• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Nutrek lit vs Primetrek lit

The way I see it is, there'd be no point in doing these books if they were indistinguishable from standard TOS books. If both versions of 23rd-century Trek are going to coexist on bookshelves, it only makes sense to differentiate them as much as possible.

Also, the movie has brought in a whole new audience for Star Trek, an audience that has little or no prior familiarity with ST but came to the film because of their interest in J.J. Abrams or Zachary Quinto or Zoe Saldana or whoever and decided they liked what they saw. If we want to get those new movie fans interested in the books, then the books need to emulate the style, tone, and content of the movie.

You just sealed the deal for me. I wasn't sure I was going to buy the new books because I had the feeling you guys were going to toss out the action and the adrenaline and the whole space opera thing the movie had going and overintellectualize the whole thing.

Don't get me wrong there's nothing wrong with writing an intelligent sci-fi story but the JJ Trekverse ain't about intelligence it's about big set pieces, emotional manipulation and cutsey one-liners. Ain't nothing wrong with that either. :D

Anyway you guys have put my mind and ease and you can consider your books presold as far as I'm concerned.
 
Don't get me wrong there's nothing wrong with writing an intelligent sci-fi story but the JJ Trekverse ain't about intelligence it's about big set pieces, emotional manipulation and cutsey one-liners. Ain't nothing wrong with that either. :D

I think there's room for both. A story can have ramped-up action and pacing and humor and still be intelligent.
 
Don't get me wrong there's nothing wrong with writing an intelligent sci-fi story but the JJ Trekverse ain't about intelligence it's about big set pieces, emotional manipulation and cutsey one-liners. Ain't nothing wrong with that either. :D

I think there's room for both. A story can have ramped-up action and pacing and humor and still be intelligent.

From recent interviews, it seems Abrams does want to have a little more depth in the next outing as well as keep the action, pacing, and humor of the first film.
 
Don't get me wrong there's nothing wrong with writing an intelligent sci-fi story but the JJ Trekverse ain't about intelligence it's about big set pieces, emotional manipulation and cutsey one-liners. Ain't nothing wrong with that either. :D

I think there's room for both. A story can have ramped-up action and pacing and humor and still be intelligent.

Not a bad point. Personally I think Abrams tends to live in Homer Simpson's famed impulse zone though. :) Certainly Orci and Kurtzman have had more than a few wine spritzers in their time judging from Transformers 2. :D
 
Well, just the fact that we're talking about novels means there will have to be fleshed out characterizations and exposition and other elements which might not appear to be priorities in a fast-paced 2-hour film where visuals -- be they special effects or big action set pieces or what have you -- are the big selling points. You have to dive deeper when you're talking about a novel. and we're not talking about writing "dumber" Trek novels. The way I see it, a key point of focus for "nuTrek" novels would seem to be the differences in how the characters relate to one another as well as the "new" timeline in which they now find themselves. It's not just the fact that they're younger than when we first met them in the "prime" timeline, but also the fact that the way in which they came together is radically different than what we know to be true in the prime timeline. That will affect the interpersonal dynamics on multiple levels, I'd think.

How will nuSpock mature differently than his prime counterpart, given the reality he now faces? In several respects, Kirk's personality reflects an upbringing markedly different from the one (we believe) characterized his youth in the prime timeline. The new film posits that he's even more brash and perhaps even reckless than we originally were led to understand, and -- events of the new film aside -- he's still largely inexperienced. Are some harsh, even cruel lessons coming his way, which will influence his command style and even the way he conducts his personal life from that point forward, leading him toward something resembling the Kirk we know/knew? Only time will tell.

(NOTE: I have no knowledge of any of the plotlines for any of the new books, nor have I been approached to write a future installment. I'm just spitballing for the sake of discussion here.)

Speaking for myself, and saying this as a diehard, unapologetic fan of the original series, this is a dream come true: Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the TOS cast, in their prime with a blank canvas before them? Sign me up.
 
The way I see it is, there'd be no point in doing these books if they were indistinguishable from standard TOS books. If both versions of 23rd-century Trek are going to coexist on bookshelves, it only makes sense to differentiate them as much as possible.

