Should novels set in the JJVerse rectify the film's plot holes?

[RookieBatman]

The comment JJ amde (or was it a tagline?) that "This sin't your father's Star Trek" made that quite clear. Of course, I am the father he's talking about. This wasn't made for me. It was made for the crowds of summer movie fans to park their brains by the door and watch the big explosions. Star Trek has been turned into a movie much like The Transformers series. Sure, it'll make a bunch of money. For the first time in decades none of it will be mine. I'd prefer to have a bit more in a movie. Like plot.

I agree with this very much. I'm not the father J.J. was talking about, but I liked my father's Star Trek. Saying "this ain't your father's Star Trek" is not a positive thing for me. Can't anybody else agree that that at least might indicate a disrespect for the source material? To me, this is basically the same as saying, "Hey, remember how lame Star Trek was? This is better!"

Oh, and what's up with the negative reaction to the "Bones" explanation? Good as any and better than most, including "Sawbones," which is prosaic and dull. I also liked the callback to McCoy's bitter divorce, which never made it onto the screen before.

Some people just can't tolerate anything that diverges from their preconceived notions. Which is too bad for them, because good storytellers love to defy people's expectations.

I think that's a little condescending, Christopher. Are you saying that the only reason I could have to not like that line is that I can't accept something that diverges from my preconceived notions? I already knew the movie wasn't going to be like the original, and I'm telling you now that I didn't go to the movie just to find stuff to whine about. So if I couldn't accept things that diverged from my preconceived notions, why would I have been there at all? Isn't it remotely possible that "some people" just thought it was a really poorly written line? Or does that diverge from your preconceived notions?

True, the film's Scotty was basically Simon Pegg with a Scottish accent. But then, the original Scotty was basically Jimmy Doohan with a (faker) Scottish accent. So it's kind of a toss-up.

I like New Scotty. He was fun to write in Seek a Newer World.

I really liked nuScotty, but I'm biased because I really like Simon Pegg. I agree he didn't get to do all that much besides comedy relief in this movie, but I'm optimistic about the future. The character was a lot of fun, though, and definitely a bright spot of the movie for me (note that I was still able to enjoy the character even though he diverged from my preconceived notions).

Kirk. Well, Kirk was just an obnoxious prick from start to finish. At no time could I see him growing into a man remotely like the Kirk of TOS and later. I didn't find him charming, dashing, heroic or a leader. Just a self important jerk who just happened to be right about there being a connection between the death of his father and the "lightning storm in space". Didn't like him at all.

That's exactly how I felt about it. I would even go so far as to say that if only that factor had been changed, and absolutely nothing else, I probably would've loved the movie.

 

[Christopher]

I agree with this very much. I'm not the father J.J. was talking about, but I liked my father's Star Trek. Saying "this ain't your father's Star Trek" is not a positive thing for me. Can't anybody else agree that that at least might indicate a disrespect for the source material? To me, this is basically the same as saying, "Hey, remember how lame Star Trek was? This is better!"

I don't think that follows at all. The whole point of Star Trek is that "different" is not automatically synonymous with "inferior" or "superior." Something can be a fresh, different take on a concept while still treating that concept with respect.

I'm saying this as someone who's written a novel based on the Abrams Star Trek. Everyone here surely knows that I love and respect the original ST. But I enjoyed writing something that wasn't the original ST, something that took the core concepts of ST but approached them in a different way. I liked it that it wasn't "my" ST, and the fact that it was new and different was a major "selling point" contributing to my willingness to accept the project. But that doesn't mean I liked "my" ST any less. Difference doesn't require conflict or value judgments. You can like something new without hating or dismissing the old version.

 

[JarodRussell]

Yeah well everyone enjoys writing a mirror universe story once in a while...

 

[Therin of Andor]

Can't anybody else agree that that at least might indicate a disrespect for the source material?

No, it was an acknowledgment by JJ that he knew the wider, general audience had a seeming disrespect for ST. (Indeed, we often read here of fans wondering why the ST franchise had fallen out of favour with the general public.) JJ was determined to make ST seem cool again. And he did.

 

[Greg Cox]

I agree with this very much. I'm not the father J.J. was talking about, but I liked my father's Star Trek. Saying "this ain't your father's Star Trek" is not a positive thing for me. Can't anybody else agree that that at least might indicate a disrespect for the source material? To me, this is basically the same as saying, "Hey, remember how lame Star Trek was? This is better!".

I wouldn't take the "not your father's STAR TREK" thing too personally. That was just a marketing slogan, designed to convince general audiences that the new film was not "Just Another STAR TREK Movie, Part Eleven."

Having written plenty of advertising copy myself, I can testify that there's not a lot of room for nuance. Sometimes you just need to use a brute-force bumper-sticker slogan to keep your #1 selling point across.

