Differences between Trek XI movie vs. novelization

[Hartzilla2007]

One interesing difference is that there are more previous Trek references in the novel version. One of these is that in the bar scene in the book when Kirk is talking to Uhura he uses the "out there, that away." line from the end of TMP, another one is that when the Cadets are in the hanger geg their assignments two of the ones given are Regula One and the Excelsior, also the Excelsior is part of the fleet that goes to Vulcan.

 

[Chrisisall]

"Whoa. Nobody told me that character was a robot!"

 

[diftorhehsmusma]

You are too hard on yourself! Nobody's really upset about stuff like that; most fans I suspect read novelizations to spend more time with the characters and in the general movie ambiance.

absolutely! i apologise of i came off as too bitchy, it has just bugged me for years and this is the first time i have gotten to air it. if i am critical of anything it's the process that doesn't allow someone writing the book to get to know what they're writing about first. while i'm sure there's lotsa reasons for this, it really stinks.

 

[LeahBoBo]

In the book Spock flips the bird at the Council after they insult him and his mother.

I definitely like the film's choice better. This behavior from Spock would have been too crude and too unjustifiably human.

 

[Greg Cox]

You are too hard on yourself! Nobody's really upset about stuff like that; most fans I suspect read novelizations to spend more time with the characters and in the general movie ambiance.

Don't worry, I don't get agitated about it or anything. I just tend to notice these things the first time I watch the movie.

Occupational hazard. It comes with the territory!

 

[Greg Cox]

You are too hard on yourself! Nobody's really upset about stuff like that; most fans I suspect read novelizations to spend more time with the characters and in the general movie ambiance.

absolutely! i apologise of i came off as too bitchy, it has just bugged me for years and this is the first time i have gotten to air it. if i am critical of anything it's the process that doesn't allow someone writing the book to get to know what they're writing about first. while i'm sure there's lotsa reasons for this, it really stinks.

Nah, you didn't sound bitchy. I used to wonder about this stuff, too.

(I'm still trying to figure out why the 1960 novelization of BRIDES OF DRACULA has the ending from KISS OF THE VAMPIRE!)

It's just the nature of the beast. There's really no point in publishing a novelization after the movie has come and gone.

 

[SalvorHardin]

In the book Spock flips the bird at the Council after they insult him and his mother.

 

[diftorhehsmusma]

i don't remember reading it as him having literally flipped them the bird, more like the subtext to his parting words was analogous to a certain earth gesture that they wouldn't have understood if they had seen it. this would be totally in keeping with the film, one definitely gets that sense from quinto's "live long and prosper" ....assholes.

 

[Defcon]

i don't remember reading it as him having literally flipped them the bird, more like the subtext to his parting words was analogous to a certain earth gesture that they wouldn't have understood if they had seen it. this would be totally in keeping with the film, one definitely gets that sense from quinto's "live long and prosper" ....assholes.

Here's that part of the scene:

"Therefore, the only emotion I wish to convey is ...gratitude." He nodded ever so slightly. "Thank you, ministers and councilors, for your consideration. Live long and prosper."

No emotion in those words, not even in the last few. But just a hint, perhaps, of a nonverbal suggestion best exemplified by a distinctively human digital gesture with which those on the Vulcan High Council were not familiar.

 

[Greg Cox]

Indeed. Spock doesn't actually give the Academy the finger in the novelization; that's just the subtext.

 

[diftorhehsmusma]

thank you, defcon <bows> so, this is pretty good keeping with the film, no?

and i really like your avatar, BTW

 

[Rackon]

so, it's fun and all, but i don't understand how it can be considered to be a novelisation of the film itself. i have always wondered why such a thing isn't made from the film. ah, hollywood. as if i can demand it make sense. heh.

I can answer that. Because 99% of the time, the author of the novelization never gets a chance to see the movie. The book has to be on sale when the movie comes out, so it has to be written long before the movie is finished. Most of the time, we're working from an early version of the script plus a handful of still photos and maybe, if we're lucky, some early production sketches.

Basically, it's all about describing a movie you haven't seen yet--which can be just as tricky as it sounds!

I've written six movie novelizations, and edited many more, and I have never seen more than a few minutes of footage from the movies in the question.

I often read the novelizations with an eye to what was in the early script, since I know most films go through a metamorphosis before they're released.

Movies are director's medium and many movies only take final shape in the editing room. Some directors shoot more coverage than others, but I know Abrams changed a lot in post.

Even if the scenes hew fairly closely to the script during shooting, there are always little changes that creep in - be they ad libs or rewwrites or a difference in staging. Moreover, the editors and director can dramatically shift a film's emphasis and nuance, never mind the scene order, during the editing process.

I believe ADF actually did see a rough cut of the entire film, sometime around February. I think it was essentially in the form released, but without all the FX shots being finished, and of course with temp music. That is rare, since as Greg notes, often all the writer has to work with is an early version of the shooting script.