Also, the movie has brought in a whole new audience for Star Trek, an audience that has little or no prior familiarity with ST but came to the film because of their interest in J.J. Abrams or Zachary Quinto or Zoe Saldana or whoever and decided they liked what they saw. If we want to get those new movie fans interested in the books, then the books need to emulate the style, tone, and content of the movie..

but, they also bought back into the star trek fold people who were fans of tos, who grew up watching star trek.
that see beyond certain things like the destruction of vulcan into things that attracted them to star trek in the first.


i think the writers are walking an interesting tight rope in that yeah there are some thing news with the abramverse but if they stray to far from certain things like the friendship among the characters, that people care about these characters into too much go go go action they might turn of as many fans as they attract.
 
I am simply saying that if the old stuff is Prime Universe, does it not mean that the new is Sub-Prime? I didn't say I thought it was bad, nor was I trying to convince anyone that it was. If you like it, enjoy it. If you love, that's great.
 
Well, just the fact that we're talking about novels means there will have to be fleshed out characterizations and exposition and other elements which might not appear to be priorities in a fast-paced 2-hour film where visuals -- be they special effects or big action set pieces or what have you -- are the big selling points. You have to dive deeper when you're talking about a novel. and we're not talking about writing "dumber" Trek novels.

Indeed. Maybe we're going lighter on the really involved continuity and technobabble and such, so that the books will be less "inside" and more accessible, but that definitely doesn't mean dumbing down. For instance, in Seek a Newer World, there are several big action set pieces, but they're just as scientifically grounded as everything else in my Trek fiction.


The way I see it, a key point of focus for "nuTrek" novels would seem to be the differences in how the characters relate to one another as well as the "new" timeline in which they now find themselves. It's not just the fact that they're younger than when we first met them in the "prime" timeline, but also the fact that the way in which they came together is radically different than what we know to be true in the prime timeline. That will affect the interpersonal dynamics on multiple levels, I'd think.

Yep. I had fun writing about the Kirk-Spock and McCoy-Spock relationships (and to some extent the Sulu-Chekov relationship) in their nascent phase, while they're still getting acquainted.

I kind of approached SANW similarly to Ex Machina -- a movie followup that, while telling a separate story, deals heavily with the character ramifications of the movie's events. Although it's not quite as immediate a followup as ExM (which began only 10 days after TMP ended).


In several respects, Kirk's personality reflects an upbringing markedly different from the one (we believe) characterized his youth in the prime timeline. The new film posits that he's even more brash and perhaps even reckless than we originally were led to understand, and -- events of the new film aside -- he's still largely inexperienced. Are some harsh, even cruel lessons coming his way, which will influence his command style and even the way he conducts his personal life from that point forward, leading him toward something resembling the Kirk we know/knew?

:evil:


Speaking for myself, and saying this as a diehard, unapologetic fan of the original series, this is a dream come true: Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the TOS cast, in their prime with a blank canvas before them? Sign me up.

I hope you get the chance. It's fun.


but, they also bought back into the star trek fold people who were fans of tos, who grew up watching star trek.

That's true. I'm sure we all hope these books will be accessible to old-school fans as well, and of course we are all fans of Classic Trek ourselves. Part of the fun I just mentioned is getting to tell stories about the classic characters in the classic setting, yet with a fresh twist. It's that mix of the familiar and the new that makes it intriguing.

In the movie itself, there was a lot that was new, that was changed, that was sometimes radically reinterpreted. Yet there were also moments when I was watching these new actors do a scene together and I thought, "Yes. That's really Kirk and Spock. That's really Spock and Bones. It feels just like I remember." And hopefully we'll be able to do something similar with the books: capture the essence of the old within a new framework.


i think the writers are walking an interesting tight rope in that yeah there are some thing news with the abramverse but if they stray to far from certain things like the friendship among the characters, that people care about these characters into too much go go go action they might turn of as many fans as they attract.

Don't worry -- there's plenty of character focus in the action scenes I've written, and I don't doubt the same will be true in the other books. The action in SANW generally serves to support and advance the plot and character arcs.


I am simply saying that if the old stuff is Prime Universe, does it not mean that the new is Sub-Prime?

Err, no. I think you're basing that on the "subprime mortgages" that have been in the news lately, but that's a specialized definition of the word, i.e. "at less than the prime interest rate." In other contexts, "subprime" means "inferior, lower in quality." It's a negative value judgment.

The "prime" in "Prime Universe" is not being used in the sense of "best" or "most important," but merely in the sense of "first, original."
 
I am simply saying that if the old stuff is Prime Universe, does it not mean that the new is Sub-Prime?

