Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoilers)

[Claudia]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

I think it's very clear that there are only 10,000 left in total. There were no ships in orbit around Vulcan to beam them aboard (aside from the Enterprise, which got the grand total of half a dozen) and no time to launch from the surface. nuSpock's quote above certainly appears to be referring to a total tally.

Yes, you're right about the Vulcans on Vulcan - but like Spock there could be some, and I emphasize *some*, that weren't on Vulcan. Not in great numbers, mind you, that they would really count. But I got the impression that Spock's log really was only about Vulcans escaping from Vulcan. It doesn't make a big difference, either way. 10000 +/- a couple of dozens Vulcans off planet... horrifying numbers, whatever way you look at it.

I really hope they don't use some of the sillier aspects from the film though - they could have used Scotty's equation to beam people to or from Voyager and made that whole series moot...

And I seriously hope they won't apply any going back in time to fix Vulcan's destruction in future movies. Spock Prime *could* after all share that slingshot around the sun-way of time travel with them. And, of course, I hope we'll even be seeing the fallout of Vulcan's destruction - somehow, I have my doubts. Now that the whole crew is on Enterprise I doubt they'll focus on Vulcans but on "what's out there"...

 

[captcalhoun]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

Orci and Kurtzman have said there will be no more time-travel

 

[FatherRob]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

I think it's very clear that there are only 10,000 left in total. There were no ships in orbit around Vulcan to beam them aboard (aside from the Enterprise, which got the grand total of half a dozen) and no time to launch from the surface. nuSpock's quote above certainly appears to be referring to a total tally.

In the scene were Spock beams down to the Katric Ark, one can see a ship zipping by in the sky, as well as multiple contrails leading into space. It's obvious that people survived from the planet.

Rob+

 

[FatherRob]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

For those who feel that somehow the idea of more than 10000 Vulcans alive is a problem, think of this.

Tomorrow, tons of bombs are dropped on the USA. Only 10000 survive. Does anyone have any idea how many Americans are currently out of the country? Well over 100,000, I'd dare say. I'd guess over 500,000. Now, multiply that by a whole planet.

It would not remove the horror of having an entire nation wiped off the face of the earth if there were 510,000 former nationals of said nation around the world... so why is it so hard to accept that the estimated 10,000 Spock refers to actually escaped Vulcan, while it does not take into account the number of people off-planet?

Rob+

 

[Christopher]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

I think it's very clear that there are only 10,000 left in total. There were no ships in orbit around Vulcan to beam them aboard (aside from the Enterprise, which got the grand total of half a dozen) and no time to launch from the surface. nuSpock's quote above certainly appears to be referring to a total tally.

Again, just because you couldn't see ships in orbit doesn't mean they didn't exist. A planet is a very big thing. If you're far enough from the planet to see its entire disk the way we did in that shot in the movie, even something as large as an orbital space station would be invisibly small. There could've easily been thousands of ships fleeing the planet but we just didn't see them.

And as FatherRob said, there were visible streaks of evacuating ships in the sky when Spock beamed down.

I really hope they don't use some of the sillier aspects from the film though - they could have used Scotty's equation to beam people to or from Voyager and made that whole series moot...

As I mentioned, long-range transporters were established to exist in TNG: "Bloodlines." The technology was known prior to 2370, but it was not commonly used due to its risks and impractical power requirements. I'm assuming that its use here was justified by the emergency but that it wouldn't be used as a matter of course.

And it doesn't follow that a technology allowing beaming across maybe 4-5 light years would allow for beaming across 70,000 light years.

 

[JoeZhang]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

For those who feel that somehow the idea of more than 10000 Vulcans alive is a problem, think of this.

Tomorrow, tons of bombs are dropped on the USA. Only 10000 survive. Does anyone have any idea how many Americans are currently out of the country? Well over 100,000, I'd dare say. I'd guess over 500,000. Now, multiply that by a whole planet.

It would not remove the horror of having an entire nation wiped off the face of the earth if there were 510,000 former nationals of said nation around the world... so why is it so hard to accept that the estimated 10,000 Spock refers to actually escaped Vulcan, while it does not take into account the number of people off-planet?

Rob+

I just think you are thinking about this too hard - (Like on another thread, someone is suggesting that Spock lies to Kirk about his father. ). They want there to be 10,000 Vulcans so there are. Kirk finds Spock in a cave because the story says he needs to, transwarp teleporting is available because it needs to be.

I really loved the film but it's not big on the fine detail or worrying about that sort of stuff.

 

[EJA]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

Apparently Starfleet has developed a working transwarp drive in this timeline, as evidenced when the Enterprise travels from Earth to Vulcan in five minutes. I wonder where they got that from...?

 

[Christopher]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

^That's the way it seemed to be edited, but we don't know for sure. There's no reason there couldn't have been hours between the scene where McCoy injected Kirk with a sedative and the subsequent bridge scene where Chekov begins the briefing.

Besides, in First Contact, the Enterprise apparently got from the Romulan border to Earth within minutes. And let's not even bring up ST V and the center of the galaxy.

 

[David cgc]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

^That's the way it seemed to be edited, but we don't know for sure. There's no reason there couldn't have been hours between the scene where McCoy injected Kirk with a sedative and the subsequent bridge scene where Chekov begins the briefing.