"Not your father's STAR TREK, but still respectful of the franchise's enduring legacy" doesn't have quite the same zing to it!

In any event, I would never judge a book or movie on the basis of an advertising slogan. God only knows who wrote that, certainly not the screenwriters . . . .

 

[JarodRussell]

Can't anybody else agree that that at least might indicate a disrespect for the source material?

No, it was an acknowledgment by JJ that he knew the wider, general audience had a seeming disrespect for ST. (Indeed, we often read here of fans wondering why the ST franchise had fallen out of favour with the general public.) JJ was determined to make ST seem cool again. And he did.

Hm well, did he really? Most of the people I know, who watched the new movie said stuff like "Yeah well, this movie was cool, but that old stuff? Still wouldn't watch it."

 

[Nerys Myk]

Making Trek cool again ( or respected) isn't the same goal as making new fans watch the old shows.

I think Enterprise used that same tagline ( and it was very much your father's Star Trek)

 

[Greg Cox]

Making Trek cool again ( or respected) isn't the same goal as making new fans watch the old shows.

I think Enterprise used that same tagline ( and it was very much your father's Star Trek)

Yeah, one of the big problems with ENTERPRISE, IMHO, was that the marketing never matched the show. They kept insisting that the new series was going to be faster, sexier, more exciting . . . then they did another Ferengi episode.

(Don't get me wrong. I like the Ferengi, but just how fresh and different is your new show when you can't get through your first season without yet another funny Ferengi episode?)

Regarding the new movie, the marketing department had a tough hill to climb. After ten previous movies and a zillion old tv episodes, how do you keep the world from going "Ho-hum, another STAR TREK movie?"

"Not your father's STAR TREK" was blunt and in-your-face and got the job done.

Which is what any good commercial should do.

 

[RookieBatman]

Making Trek cool again ( or respected) isn't the same goal as making new fans watch the old shows.

I think Enterprise used that same tagline ( and it was very much your father's Star Trek)

Yeah, one of the big problems with ENTERPRISE, IMHO, was that the marketing never matched the show. They kept insisting that the new series was going to faster, sexier, more exciting . . . then did another Ferengi episode.

(Don't get wrong. I like the Ferengi, but just how fresh and different is your new show when you can't get through your first season without yet another funny Ferengi episode?)

Regarding the new movie, the marketing department had a tough hill to climb. After ten previous movies and a zillion tv episodes, how do you keep the world from going "Ho-hum, another STAR TREK movie?"

"Not your father's STAR TREK" was blunt and in-your-face and got the job done.

Which is what any good commercial should do.

Yeah, the tagline was not really all that big a deal to me. I was just kinda venting again. I find it a little bit odd that that's the only part of my post that anyone replied to. I thought that part of the discussion was fairly parenthetical.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Well if you want to discuss the Bones line, I would disagree that its poorly written. What do you find poorly written about that exchange? McCoy is a bitter man who's ex-wife has left him with nothing. He illustrates this by saying all he has is his bones. Kirk uses this to form the nickname "Bones". The dialog works. Urban does a good job delivering it.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yeah, the tagline was not really all that big a deal to me. I was just kinda venting again. I find it a little bit odd that that's the only part of my post that anyone replied to. I thought that part of the discussion was fairly parenthetical.

Well, we've already dissected every other aspect of the movie a zillion times. We might as well get going on the advertising!

Getting back to the books, I agree that Pegg's Scotty is very different from Doohan's, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The new Scotty felt like much more of a scamp, which is probably how he should be written any future books. I tried very hard to make Scotty sound like Pegg, not Doohan, and to make Kirk sound like Chris Pine, not Wiliam Shatner.

My rule of thumb when I was writing my nuTrek book was that if it felt like I was writing an old-fashioned TOS book, I was probably doing something wrong. Since books don't have actors in them, you really have to stress the differences if you want to make a nuTrek book not seem like just the latest TOS book.

Otherwise you might just as well put the original cast on the covers . . . .

 

[RookieBatman]

Well if you want to discuss the Bones line, I would disagree that its poorly written. What do you find poorly written about that exchange? McCoy is a bitter man who's ex-wife has left him with nothing. He illustrates this by saying all he has is his bones. Kirk uses this to form the nickname "Bones". The dialog works. Urban does a good job delivering it.

It just didn't sound to me like something anyone would ever say. I understand and acknowledge that's entirely subjective, but it really did set my teeth on edge when I heard it the first time. Also, I do think someone else made a valid that now, whenever Kirk calls him "Bones," he's reminding him of a painful divorce. How affectionate.

