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

[Greg Cox]

But what would've been gained by that, aside for throwing a nostalgic bone to us old fans? Again, the scene was all about revealing that Uhura and Spock were a couple in this universe. The finger bit would have been an irrelevant distraction . . . .

It wasn't necessary, so they skipped it. That's not dumbing it down, it's just figuring out the real purpose of that scene and not cluttering it up with trivia.

If I'm writing a love scene between two characters, I'm not going dwell on anything that doesn't create a romantic mood.


(I'm reminded of a manuscript I edited years ago in which the hero and heroine, who have just been reunited after a long separation, pause between kisses to discuss saving the environment. "I love you, darling, and we must do everything we can to save the imperiled Amazon rain forest, which, as you know, provides seventy percent of the world's oxygen." A worthy sentiment, but not exactly right for that moment. I cut it out.)

 

[JarodRussell]

But what would've been gained by that, aside for throwing a nostalgic bone to us old fans? Again, the scene was all about revealing that Uhura and Spock were a couple in this universe. The finger bit would have been an irrelevant distraction . . . .

It wasn't necessary, so they skipped it. That's not dumbing it down, it's just figuring out the real purpose of that scene and not cluttering it up with trivia.

If I'm writing a love scene between two characters, I'm not going dwell on anything that doesn't create a romantic mood.

Why are you writing a love scene between a human and an alien character then to begin with?
And then again, on film, a romantic mood is not only created by watching people kissing.

 

[Greg Cox]

But what would've been gained by that, aside for throwing a nostalgic bone to us old fans? Again, the scene was all about revealing that Uhura and Spock were a couple in this universe. The finger bit would have been an irrelevant distraction . . . .

It wasn't necessary, so they skipped it. That's not dumbing it down, it's just figuring out the real purpose of that scene and not cluttering it up with trivia.

If I'm writing a love scene between two characters, I'm not going dwell on anything that doesn't create a romantic mood.

Why are you writing a love scene between a human and an alien character then to begin with?
And then again, on film, a romantic mood is not only created by watching people kissing.

Because that wasn't about the anthropology of human/alien relations. It was about the characters of Spock and Uhura, coping with his mother's death. It didn't need any extra scifi trappings.

Again, what was the advantage of including the finger bit aside from the fact that "Damnit, That's How They Did on the Old Show?" Would it have changed the plot or made the story any more exciting or emotional or compelling. Aside from a call-back to an old episode, what would have been the point?

If you don't need it, cut it.

 

[David cgc]

BobOrci: We actually debated that very thing, wondering if the finger ceremony would be better in the elevator, but JJ correctly pointed out that a new audience would have no idea what was going on.

http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/22/orci-and-kurtzman-reveal-star-trek-details-in-trekmovie-fan-qa/

The character dynamic you interpret into it didn't cross the writer's and director's minds, I suppose.

Have you ever made a movie? I'm not trying to be snide, it's a genuine question.

Everything you see on the screen was somebody's conscious decision. Whether Spock steps to the left or to the right when he gets up from his chair, what the monitor in the background says, the length of the characters' bootlaces. The detail that is gone into is mind-boggling. I have been in debates, lengthy debates, for a cartoon movie about an old man and a dog about whether he's single, divorced or widowed, how many kids he has, which floor his apartment is on, details that have no bearing on the plot at all, just so we can figure out what kind of pictures go on his shelf and what kind of view is out his window. And we have to justify it on multiple levels. Does it make more sense for him to be a bachelor or a widower give how he treats his dog? Should the window face east, so it's brighter in the morning, or west for the evening, or south for all day?

My point is, Orci wrote, "We actually debated that very thing." "Debated," key word. And then he relates the final, winning argument that put a button on the whole thing, which was that the finger ceremony would be needlessly obtuse in a moment that needed to be very emotionally direct. That doesn't mean they didn't consider anything else, for or against. They probably considered everything that's come up in this discussion. The anecdote was related in a short Q&A. It necessarily only hit the high points. You should assume nothing was argued beyond what was directly related.

It took, what, two years to make this two hour film? I assure you, they weren't spending everything but the two hours that ended up on the screen sitting around with their thumbs up their asses.

