Star Trek XI has failed... Trek Lit

[Christopher]

^It's convenient shorthand for the purposes of the movie. Screenwriter Roberto Orci acknowledged in a recent fan Q&A that there are plenty of surviving Vulcans offworld, and that the 10,000-survivor figure mentioned in Spock's log entry referred only to escapees from Vulcan itself.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

^It's convenient shorthand for the purposes of the movie. Screenwriter Roberto Orci acknowledged in a recent fan Q&A that there are plenty of surviving Vulcans offworld, and that the 10,000-survivor figure mentioned in Spock's log entry referred only to escapees from Vulcan itself.

Ah, thanks, I must have missed that QandA. I take it Spock's "endangered species" line can be dismissed as emotionally overblown, which is certainly understandable given the terrible combined trauma he's suffering?

 

[Christopher]

^That's how I interpret it.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Of course, while they may be in different timelines, that's two major planets the new film has blown up for the sake of angst in a character. I personally find this very lazy and rather horrific; destruction should mean something, it should be treated with dignity but here I felt it was used for quick shocks or the tired "my home and family are gone, so now I must smash and brood and destroy" characterization. I think of the planets that have been destroyed in the novels: Oghen, the many worlds the Borg destroyed in "Destiny", Palgranex. All these were treated with the dignity they deserved. This isn't simply a strength of the genre; on-screen destruction can have the same effect if done correctly. If anyone has watched "Babylon Five", the haunting scene of the bombardment of Narn comes instantly to mind. For that matter, the fall of Cardassia Prime in Deep Space Nine was handled properly. Garak's speech about the rich and noble Cardassian culture, and how so much has been lost, is very moving. I don't feel the film delivered something like this, not for Vulcan and certainly not for Romulus (Spock did refer to its destruction as "unthinkable", so that's a small step in the right direction, I suppose).

Also, I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but why didn't Nero go to Romulus in this new timeline? Warn them, get them ready to evacuate when the time comes. Also, give them your super-advanced future vessel, let them analyse and reverse-engineer it, outfit a fleet, Romulans conquer the galaxy, they have nothing to worry about. By the time the destruction of Romulus comes round, they can have Earth or Qo'noS as a homeworld and, issues of temporal causality aside, disaster could be avoided. Oh, and Nero could still destroy Vulcan anyway if he wanted to. So why, in 25 years in this new timeline, does he never go to Romulus?

 

[Sci]

Of course, while they may be in different timelines, that's two major planets the new film has blown up for the sake of angst in a character. I personally find this very lazy and rather horrific; destruction should mean something, it should be treated with dignity but here I felt it was used for quick shocks or the tired "my home and family are gone, so now I must smash and brood and destroy" characterization. I think of the planets that have been destroyed in the novels: Oghen, the many worlds the Borg destroyed in "Destiny", Palgranex. All these were treated with the dignity they deserved. This isn't simply a strength of the genre; on-screen destruction can have the same effect if done correctly. If anyone has watched "Babylon Five", the haunting scene of the bombardment of Narn comes instantly to mind. For that matter, the fall of Cardassia Prime in Deep Space Nine was handled properly. Garak's speech about the rich and noble Cardassian culture, and how so much has been lost, is very moving. I don't feel the film delivered something like this, not for Vulcan and certainly not for Romulus (Spock did refer to its destruction as "unthinkable", so that's a small step in the right direction, I suppose).

Considering that Spock spent most of the rest of the film in a state of emotional shock and recovery from the trauma of Vulcan being destroyed, I'm really not sure where you're getting the idea that there was inadequate follow-up to the destruction of Vulcan, nor do I see the distinction between how B5 and DS9 handled that scenario and how ST09 did.

Fair enough on Romulus, since Nero was the only one who really seemed traumatized by it - but, there again, keep in mind that from the POV of the other characters, it's not only a foreign, enemy world, but a foreign, enemy world in an alternate universe's far future.

Also, I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but why didn't Nero go to Romulus in this new timeline?

