Any Trek authors pitched a post Romulus story to Pocketbooks yet?

[Greg Cox]

Occam's razor? Why invent a third hitherto-unmentioned universe when clearly the intent of Nimoy's cameo is to pass the torch from the old cast to the new cast?

There's been many alternate universe shown in Trek, one more wont harm anoyone. but it's been a while since I watched the movie, is there anything in it that specifically sets old spock to be the one from TOS, beyond stuff like "the writers meant it to be, the fans generally felt it was" etc.. If there isnt, then surely deciding that it was simply an alternate universe is just as simple a decision ("occam's razor") as deciding it was TOS-Spock?

But why include an alternate Spock in the movie in the first place? Especially one that looks, sounds, and acts like the original Spock. If it looks like a Spock, and quacks like a Spock . . . .

Again, we have to honor the spirit and intent of that scene, which was to link the new timeline with the beloved timeline of yore. That whole plotline wasn't about some weird, different Spock showing up and acting all alternate-y; it was about passing the torch from the TREK we knew to the new cast and continuity. That was the point of his story.

Sure, if we wanted to, we could contrive to find some way to write the new movie out of the Prime Continuity, but that would be silly . . . and confusing to readers who can hardly expect us to ignore the events of a movie that millions of people have seen. We can't ignore the biggest STAR TREK movie in years just to appease a few grumblers who want to pretend it didn't happen.

Hell, I've even referenced STAR TREK V in my books. Why? Because we can't ignore a movie just because we didn't like it.

 

[Christopher]

What about simply a matter of personal choice?

I would never try to convince anyone that Old Spock is objectively not Spock Prime, but my opinion has always been this: if someone wants to treat him as not being the same Spock from the show, then what's the harm?

Just don't expect official materials to adopt that stance.

You answer your own question. Let's remember, this isn't a thread in the Movies forum about individual fans' opinions of the Abrams movie, this is a thread in the Trek Literature forum about how Pocket Books' Star Trek literature will relate to the Abrams movie. If you want to believe in your own mind that Spock Prime isn't the "real" Spock from TOS, TAS, ST I-VI, and "Unification," that's fine. But as far as Trek literature is concerned, he is the same Spock, the Kelvin did exist in the original Trek history, Romulus will be destroyed in 2387, and so forth. Our job as tie-in creators is to acknowledge all Trek productions (unless the current people in charge of tie-in approval say that certain productions must be ignored). We don't have the individual fans' luxury of picking and choosing; we're under license from the owners of the property and so we follow their lead.

Then why didn't they make the ship design or uniforms of the Kelvin have any more then slight resemblance to that of the original series?

(IMHO, they did a very good job of making it look like a logical outgrowth of ENT, but certainly not the same universe as TOS.)

Those scenes were set in 2233, a good 21 years before "The Cage." Look at how completely the technology and costumes changed in the much briefer interval between TOS and the movies. I don't have any problem accepting this at all, because a lot can change in 21 years.

Besides, the look is irrelevant. The look is a matter of individual artistic interpretation. If some future filmmaker or TV producer wanted to make a show set in the prime universe at the same time as TOS, and they decided to completely redesign the look of Starfleet technology, uniforms, and alien species, they'd be free to do so because it's a work of fiction and fictional creators are free to bring their own interpretations. Rationalizing the differences would be left as an exercise for the viewer, as it always has. What matters is the connections that are drawn in the storytelling.

From a real-world standpoint, the fourth season doesn't really prove much about the first two seasons, since there were different people in charge.

Not entirely. Manny Coto took over the daily operation of the writers' room, but he was still answering to Berman & Braga, who were ultimately as much in charge as they ever were.

I would say that there are two ways to argue the point; one is that the onscreen evidence doesn't seem to be coherent with the Prime universe, and therefore it must not be Prime.
The other is to say, even though I understand that TPTB's intent is for this to be the same universe, I think there's enough basis for me to separate it in my own personal continuity.

The first way doesn't work at all, because it's predicated on the false assumption that the Prime universe is itself internally coherent. There are plenty of prior contradictions within ST that are just as great or greater than these. So as an argument it's logically inconsistent.