 

[Christopher]

Personally, I did find the "nothing but my bones" line a bit too cutesy. But the initial complaint, made by whoever first brought it up, was not that the "bones" line was badly written, but that it was disrespectful of continuity by "changing" the origin of "Bones." That's wrong for several reasons; one, the origin of "Bones" was never canonically established to begin with; two, this version of the origin is not at all irreconcilable with the other one; and three, the scene actually respected McCoy lore quite well because it acknowledged and canonized the behind-the-scenes backstory that McCoy's divorce was what led him to join Starfleet. I think that last fact scores the scene far more points for continuity than the "bones" line could detract from it.

 

[CaseyF]

Hm well, did he really? Most of the people I know, who watched the new movie said stuff like "Yeah well, this movie was cool, but that old stuff? Still wouldn't watch it."

As Nerys Myk pointed out, I don't think JJ was concerned with getting new viewers to watch old Trek. (Why should that be a priority for him?) JJ wanted to make Trek seem cool again so that people would want to watch watch this film, and the ones that will come after it.

Personally, as a previously hardcore Trek fan who had wandered away from the franchise years ago, I not only enjoyed the new film, but it also got me excited about the franchise again to where I started revisiting the shows and previous movies. And the roughly ten years of TrekLit I'd missed. I would imagine there must be at least some Trek newbies who were also inspired to explore the entire franchise after the new film came out. Probably a small percentage, but I'm sure there are some out there. But as far as marketing was concerned, the producers were mainly interested in getting people in the theater for their current film, and in that they clearly succeeded.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Well if you want to discuss the Bones line, I would disagree that its poorly written. What do you find poorly written about that exchange? McCoy is a bitter man who's ex-wife has left him with nothing. He illustrates this by saying all he has is his bones. Kirk uses this to form the nickname "Bones". The dialog works. Urban does a good job delivering it.

It just didn't sound to me like something anyone would ever say. I understand and acknowledge that's entirely subjective, but it really did set my teeth on edge when I heard it the first time. Also, I do think someone else made a valid that now, whenever Kirk calls him "Bones," he's reminding him of a painful divorce. How affectionate.

Not all that differnent that saying, all she left me were the clothes on my back. It shows how little he has.

Well many nicknames aren't affectionate, but you learn to live with them.

 

[Greg Cox]

Well if you want to discuss the Bones line, I would disagree that its poorly written. What do you find poorly written about that exchange? McCoy is a bitter man who's ex-wife has left him with nothing. He illustrates this by saying all he has is his bones. Kirk uses this to form the nickname "Bones". The dialog works. Urban does a good job delivering it.

It just didn't sound to me like something anyone would ever say. I understand and acknowledge that's entirely subjective, but it really did set my teeth on edge when I heard it the first time. Also, I do think someone else made a valid that now, whenever Kirk calls him "Bones," he's reminding him of a painful divorce. How affectionate.

Well, McCoy isn't exactly Mr. Sensitivity. ("You pointy-eared, green-blooded hobgoblin!') He seems to appreciate a bit of acerbic ribbing.

 

[Christopher]

It just didn't sound to me like something anyone would ever say. I understand and acknowledge that's entirely subjective, but it really did set my teeth on edge when I heard it the first time. Also, I do think someone else made a valid that now, whenever Kirk calls him "Bones," he's reminding him of a painful divorce. How affectionate.

Well, McCoy isn't exactly Mr. Sensitivity. ("You pointy-eared, green-blooded hobgoblin!') He seems to appreciate a bit of acerbic ribbing.

Indeed. Heck, maybe the reason Kirk calls him "Bones" is because he's ribbing him for saying something as silly and awkward as "All she left me were my bones." So it fits perfectly!

 

[Greg Cox]

It just didn't sound to me like something anyone would ever say. I understand and acknowledge that's entirely subjective, but it really did set my teeth on edge when I heard it the first time. Also, I do think someone else made a valid that now, whenever Kirk calls him "Bones," he's reminding him of a painful divorce. How affectionate.

Well, McCoy isn't exactly Mr. Sensitivity. ("You pointy-eared, green-blooded hobgoblin!') He seems to appreciate a bit of acerbic ribbing.

Indeed. Heck, maybe the reason Kirk calls him "Bones" is because he's ribbing him for saying something as silly and awkward as "All she left me were my bones." So it fits perfectly!

And it's probably worth noting that when McCoy tells Kirk about the divorce, he's not all weepy and "Woe is me, my heart is broken." He's making a wry, humorous remark about his ex-wife.

Kind of like calling him "Bones."

 

[Dayton Ward]

Or, it's just a case of two close friends being able to enjoy that bit of humor between themselves, and not really caring how it comes off to passers by.


EDIT: Greg's comment slipped in while I was writing mine, so the above should probably read, "Yeah. What Greg said."

 

[Greg Cox]

Or, it's just a case of two close friends being able to enjoy that bit of humor between themselves, and not really caring how it comes off to passers by.

Bingo.

So, Dayton, how about that crazy ex of yours?