 

[JarodRussell]

BobOrci: We actually debated that very thing, wondering if the finger ceremony would be better in the elevator, but JJ correctly pointed out that a new audience would have no idea what was going on.

http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/22/orci-and-kurtzman-reveal-star-trek-details-in-trekmovie-fan-qa/

The character dynamic you interpret into it didn't cross the writer's and director's minds, I suppose.

Have you ever made a movie? I'm not trying to be snide, it's a genuine question.

Everything you see on the screen was somebody's conscious decision. Whether Spock steps to the left or to the right when he gets up from his chair, what the monitor in the background says, the length of the characters' bootlaces. The detail that is gone into is mind-boggling. I have been in debates, lengthy debates, for a cartoon movie about an old man and a dog about whether he's single, divorced or widowed, how many kids he has, which floor his apartment is on, details that have no bearing on the plot at all, just so we can figure out what kind of pictures go on his shelf and what kind of view is out his window. And we have to justify it on multiple levels. Does it make more sense for him to be a bachelor or a widower give how he treats his dog? Should the window face east, so it's brighter in the morning, or west for the evening, or south for all day?

My point is, Orci wrote, "We actually debated that very thing." "Debated," key word. And then he relates the final, winning argument that put a button on the whole thing, which was that the finger ceremony would be needlessly obtuse in a moment that needed to be very emotionally direct. That doesn't mean they didn't consider anything else, for or against. They probably considered everything that's come up in this discussion. The anecdote was related in a short Q&A. It necessarily only hit the high points. You should assume nothing was argued beyond what was directly related.

It took, what, two years to make this two hour film? I assure you, they weren't spending everything but the two hours that ended up on the screen sitting around with their thumbs up their asses.

I consider this kind of a non-argument since the same applies to every movie, including those directed by Uwe Boll and Battlefield Earth, no*? And yet movies are perceived good or bad, despite having a crew of professionals working on two hours of film for two years. Why should the way how they made their decision or how much time they spent on deciding it influence my opinion about the decision itself?



* and no, I am not saying or implying that Star Trek 2009 is as bad as Battlefield Earth.

If you don't need it, cut it.

And how far down goes that? Where do you stop cutting things because you don't "need" it? Why does it have to be a science fiction movie if you simply want to tell the story of a young man whose father was killed finding his way in life? Why does it have to be an alien-human relationship when you simply want to show a romantic relationship?

Again, what was the advantage of including the finger bit aside from the fact that "Damnit, That's How They Did on the Old Show?" Would it have changed the plot or made the story any more exciting or emotional or compelling.

Would it have changed the plot or made the story any less exciting or emotional compelling had they included it?

 

[Captain Robert April]

The stardate bit is symptomatic of the whole film, attempting to "fix" things that weren't broken in the first place. Like the cockamamie explanation for "Bones".

Or, to put it another way, when you're putting together a project where you know there's gonna be a sizable contingent of die-hard fans standing by to nitpick everything you do, and you make a point of making what is essentially a fannish reference, doesn't it behoove you to do the reference correctly?

It's like the Delta Vega reference. It's supposed to be throwing a bone to the fans, but when it's done as blatantly wrong as it was in the movie, it's now throwing a bone AT the fans. And if history is any kind of a guide, Star Trek fans don't take kindly to being taunted by Star Trek producers. Just ask Brannon Braga.

 

[Christopher]

Regardless of the reasons behind the decision, it was the right decision. The kiss works on every level in a way that finger-touching wouldn't have. Even from the perspective of the detail-obsessed Trek geek, the kiss works better, because the critical cultural detail here is that it's a moment defined by human qualities, not Vulcan ones. I would have no objection to including the Vulcan finger-touching gesture at some point in some other Trek movie. I might even have found it preferable for Uhura and Spock to use it in the transporter room scene, since making out like that in front of everybody was rather unprofessional. But in the turbolift scene, it would've been absolutely the wrong choice. The kiss there was the right decision, for all the reasons that have been stated.

The stardate bit is symptomatic of the whole film, attempting to "fix" things that weren't broken in the first place. Like the cockamamie explanation for "Bones".

I'm sure people said the same about a lot of Sternbach & Okuda's "fixes" in TNG. The bottom line is, it's got nothing to with anything being "broken." It is simply the nature of creativity that different artists interpreting the same thing will interpret it in different ways. The notion that there's only one "right" way that everyone has to slavishly copy is nonsense. The whole point of telling stories is to be creative.

