchise forward and capture today's audience, not to create more VOYAGER fans or whatever.

 

[Christopher]

It's funny. I occasionally see people pronouncing the new movies a failure because they're not driving enough people to go back and watch the "real" STAR TREK, which strikes me as missing the point. Yes, ideally, it would great if the new stuff increased awareness of the earlier material, but that's not the main goal nor the standard by which the reboot should be judged. The idea is to move the franchise forward and capture today's audience, not to create more VOYAGER fans or whatever.

And at one time or another, most of what we now consider the "real" Star Trek -- the third season of TOS, the animated series, the movies, TNG, DS9, VGR, ENT -- was all dismissed as "not real" Star Trek by some contingent of fandom. Because there are always, always people who preemptively reject whatever is new and different from what they're used to. But that point of view never really lasts. There are always going to be people whose first exposure to ST is going to be the newest thing, and that will be the "real" ST to them. And they're no more wrong to think that than the people whose first exposure was to TOS or TNG or whatever.

 

[Desert Kris]

As I posted, my opinion, from a second-generation (from the time of TOS) fan who argues internally with himself about the direction of Star Trek.
Yes, we need a fan base to grow into the future, but I have a fear (perhaps unwarranted) that each succeeding generation will dismiss TOS as "ancient" and latch onto whatever iteration of the franchise is currently "hot" as the definitive.
Perhaps an irrational fear; there nonetheless.

I know of at least one very young girl, just getting out of high school, who discovered Star Trek through the Abrams movies, and then went back and watched all the other Trek television shows. And the original stuck with her as one of her all-time favorite shows; and the original Mr. Spock is one of her all-time favorite characters. She tried Next Gen, DS9 and the rest of the newer ones, but she settled with TOS as her favorite, even over the original Abrams movies that got her attention. I know that's just one example, but I'm sure there are others. And sure, there might well be diminishing returns as each generation comes and goes. But it's always a nice surprise to see that happen, even if it's not very common.

 

[Idran]

But that point of view never really lasts.

Oh no.

Ohhhhh no.

No, there are still all those contingents in fandom; they just thankfully aren't as prominent. But, for example, there is so much Enterprise fix fic out there about making it "more in line with canon"...

(Well, I can't speak for TOS S3 ignorers; that contingent might be essentially dead nowadays. But I've seen all the rest still out there here and there.)

 

[Greg Cox]

Everything is the "first" for somebody. I was first exposed to Doc Savage and Conan the Barbarian via the 1970s Marvel comics adaptations, which encouraged me to go check out the original novels and short stories. Ditto for the DC comics adaptations of John Carter of Mars. And I think the first Bond movie I ever saw was Diamonds Are Forever when it was first released.

We all have to start somewhere. Whether that inspires us to investigate what came before depends on our own individual levels of interest.

 

[Christopher]

No, there are still all those contingents in fandom; they just thankfully aren't as prominent.

Sure, that's what I meant. There are always some holdouts -- there are one or two TrekBBS members I can think of who still don't consider anything post-TMP to be "real Star Trek" -- but they do become more marginalized over time.

 

[Idran]

there are one or two TrekBBS members I can think of who still don't consider anything post-TMP to be "real Star Trek"

Oh interesting, that specific dividing line isn't one I've seen before. Because of Roddenberry's exclusion, I gather?

 

[Christopher]

Oh interesting, that specific dividing line isn't one I've seen before. Because of Roddenberry's exclusion, I gather?

You'd have to ask them.

 

[Idran]

Fair enough! Thought maybe it came up at some point.