A deleted scene established that the damaged Narada was captured by the Klingons and its crew imprisoned for most of the intervening 25 years. Nero and Company then escaped from Rura Penthe and re-captured and repaired the Narada in time to intercept Spock Prime.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Of course, while they may be in different timelines, that's two major planets the new film has blown up for the sake of angst in a character. I personally find this very lazy and rather horrific; destruction should mean something, it should be treated with dignity but here I felt it was used for quick shocks or the tired "my home and family are gone, so now I must smash and brood and destroy" characterization. I think of the planets that have been destroyed in the novels: Oghen, the many worlds the Borg destroyed in "Destiny", Palgranex. All these were treated with the dignity they deserved. This isn't simply a strength of the genre; on-screen destruction can have the same effect if done correctly. If anyone has watched "Babylon Five", the haunting scene of the bombardment of Narn comes instantly to mind. For that matter, the fall of Cardassia Prime in Deep Space Nine was handled properly. Garak's speech about the rich and noble Cardassian culture, and how so much has been lost, is very moving. I don't feel the film delivered something like this, not for Vulcan and certainly not for Romulus (Spock did refer to its destruction as "unthinkable", so that's a small step in the right direction, I suppose).

Considering that Spock spent most of the rest of the film in a state of emotional shock and recovery from the trauma of Vulcan being destroyed, I'm really not sure where you're getting the idea that there was inadequate follow-up to the destruction of Vulcan, nor do I see the distinction between how B5 and DS9 handled that scenario and how ST09 did.

Fair enough on Romulus, since Nero was the only one who really seemed traumatized by it - but, there again, keep in mind that from the POV of the other characters, it's not only a foreign, enemy world, but a foreign, enemy world in an alternate universe's far future.

Also, I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but why didn't Nero go to Romulus in this new timeline?

A deleted scene established that the damaged Narada was captured by the Klingons and its crew imprisoned for most of the intervening 25 years. Nero and Company then escaped from Rura Penthe and re-captured and repaired the Narada in time to intercept Spock Prime.

Ah, I was unaware of the Nero-captured-in prison plot, thank you. Of course, this simply adds another odd coincidence to the list; Nero and company escaped just in time, eh? Also, and I apologise as I don't want it to appear that I've got it in for this film and am randomly attacking it wherever I can, but if the heroes are inclined to be dismissive over a world's annihalation simply because the world in question is foreign and an enemy, surely that's not in keeping with the Trek philosophy?

As for why I felt the film handled the trauma of a world's destruction far less effectively than DS9 or Bab5, I think a large part of my problem may be that it didn't "fit" into the story in quite the same way, and so lacked meaning. Now, destruction often does lack meaning, I know, but a story dealing with widespread destruction should always enfuse it with meaning, even if that meaning is "what a pointless waste". The fall of Cardassia Prime and the destruction of Narn were somewhat inevitable given the paths these societies and the galaxies they inhabit had taken. There was thus a dignity to the destruction (sorry to keep using that word) I felt was absent from Trek 09, where Vulcan blew simply to provide a quick "ooh, things are different now" shock, and to give Spock something to feel trauma over. I know you might well be thinking "how is Spock's trauma different from Garak's or G'Kar's?" and I'm afraid I don't quite know how to answer that satisfactorily. I suppose Trek 09 just felt like the "summer movie, so LETS BLOW THINGS UP!!!" urge kicking in, and the destruction wasn't fitting, just thrown in for the sake of thrills. Although, as we've discussed, at least the authors of the novels can redeem Romulus' destruction (hey, any Nu-verse novels could do the same for Nu-Vulcan)

 

[Sci]

Ah, I was unaware of the Nero-captured-in prison plot, thank you. Of course, this simply adds another odd coincidence to the list; Nero and company escaped just in time, eh?

I don't know the exact details of the deleted sequence or sequences, and so wouldn't presume to know if they escape because of coincidence or for some other reason. We'll find out when the DVD comes out, I suppose.