Or, to put it another way, when you're putting together a project where you know there's gonna be a sizable contingent of die-hard fans standing by to nitpick everything you do, and you make a point of making what is essentially a fannish reference, doesn't it behoove you to do the reference correctly?

No, because that "sizeable contingent" generally amounts to a few dozen obsessive geeks on the Internet, and that has no bearing on the box-office returns of the movie. What counts is the millions and millions of general viewers who loved the film and saw it multiple times. Viewers who couldn't give a flying fig about the stardate system or Vulcan finger-touching or anything like that.

And speaking as a detail-obsessed Trek geek myself, I think the film did an excellent job being true to Trek canon and continuity -- allowing for the freedom of creative interpretation and the demands of a motion picture targeted at a broad audience. Hell, I think it did a much better job honoring prior canon than TWOK or early TNG did.

It's like the Delta Vega reference. It's supposed to be throwing a bone to the fans, but when it's done as blatantly wrong as it was in the movie, it's now throwing a bone AT the fans. And if history is any kind of a guide, Star Trek fans don't take kindly to being taunted by Star Trek producers. Just ask Brannon Braga.

Brannon Braga is a prominent, in-demand showrunner in Hollywood to this day. I mean, the guy just came off a run on 24, for Pete's sake, and he was just picked by Steven Spielberg to run his high-profile Terra Nova dinosaur series. The frustrations of Trek fans have not had a significant negative impact on his career success.

 

[David cgc]

Why should the way how they made their decision or how much time they spent on deciding it influence my opinion about the decision itself?

Because you didn't read the line of yours I quoted.

The character dynamic you interpret into it didn't cross the writer's and director's minds, I suppose.

Wherein you criticized how they made their decision. Boom!

Again, what was the advantage of including the finger bit aside from the fact that "Damnit, That's How They Did on the Old Show?" Would it have changed the plot or made the story any more exciting or emotional or compelling.

Would it have changed the plot or made the story any less exciting or emotional compelling had they included it?

Yes, absolutely. It would've shown Uhura comforting Spock in his moment of greatest vulnerability, in private, where discretion was no object, by standing in front of him leaving enough room for Jesus in between, and touching (not holding) his hands in the least intimate way possible. The Vulcan thing is tender. It's sweet. When you're going for comfort, you don't want a peck on the cheek or a hearty handshake, you want to be cradled, protected, enveloped.

I mean, seriously, visualize how this is going to play out. Spock is trembling with repressed emotion in the elevator. Uhura reaches to him, and brushes his fingers. He steadies, suddenly regaining his composure.

What the hell is that?

There was more physical intimacy than that when Picard supported Sarek, and they sure as hell weren't in love.

Now, if this was a peck on the cheek on the way out the door to work, yeah, I'd say they should've done the finger thing, but it was not the right action for that emotion in that scene..

 

[kkozoriz1]

I've been a fan since TOS first ran in Canada. I've always given each of the new series a chance to prove themselves. Sometimes it's worked (TNG), other times not so much (VOY). My "personal canon" has remained fluid and has adapted to the new developments as they came along for the most part. I've always been there on opening night for the films, even TFF. I've avoided spoilers as much as I can although it's gotten harder in the internet era. You never know when someone will drop a bit of spoilerage. That being said, the latest film represents a change for me. I saw it. I gave it a chance. It doesn't work for me for the most part.

After the film opened and spoilers were no longer a problem I began looking for interviews and such from the powers that be, seeing why they made the decisions they did. One in particular caught my eye-

"For the Trek fans, this film includes many little references. For example you have Kirk dropped off on the planet Delta Vega, which was seen in second Star Trek pilot. It is a cool reference, but didn’t you also fudge canon by ignoring that Delta Vega was way out next to the galactic barrier.