Err, no. I think you're basing that on the "subprime mortgages" that have been in the news lately, but that's a specialized definition of the word, i.e. "at less than the prime interest rate." In other contexts, "subprime" means "inferior, lower in quality." It's a negative value judgment.

The "prime" in "Prime Universe" is not being used in the sense of "best" or "most important," but merely in the sense of "first, original."[/QUOTE]


Hmm. Really? That's weird. I heard ItsJustSomeRandomGuy say it during a review of Star Trek 11 on his video chat. He loved the movie. I rather liked the term when I heard him coin it.

http://www.blogtv.com/Shows/614880/date/bm3FY2PHaeZxbeZGZX

Oh and here's some of his work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wus6Hp664XI
 
I'm definitely reining in my continuity porn tendencies. There's a time and a place for Gary Seven crossovers and extended cameos by Janeway's great-aunt, but not in this book . . . !
 
I'm definitely reining in my continuity porn tendencies.

So am I, for the most part, but I'm surprised at how many subtle Easter-egg nods I've gotten away with. (Remember in the movie where McCoy has one throwaway line to Nurse Chapel off-camera? Kinda like that.)
 
No Porthos cameo?

The lifespan of a beagle is typically around a dozen years. Porthos would be long gone by this point. The reference to "Admiral Archer's beagle" in the movie would have to be to a different beagle, perhaps a descendant of Porthos -- and probably a different Archer as well, since Jonathan Archer would be 146 in the principal timeframe of the movie.
 
I am simply saying that if the old stuff is Prime Universe, does it not mean that the new is Sub-Prime?

No, it means it is the Optimus Prime Universe.

Keep an eye out for my upcoming tie-in novel entitled Give Me Your Face!!! (You might want to consider the collector's edition, which comes with an extra exclamation point.)

This novel will contain war-mongering and objectification of women, but done in an intelligent and sophisticated way.
 
The crucial difference is writing nuTrek, of course, is that, following the lead of Foster's novelization, I'm numbering the chapters with Roman numerals . . . .
 
No Porthos cameo?

The lifespan of a beagle is typically around a dozen years. Porthos would be long gone by this point. The reference to "Admiral Archer's beagle" in the movie would have to be to a different beagle, perhaps a descendant of Porthos

Why so serious? :devil:

-- and probably a different Archer as well, since Jonathan Archer would be 146 in the principal timeframe of the movie.

If I can buy the McCoy cameo in Encounter at Farpoint I can accept Cap'n Archer surviving to be 146. 23rd century medical technology is pretty good.
 
If I can buy the McCoy cameo in Encounter at Farpoint I can accept Cap'n Archer surviving to be 146. 23rd century medical technology is pretty good.

But it would've been 24th-century medical technology that let McCoy live that long, since it's later in life that that becomes important to longevity. Archer was born more than a century before McCoy, so the medical science available to him would've been a century less advanced, relative to his age. Thus, his life expectancy would be lower. Someone born in 2112 living to the age of 146 might be theoretically possible, but it would probably be exceedingly rare, and it's therefore very unlikely that Jonathan Archer, on top of all his other achievements, would just happen to set new records in longevity as well.

Besides, "The Deadly Years" implied that longevity in the 23rd century wasn't that much greater than in our own time. If not worse; when the computer estimated Kirk's effective age as between 60 and 72, Kirk was in considerably more decrepit condition, physically and mentally, than the 78-year-old William Shatner is today. (On the other hand, Spock said they had less than a week to live when aging at nearly 30 years per day, which, given that they were in their 30s to begin with, implies a life expectancy of 180 or better. But maybe he was referring to his own longevity there.)
 
If I can buy the McCoy cameo in Encounter at Farpoint I can accept Cap'n Archer surviving to be 146. 23rd century medical technology is pretty good.

But it would've been 24th-century medical technology that let McCoy live that long, since it's later in life that that becomes important to longevity. Archer was born more than a century before McCoy, so the medical science available to him would've been a century less advanced, relative to his age. Thus, his life expectancy would be lower. Someone born in 2112 living to the age of 146 might be theoretically possible, but it would probably be exceedingly rare, and it's therefore very unlikely that Jonathan Archer, on top of all his other achievements, would just happen to set new records in longevity as well.

Perhaps so but it ruins the in-joke if it wasn't the same Archer from Enterprise.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top