Also, and I apologise as I don't want it to appear that I've got it in for this film and am randomly attacking it wherever I can, but if the heroes are inclined to be dismissive over a world's annihalation simply because the world in question is foreign and an enemy, surely that's not in keeping with the Trek philosophy?

No so much dismissive as -- well, I mean, from their POV, it didn't really happen, now did it? And even if it did, it would have happened to foreigners. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't care, but human psychology simply does not allow for the same level of empathy with people you don't feel a bond with -- never has and never will.

As for why I felt the film handled the trauma of a world's destruction far less effectively than DS9 or Bab5, I think a large part of my problem may be that it didn't "fit" into the story in quite the same way, and so lacked meaning. Now, destruction often does lack meaning, I know, but a story dealing with widespread destruction should always enfuse it with meaning, even if that meaning is "what a pointless waste". The fall of Cardassia Prime and the destruction of Narn were somewhat inevitable given the paths these societies and the galaxies they inhabit had taken. There was thus a dignity to the destruction (sorry to keep using that word) I felt was absent from Trek 09, where Vulcan blew simply to provide a quick "ooh, things are different now" shock, and to give Spock something to feel trauma over. I know you might well be thinking "how is Spock's trauma different from Garak's or G'Kar's?" and I'm afraid I don't quite know how to answer that satisfactorily. I suppose Trek 09 just felt like the "summer movie, so LETS BLOW THINGS UP!!!" urge kicking in, and the destruction wasn't fitting, just thrown in for the sake of thrills. Although, as we've discussed, at least the authors of the novels can redeem Romulus' destruction (hey, any Nu-verse novels could do the same for Nu-Vulcan)

I would suggest that you're allow the spectacle of the special effects actually distract you from the content of Spock's character arc, which I think makes very effective use of the destruction of Vulcan (albeit within the shorter span of time that a movie allows).

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Something else just occurred to me. Sorry to keep picking, but if the Klingons were in possession of Narada for 25 years, why haven't they reverse-engineered it? We know from Enterprise, with the example of the Tezra, that captured ships are taken apart by Klingons. Why hasn't the Klingon Empire conquered the galaxy (23rd century Klingons surely would leap right to it, whether it were a wise course of action or not). Will a future film deal with this?

Of course, I'm assuming the Klingons had Narada. Maybe it wasn't like that. Can someone help me out?

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Ah, I was unaware of the Nero-captured-in prison plot, thank you. Of course, this simply adds another odd coincidence to the list; Nero and company escaped just in time, eh?

I don't know the exact details of the deleted sequence or sequences, and so wouldn't presume to know if they escape because of coincidence or for some other reason. We'll find out when the DVD comes out, I suppose.

Also, and I apologise as I don't want it to appear that I've got it in for this film and am randomly attacking it wherever I can, but if the heroes are inclined to be dismissive over a world's annihalation simply because the world in question is foreign and an enemy, surely that's not in keeping with the Trek philosophy?

No so much dismissive as -- well, I mean, from their POV, it didn't really happen, now did it? And even if it did, it would have happened to foreigners. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't care, but human psychology simply does not allow for the same level of empathy with people you don't feel a bond with -- never has and never will.

As for why I felt the film handled the trauma of a world's destruction far less effectively than DS9 or Bab5, I think a large part of my problem may be that it didn't "fit" into the story in quite the same way, and so lacked meaning. Now, destruction often does lack meaning, I know, but a story dealing with widespread destruction should always enfuse it with meaning, even if that meaning is "what a pointless waste". The fall of Cardassia Prime and the destruction of Narn were somewhat inevitable given the paths these societies and the galaxies they inhabit had taken. There was thus a dignity to the destruction (sorry to keep using that word) I felt was absent from Trek 09, where Vulcan blew simply to provide a quick "ooh, things are different now" shock, and to give Spock something to feel trauma over. I know you might well be thinking "how is Spock's trauma different from Garak's or G'Kar's?" and I'm afraid I don't quite know how to answer that satisfactorily. I suppose Trek 09 just felt like the "summer movie, so LETS BLOW THINGS UP!!!" urge kicking in, and the destruction wasn't fitting, just thrown in for the sake of thrills. Although, as we've discussed, at least the authors of the novels can redeem Romulus' destruction (hey, any Nu-verse novels could do the same for Nu-Vulcan)