Orci: True. Yeah we did. We moved the planet to suit our purposes. The familiarity of the name seemed more important as an Easter egg, than a new name with no importance."

http://trekmovie.com/2009/04/30/interview-roberto-orci-alex-kurtzman/

This says to me that they were dropping in references for the sake of having references, not because they made sense. There's any number of ways they could have handled it. They could have used the Vulcanis Lunar Colony where Tuvok was born for example. Make it a moon of an outer planet in the Vulcan system or even a neighboring star and it would have been fine. Delta Vega was already an established place. I know that some people simply say that there's more than one Delta Vega which, while it may be true, opens up more complications than necessary. Is there also more than one planet named Vulcan? According to Google maps there's 9 places named Vulcan in the US as well as the more famous one in Canada. Could we then say that the Vulcan Science Academy could have been someplace other than the home planet of the Vulcans, at least before the latest movie, simply because the name is similar and we had not actually seen it on Vulcan?

It shows, again to me, a laziness in the writing. When you are writing about a particular location, be it a town, country or fictional universe, you should make an effort to be true to that setting. If I'm writing a western that takes place in Tombstone, I shouldn't move it to Maine just give a wink to the western fans in Bangor.

Similarly, when writing in a fictional setting you should try to follow the rules of that setting as best you can. Superman can pick up an aircraft carrier without it breaking in half. He just can. Simply accept that he can or come up with an explanation of why he can if you must but don't suddenly decide that he can't unless you are willing to explain why it has changed.

A while ago I was re-reading the book Star Trek- Phase II and one thing leapt out at me. -

"The Enterprise usually takes up what we term "standard orbit" around a planet. Depending on a number of conditions or needs, this distance and be from one to seven thousand miles high. Our vessel was constructed in space and has never felt the solidity of the surface of a planet. In other words, it doesn't land, it stays in orbit."

Star Trek - Phase II - pg 99

The underline is part of the text, it wasn't added by me. Very few parts of the Bible are called out like that. It makes it obvious that it was an important consideration to Roddenberry. Why then is the NuEnterprise being build on the ground? It's not playing by the rules of the universe.

If NuTrek had simply been a reboot then fine, it's a new universe with new rules. But, by tying it directly to what has come before it's bound by the same rules. It's not tying the hands of the writers any more than saying that Batman is unable to fly while Superman can.

 

[JarodRussell]

The character dynamic you interpret into it didn't cross the writer's and director's minds, I suppose.

Wherein you criticized how they made their decision. Boom!

No, that's the part where I supposed that it didn't cross their minds based on Orci's comment, in response to Greg Cox' assumption that it was done for other reasons based on his impression.
I never criticized their decision making process. I couldn't care less if they talked about it over a cup of coffee, if they bounced the idea back and forth for months or if they decided it spontaneously on set.

I mean, seriously, visualize how this is going to play out. Spock is trembling with repressed emotion in the elevator. Uhura reaches to him, and brushes his fingers. He steadies, suddenly regaining his composure.

I visualize it, and hell yes, now that's what I'm talking about! I really can't understand why you think this would come off as cold or less romantic.

So their fingers are touching instead of their lips. Big deal. I said it before that in a movie there is MUCH more to a romantic scene than watching them kissing. Music, editing, camera angles, the sound of voices and breath. It would have been just as good. And even better from a SciFi point of view. And much better from a Trek point of view. Also, there's nothing that stopped them from combining a kiss with the finger touching. That would have been another possibility.

But yeah, I can't prove it to you since I can't reshoot the scene. It's your imagination vs. mine.

 

[Sci]

How come they can turn Starbuck and Boomer into women but can't have Kirk not becoming Captain by the end of the first new movie?

Because far, far, far fewer people gave a shit about Starbuck and Boomer.

 

[Thrawn]

kkozoriz1:

1) It's not the same enterprise. It doesn't have to be constructed the same way.

2) Orci said "easter egg". It wasn't intended to be the same place, it was intended as essentially an inside joke. Like in the X-Men movie, when Wolverine jokingly asked if blue and yellow spandex would be a better uniform than the black ones they'd just received. On the face of it, it's calling the original universe kind of dumb (or in Trek's case contradicting it), but it still indicates respect for the source material.

 

[kkozoriz1]

And Vulcanis Lunar Colony wouldn't be an easter egg? It was tossing out a name just for the sake of tossing out a name. I'd rather my inside jokes be a bit more intelligent than that. Also note that he said "we moved the planet" indicating that the intent was that it be the same place. If he'd said "we used the name as an easter egg" then OK. Still dumb but at least it wasn't intended to be the same.