The second way is okay for individual belief, but what happens when future productions and tie-ins come along that contradict that assumption by incorporating things like the Kelvin, Robau, red matter, and the destruction of Romulus into the Prime continuity? Because that's bound to happen sooner or later.

Well, the Klingons gaining bumpy foreheads isn't much different from changing the Kelvin sets; and (though I wasn't around at the time) I understand Roddenberry's "just pretend they were always like that" was received with a fair amount of incredulity at the time. As for their entirely different ethos, I kinda think that evolved from the villains in ST3 originally being Romulans, perhaps?

Well, there was a passing reference to honor just before Kruge killed Valkris, but basically the Klingons of ST III were just as venal and nasty as they'd ever been. The concept of a Klingon society based on principles of honor was created for TNG as a way of "reforming" them and justifying the presentation of them as Federation allies.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Even casual viewers understood that Nimoy was supposed to be playing that guy from the old tv show. That was the whole point. Why else were we supposed to get all nostalgic and misty-eyed about him being reunited with Kirk? "I am and always have been your friend," etc.

While I agree that the older Spock in the movie is the same one we know from TOS I didn't get the "nostalgic and misty eyed" vibe from his reunion with Kirk that you apparently did. The character of Kirk is the single biggest gripe I have with the movie. It didn't feel like a reunion with an old friend to me. It was closer to Kirk meeting mirror Spock. I know that we were supposed to be glad that Spock got to see Kirk one last time but it just didn't work for me that way.

 

[ConRefit79]

While I agree that the older Spock in the movie is the same one we know from TOS I didn't get the "nostalgic and misty eyed" vibe from his reunion with Kirk that you apparently did. The character of Kirk is the single biggest gripe I have with the movie. It didn't feel like a reunion with an old friend to me. It was closer to Kirk meeting mirror Spock. I know that we were supposed to be glad that Spock got to see Kirk one last time but it just didn't work for me that way.

In a way he isn't the same Spock in TOS. Spock died in TWOK and was resurrected in TSFS. I always got the impression restoring his Katra did not completely restore the Spock we knew up until TWOK. He recovered more in TVH and TFF, but I think is was potrayed as a little different.

 

[BrotherBenny]

I don't want to start a new thread to ask this question since it is tangentially related to the thread (barely).

In the STO continuity, the Iconians are indirectly responsible for the Hobus supernova, giving their technology to Taris and she blows up the star...thereby (kind of) explaining why a simple supernova becomes so much more and is a galactic threat. Is it likely that the authors will use that kind of deus ex machina to explain it?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Until Q comes along and snaps with his fingers.

I don't think even Q could do it.

Eh, Q has the Omnipotent Powers of Plot.

One could have the idea that Q was toying with Picard and Spock when he blew up Romulus with a magical supernova threatening the entire galaxy.

I wonder if Q screws with Picard in parallel universes or if there are parallel Q's too.

I would say there is only one Q Continuum.

Paramount/CBS licensing is far more powerfull than the Q.

 

[MNM]

But why include an alternate Spock in the movie in the first place? Especially one that looks, sounds, and acts like the original Spock. If it looks like a Spock, and quacks like a Spock

It's a Spock. But only it's quantum spin resonance technobable tag thing can tell you from which universe it's a Spock from! My point was more if author's wanted to ignore the destruction of Romulus and still write stories set in the prime universe, there was nothing specific in the movie that made it impossible.

 

[kkozoriz1]

While I agree that the older Spock in the movie is the same one we know from TOS I didn't get the "nostalgic and misty eyed" vibe from his reunion with Kirk that you apparently did. The character of Kirk is the single biggest gripe I have with the movie. It didn't feel like a reunion with an old friend to me. It was closer to Kirk meeting mirror Spock. I know that we were supposed to be glad that Spock got to see Kirk one last time but it just didn't work for me that way.

In a way he isn't the same Spock in TOS. Spock died in TWOK and was resurrected in TSFS. I always got the impression restoring his Katra did not completely restore the Spock we knew up until TWOK. He recovered more in TVH and TFF, but I think is was potrayed as a little different.

However, he is the same character after TSFS. He continues to grow and develop but he was always intended as the same character resurrected.

Leonard Nimoy played two Spocks, TOS and Mirror. The Spock in the latest film is the Spock from TOS regardless if he had previously died.