I can imagine it would be odd watching a finished movie that changed a lot from early days to final release.

No wonder you hav

 

[Hartzilla2007]

another interesting difference between the movie and novelization is Kirk is refered to as a Lieutenant after he gets aboard the Enterprise.

 

[Greg Cox]

so, it's fun and all, but i don't understand how it can be considered to be a novelisation of the film itself. i have always wondered why such a thing isn't made from the film. ah, hollywood. as if i can demand it make sense. heh.

I can answer that. Because 99% of the time, the author of the novelization never gets a chance to see the movie. The book has to be on sale when the movie comes out, so it has to be written long before the movie is finished. Most of the time, we're working from an early version of the script plus a handful of still photos and maybe, if we're lucky, some early production sketches.

Basically, it's all about describing a movie you haven't seen yet--which can be just as tricky as it sounds!

I've written six movie novelizations, and edited many more, and I have never seen more than a few minutes of footage from the movies in the question.

Even if the scenes hew fairly closely to the script during shooting, there are always little changes that creep in - be they ad libs or rewwrites or a difference in staging. Moreover, the editors and director can dramatically shift a film's emphasis and nuance, never mind the scene order, during the editing process.

Exactly. Even when the dialogue remains the same, the staging and the actors' performances can completely change the tenor of a scene.

Case in point: GHOST RIDER. I had no idea Nicholas Cage was going to put such a loopy spin on his line readings, so I suspect that Johnny Blaze comes off as much less eccentric in the novelization. Same dialogue, but handled very differently.

 

[Captain59]

At the very end of the book, with nobody in the transporter room, a beagle with unique ears is beamed aboard the ship, and nobody ever figures out how it happened. Obviously this is supposed to be Porthos emerging from Scotty's experiment, although I would think he would have eventually figure that out.

 

[barnaclelapse]

I haven’t seen a thread on this yet. There are several differences from the book and movie; I thought we could discuss them here. The ones that were the biggest for me was the characterization of young Spock.

When Kirk and Spock board the Narada in the movie there is a fierce firefight. Yet in the book Spock breaks out in some Vulcan martial arts and viciously yet logically dispatched every Romulan by hand starting from biggest to smallest.

At this point in the movie Spock then mind-melds with the surviving Romulan and learns the location of Pike and the Red-matter.

In the book however Spock proceeds to beat the living shit out of his victim with his fists, the whole time screaming at him matching punch for word on the Romulans face. Needless to say both methods yielded the same result.

It would have been… different… to see the more violent Spock in the movie. It might have taken the point too far as far as his being emotionally compromised over the destruction of Vulcan.

Anyone else?

It would have been different, but I don't think it would have been better.

I like what they did in the movie.

 

[T J]

At the very end of the book, with nobody in the transporter room, a beagle with unique ears is beamed aboard the ship, and nobody ever figures out how it happened. Obviously this is supposed to be Porthos emerging from Scotty's experiment, although I would think he would have eventually figure that out.

Unless Archer neurotically names all his subsequent beagles Porthos that would be the oldest dog EVER!

 

[SalvorHardin]

At the very end of the book, with nobody in the transporter room, a beagle with unique ears is beamed aboard the ship, and nobody ever figures out how it happened. Obviously this is supposed to be Porthos emerging from Scotty's experiment, although I would think he would have eventually figure that out.

Unless Archer neurotically names all his subsequent beagles Porthos that would be the oldest dog EVER!

Is he mentioned as Porthos in the novelization or is it just "Admiral Archer's prized beagle" like in the movie ?

 

[Captain59]

At the very end of the book, with nobody in the transporter room, a beagle with unique ears is beamed aboard the ship, and nobody ever figures out how it happened. Obviously this is supposed to be Porthos emerging from Scotty's experiment, although I would think he would have eventually figure that out.

Unless Archer neurotically names all his subsequent beagles Porthos that would be the oldest dog EVER!

I agree! But a few months ago Orci was asked in a chat whether we are to assume the beagle referenced in the movie was indeed Porthos from the series whom somehow benefitted from future extended life expectancies for dogs, and he said yes. I can't remember how he said it, but it lead me (at least) to believe he wasn't being tounge-in-cheek about it!

In any case, I shouldn't have said "obviously"...a little arroagant on my part!

 

[Captain59]

At the very end of the book, with nobody in the transporter room, a beagle with unique ears is beamed aboard the ship, and nobody ever figures out how it happened. Obviously this is supposed to be Porthos emerging from Scotty's experiment, although I would think he would have eventually figure that out.

Unless Archer neurotically names all his subsequent beagles Porthos that would be the oldest dog EVER!

Is he mentioned as Porthos in the novelization or is it just "Admiral Archer's prized beagle" like in the movie ?

Unfortunately no, but from what Orci said in his chat, we're supposed to assume it's the Porthos we know from the series. i wish I could find that darned transcript.