 

[Greg Cox]

If you don't need it, cut it.

And how far down goes that? Where do you stop cutting things because you don't "need" it? Why does it have to be a science fiction movie if you simply want to tell the story of a young man whose father was killed finding his way in life? Why does it have to be an alien-human relationship when you simply want to show a romantic relationship?

We're talking about the scene, not the movie. There was plenty of Star Trek stuff in STAR TREK, which was ultimately about the crew of the Starship Enterprise coming together to save the Federation--in true scifi fashion. But STAR TREK has never been just about the hardware and the world-building; it's also about the characters. That was a character moment that didn't need a distracting tip of the hat to "Journey to Babel."

Not every scene needed to reference the old version, and, again, that scene served to startle the audience by doing something the old show had never done before. "Whoa! Spock and Uhura, kissing? I guess this really isn't the same old thing . . . ."

 

[Thrawn]

And Vulcanis Lunar Colony wouldn't be an easter egg? It was tossing out a name just for the sake of tossing out a name. I'd rather my inside jokes be a bit more intelligent than that. Also note that he said "we moved the planet" indicating that the intent was that it be the same place. If he'd said "we used the name as an easter egg" then OK. Still dumb but at least it wasn't intended to be the same.

"The familiarity of the name seemed more important as an easter egg" isn't enough for you?

 

[kkozoriz1]

If familiarity is all you need how about Qo'noS? It is more likely to be known since it was used in other movies and series.

It's not the fact that they used a previously established name, it was that the one they chose was totally inappropriate to the setting. Delta Vega was established as being WAY far away. If you're doing something "for the fans" at least make it intelligent.

 

[Greg Cox]

If familiarity is all you need how about Qo'noS? It is more likely to be known since it was used in other movies and series.

.

Because you might need Qo'noS for some future Klingon-centric movie.

Whenever I get too obsessed with getting all my details right, and find myself poring over street maps of Budapest to get all the twists and turns right, I just remember that SPIDER-MAN 2 put an elevated subway track in the middle of Manhattan--and nobody walked out of the theater in protest.

It's possible to get a little too anal-retentive about this stuff . . . .

 

[kkozoriz1]

Again, it was put in specifically as an easter egg. An elevated train in Spider-man wasn't.

Mistakes will happen. Choices will be made that may contradict what has gone before. That's all part of a shared universe. However, to make a choice to specifically contradict something just as a wink to the audience is lazy story telling.

You want to drop an easter egg? How about hearing gary Mitchell being assigned to a ship other than the Enterprise? That would have been great and would also have driven home the idea that things would be different from here on. The old time fans would get it. It would be meaningful and it would make sense in the setting.

 

[David cgc]

It's conversations like this that remind me why I was so filled with glee that "Enterprise" was the only part of the original Star Trek universe that continues to exist unaltered in the alternate timeline.

 

[Christopher]

There's no point complaining that they chose that Easter egg over another. It's done. All the complaining in the world won't alter reality and undo it. You've voiced your objections, so why not just let it go and move on?

I mean, reusing the name Delta Vega in a totally inappropriate context seems odd to me too, but it happened, it didn't kill anybody, and life went on. Storytellers make decisions that other people find strange. That's just what happens. Asking why they did X instead of Y is pointless. They did it because they're themselves instead of somebody else. Different people have different ideas about what works and what doesn't.


Case in point: Gaila. I just watched a DVD of Charlie Wilson's War, and Rachel Nichols has a small role in that, and it refreshed my memory on just how lovely she is. And yet Gaila has got to be the least sexy Orion woman I've ever seen. Now, how is it possible to take a gorgeous woman, paint her green, and have it not make her even sexier? I think it was mainly a color issue. The shade of green was too bright, and particularly the red hair was too bright and clashed garishly with the skin. (Didn't care for the style of the hair either.) But the film's makeup artists and the director obviously felt that looked good. I don't agree, but am I going to make fifty posts in a BBS thread demanding to know why they didn't do it the way I wanted? No. Because for one thing, I have a life, such as it is; and for another, I know why they didn't do it the way that would've satisfied me. They didn't do it that way because they're not me. There. Mystery solved. Moving on.