I would suggest that you're allow the spectacle of the special effects actually distract you from the content of Spock's character arc, which I think makes very effective use of the destruction of Vulcan (albeit within the shorter span of time that a movie allows).

Perhaps. I admit I'm being a bit harsh on this film. Maybe I was hoping for too much

 

[Christopher]

Also, and I apologise as I don't want it to appear that I've got it in for this film and am randomly attacking it wherever I can, but if the heroes are inclined to be dismissive over a world's annihalation simply because the world in question is foreign and an enemy, surely that's not in keeping with the Trek philosophy?

I never heard anyone say anything "dismissive" about the annihilation of Romulus. They didn't talk about it one way or the other, because they had more pressing obligations. Presumably Spock Prime and the Federation will be working to find ways to avert or prepare for the disaster, and they have 129 years to figure it out, so it's not "dismissive" to be less than urgent about it.

Of course, I'm assuming the Klingons had Narada. Maybe it wasn't like that. Can someone help me out?

We won't know until the DVD comes out, unless Roberto Orci does another Q&A and someone asks the question.

Anyway, I'd suggest that questions that are solely about the film itself are best asked in the forum dedicated to the film. This thread is about the relationship between the film and the tie-in literature.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Also, and I apologise as I don't want it to appear that I've got it in for this film and am randomly attacking it wherever I can, but if the heroes are inclined to be dismissive over a world's annihalation simply because the world in question is foreign and an enemy, surely that's not in keeping with the Trek philosophy?

I never heard anyone say anything "dismissive" about the annihilation of Romulus. They didn't talk about it one way or the other, because they had more pressing obligations. Presumably Spock Prime and the Federation will be working to find ways to avert or prepare for the disaster, and they have 129 years to figure it out, so it's not "dismissive" to be less than urgent about it.

Of course, I'm assuming the Klingons had Narada. Maybe it wasn't like that. Can someone help me out?

We won't know until the DVD comes out, unless Roberto Orci does another Q&A and someone asks the question.

Anyway, I'd suggest that questions that are solely about the film itself are best asked in the forum dedicated to the film. This thread is about the relationship between the film and the tie-in literature.

True, i apologise for getting off-topic.

 

[Stevil2001]

Some of these questions about Nero will undoubtedly be answered in IDW's upcoming Nero mini, though I've no idea how closely this will cleave to whatever the screenwriters might have had in mind.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Some of these questions about Nero will undoubtedly be answered in IDW's upcoming Nero mini, though I've no idea how closely this will cleave to whatever the screenwriters might have had in mind.

That's true, thanks. Speaking of Nero, one thing I did like about Countdown was its exploration (however basic) of how Romulan civilians use space, and how citizens serve the Star Empire in a manner other than military service. It was a take on the Romulans we rarely see, as most writing centres on the armed forces or the senate, not "the people".

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Ah, I was unaware of the Nero-captured-in prison plot, thank you.

This storyline will be explored in IDW's Star Trek: Nero miniseries coming in a few months.

The sequence was deleted from the film for reasons of pacing, as I recall. It really just didn't fit.

 

[Extrocomp]

I only found this thread just now, so I hope you'll all forgive me for resurrecting it. I skimmed through the pages and I'm pretty sure that what I want to say hasn't been said yet. This is a reply to the original post.

Why is everyone here so sure that the original timeline still exists? Some producer or scriptwriter saying something in some interview on some website doesn't mean anything. Perhaps if he said it in a DVD audio commentary or in one of the DVD special features, it would carry more weight, but the only thing that will prove the two-timelines theory correct, is to see the original timeline, after the destruction of Romulus and disappearance of Spock and Nero.