And does it really make sense for McCoy's sedative to have knocked Kirk out for all of twenty seconds? Given how he reacted, it seemed like pretty strong stuff.

 

[donners22]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

And it doesn't follow that a technology allowing beaming across maybe 4-5 light years would allow for beaming across 70,000 light years.

It's a bit hard without the exact lines in front of me, but I thought Scotty's point was that they could beam to any ship which was in warp space. Presumably the idea is that such an environment is not subject to the usual limitations of physical distance, and that it wouldn't matter if it were a handful of light years or thousands of times that.

I'll think I'll need to watch it again to work it out...

 

[Christopher]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

It's a bit hard without the exact lines in front of me, but I thought Scotty's point was that they could beam to any ship which was in warp space. Presumably the idea is that such an environment is not subject to the usual limitations of physical distance, and that it wouldn't matter if it were a handful of light years or thousands of times that.

Context is everything. Scotty had no reason to think he'd ever need to beam to a ship that was thousands of light-years away, since he wouldn't even be aware of the existence of a ship at that distance, so it would've been implicit that he was talking about the kinds of distance ranges that would apply within the Federation. I mean, if someone is trying to sell you a GPS navigator for your car and telling it'll let you navigate anywhere, they don't need to state explicitly that they only mean anywhere on the land surface of the Earth as opposed to anywhere in the universe.

Besides, we know full well that warp space is subject to the limits of physical distance, because warp travel is not instantaneous (although it does occasionally seem that way in various movies).

 

[terpette]

Abramsvers and TOS books

So... will the new movie timeline affect any TOS books down the road? Or has Pocket decided to stay in the original universe? I'm just curious.

(If this has already been hashed out recently, just close the thread, please. I haven't been in here since my computer died in late January so I'm a bit behind on the latest chatter.)

Karen

 

[Julio Angel Ortiz]

Re: Abramsvers and TOS books

I think the "classic" TREK books are safe...

Spoiler: STAR TREK movie

Nero's divergence of the timeline occurs well before the first TOS episode.

So they could continue putting out books in that range as long as they have stories to tell.

Now, whether Pocket Books wants to dip into the "Abramsverse" (or, Ultimate Star Trek as I see it ), that would remain to be seen (and probably not until late next year before we see anything, potentially. Perhaps Shore Leave will shed some light on this?

 

[William Leisner]

Re: Abramsvers and TOS books

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=91525

 

[Christopher]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

Okay, Roberto Orci has clarified some things in a Q&A thread on TrekMovie.com. The whole thing is worth looking at, but on one particular point of contention in this thread, here is the answer straight from the horse's mouth:

Let’s just say then that the 10,000 does not count off worlders!

(That's in comment #359 in the thread.)

There you have it. The filmmakers' intention was that 10,000 Vulcans escaped their planet, but that other Vulcans survive elsewhere in the galaxy.

 

[Jbarney]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

Okay, Roberto Orci has clarified some things in a Q&A thread on TrekMovie.com. The whole thing is worth looking at, but on one particular point of contention in this thread, here is the answer straight from the horse's mouth:

Let’s just say then that the 10,000 does not count off worlders!

(That's in comment #359 in the thread.)

There you have it. The filmmakers' intention was that 10,000 Vulcans escaped their planet, but that other Vulcans survive elsewhere in the galaxy.

Actually, I am kinda shocked at the amount of attention this line has recieved with respect to it only being able to mean 10,000 Vulcans left in the galaxy. I'm not trying to be insulting to anyone who has argued 10,000 Vulcans remained after the destruction of Vulcan, but come on.

Vulcan had interstellar travel long before Earth did, and based on what was established in Enterprise about Vulcan colonies, etc, its kind of limiting to assume that only 10,000 Vulcans remained. They already have colony worlds in different regions of space, they have a sizable fleet of ships, isn't it logical to assume that the writers were saying 10,000 escaped the destruction of the planet?

If you look at the context of what was said and you take into account trek history which was not altered in this movie (Enterprise), that line has to apply to the Vulcans who got off the planet during the course of its destruction. There has to be more than just 10,000 Vulcans left.

 

[Garrovick]

Re: Abramsvers and TOS books

So... will the new movie timeline affect any TOS books down the road? Or has Pocket decided to stay in the original universe? I'm just curious.

(If this has already been hashed out recently, just close the thread, please. I haven't been in here since my computer died in late January so I'm a bit behind on the latest chatter.)

Karen

I would think Pocket will produce what makes them money, like any good company. What people buy each month will be the deciding factor.

 

[Cap'n Crunch]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

As for why so few Vulcan's actually escaped, I just assumed that Nero was picking them off as they left the planet.

 

[Christopher]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

^Given how little time they had to evacuate, 10,000 escapees seems a plausible number without any need for Nero to be picking them off.

 

[JD]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

Okay, Roberto Orci has clarified some things in a Q&A thread on TrekMovie.com. The whole thing is worth looking at, but on one particular point of contention in this thread, here is the answer straight from the horse's mouth:

Let’s just say then that the 10,000 does not count off worlders!

(That's in comment #359 in the thread.)

There you have it. The filmmakers' intention was that 10,000 Vulcans escaped their planet, but that other Vulcans survive elsewhere in the galaxy.

Ah think you for sharing this, it's nice to get a definitve answer from one of the writers. And it turns out I was wrong, so I apologize.