'The City on the Edge of Forever', 'Yesterday's Enterprise', 'First Contact' and some other episodes all show that if something disappears into the past and creates major changes in the past, the present is changed instantly. Time travellers take great care to avoid changing the past because they know it will affect their present. If they could just return to their original reality after messing up the past, then they wouldn't try so hard. In some episodes, including Yesterday's Enterprise, characters sacrifices their lives just to ensure that other characters succeed in returning the timeline to normal. Almost everything that we've seen in Star Trek so far indicates that time travel changes the existing timeline and does NOT create a new parallel universe. There is no indication that the Mirror Universe or the 285,000 parallel universes suggested in 'Parallels' were created due to time travel.

Among the few exceptions are 'The Chimes at Midnight' which is a continuation of the timeline in 'Yesteryear' and 'Q-Sqaured' features a continuation of the timeline from 'Yesterday's Enterprise'. But these could just be parallel universes that are similar but not the same as the alternate timeline that were created and repaired by time travel.

There's also a Strange New Worlds about the Enterprise-D crew encountering someone from the timeline of the Enterprise episode 'Twilight'. Daniels shows up and has something to say about why that timeline still exists but I don't remember what he said.

Then there's the Crucible books, which I didn't read, but I know the McCoy one involves alternating chapters telling the story of what McCoy did in the 'The City on the Edge of Forever' timeline. I also know that the end of the Kirk book involves some weird kind of time travel but I don't know what happens and I don't how those books explain the fate of alternate timelines.

 

[Sci]

I only found this thread just now, so I hope you'll all forgive me for resurrecting it. I skimmed through the pages and I'm pretty sure that what I want to say hasn't been said yet. This is a reply to the original post.

Why is everyone here so sure that the original timeline still exists? Some producer or scriptwriter saying something in some interview on some website doesn't mean anything.

1. Yes it does. Creative intent counts, especially since these are the guys in charge of Trek.

2. Evidence within the film indicates that the prime timeline still exists. Why? Well, as you note, in the past, when a timeline was changed, it happened instantly. In the new film, however, Spock only entered the black hole after Nero did. Meaning that Nero's destruction of the USS Kelvin, which produced the new timeline, occurred even whilst Spock was still in the prime timeline; it didn't instantly affect the prime timeline. If it had instantly affected the prime timeline's 2387, Spock would have disappeared and would never have entered the black hole to be sent to the year 2258.

In other words: Star Trek now has two canonical continuities, the prime timeline and the new one. Deal with it.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

In other words: Star Trek now has two canonical continuities, the prime timeline and the new one. Deal with it.

Deal with it? We're Star Trek fans! Endless debate and moaning are what we do! "Deal with it" indeed...

 

[Extrocomp]

In Star Trek First Contact, the Enterprise-E went into the temporal vortex AFTER the Borg sphere. I think there was even a line of dialogue explaining that they weren't affected by the changes because they were in close proximity with the temporal vortex.

I suppose it's possible that Nero arrived in the past of an already-existing parallel universe. Another explanation is that changes in the past usually eliminate the original timeline, but on rare occasions it creates a new alternate timeline. but the idea that changing the past never has any effect on the original timeline just contradicts too many episodes for me to accept it.

 

[Sci]

In Star Trek First Contact, the Enterprise-E went into the temporal vortex AFTER the Borg sphere. I think there was even a line of dialogue explaining that they weren't affected by the changes because they were in close proximity with the temporal vortex.

Yes. But there was no Borg temporal vortex that Spock was caught in. He just fell into a black hole. One minute he was out of it, one minute he was in it. There was nothing to shield him from changes in the timeline.

Logically, then, the prime timeline must coexist with the new timeline.

 

[Extrocomp]

A black hole is an extreme distortion in space and time so being close to a black hole might have the same effect as being close to a temporal vortex.