 

[Greg Cox]

I don't want to start a new thread to ask this question since it is tangentially related to the thread (barely).

In the STO continuity, the Iconians are indirectly responsible for the Hobus supernova, giving their technology to Taris and she blows up the star...thereby (kind of) explaining why a simple supernova becomes so much more and is a galactic threat. Is it likely that the authors will use that kind of deus ex machina to explain it?

Works for me. I can't speak for any other authors, but I'm not inclined to invent a new explanation if there's already an established one . . . .

 

[Christopher]

In the STO continuity, the Iconians are indirectly responsible for the Hobus supernova, giving their technology to Taris and she blows up the star...thereby (kind of) explaining why a simple supernova becomes so much more and is a galactic threat. Is it likely that the authors will use that kind of deus ex machina to explain it?

I doubt it. STO and the novels are already in separate, incompatible continuities. Besides, I think what Gateways established about the Iconians is incompatible with STO's "Big Bad" version.

My point was more if author's wanted to ignore the destruction of Romulus and still write stories set in the prime universe, there was nothing specific in the movie that made it impossible.

But I doubt the studios involved would approve such a direction for the tie-ins. And as Greg alluded to, it would be marketing suicide for the books to divorce themselves from the movie! Despite the grumblings of a handful of diehards on this BBS, ST 2009 is the most popular and successful Trek movie in decades. Ignoring it would be like ignoring TWOK or "The Best of Both Worlds."

 

[Greg Cox]

But why include an alternate Spock in the movie in the first place? Especially one that looks, sounds, and acts like the original Spock. If it looks like a Spock, and quacks like a Spock

It's a Spock. But only it's quantum spin resonance technobable tag thing can tell you from which universe it's a Spock from! My point was more if author's wanted to ignore the destruction of Romulus and still write stories set in the prime universe, there was nothing specific in the movie that made it impossible.

But, as Christopher also pointed out, we don't make a point of finding ingenious ways to ignore the movies and tv shows our books are based on . . . .

That would just be rude.

 

[JarodRussell]

I don't think even Q could do it.

Eh, Q has the Omnipotent Powers of Plot.

One could have the idea that Q was toying with Picard and Spock when he blew up Romulus with a magical supernova threatening the entire galaxy.

I wonder if Q screws with Picard in parallel universes or if there are parallel Q's too.

I would say there is only one Q Continuum.

Paramount/CBS licensing is far more powerfull than the Q.

Good thing that Paramount/CBS licensing also obeys to other powers and is not a universal constant.

My point was more if author's wanted to ignore the destruction of Romulus and still write stories set in the prime universe, there was nothing specific in the movie that made it impossible.

But I doubt the studios involved would approve such a direction for the tie-ins. And as Greg alluded to, it would be marketing suicide for the books to divorce themselves from the movie! Despite the grumblings of a handful of diehards on this BBS, ST 2009 is the most popular and successful Trek movie in decades. Ignoring it would be like ignoring TWOK or "The Best of Both Worlds."

Aren't the books in the Prime universe already totally disconnected from the movie? You said yourself that the tone and style of the nuTrek novels is totally different. And only 1% of the movie going audience reads the novels. And I'd say 0% of the nuTrek audience is reading Prime universe novels, only people who were already fans of the original Trek do. Will there be no more Vulcan stories set in the Prime Universe to avoid confusion of people who only saw Star Trek 2009, give a crap if there are two parallel universes, and think Vulcan is gone?

Ignoring it would be like ignoring TWOK or "The Best of Both Worlds."

More like ignoring that Spock has a half brother called Sybok or that the Enterprise went to the center of the galaxy. Romulus destruction was even less than that, since it was only a side mention. It could have been any planet in Romulan space that happened to be Nero's home, the fact that it was Romulus didn't serve any purpose.

 

[Greg Cox]

More like ignoring that Spock has a half brother called Sybok or that the Enterprise went to the center of the galaxy. Romulus destruction was even less than that, since it was only a side mention. It could have been any planet in Romulan space that happened to be Nero's home, the fact that it was Romulus didn't serve any purpose.

Just wait until you read my new novel in which the destruction of Romulus frees Sybok from his prison at the center of the universe . . . .

(Hmm. Maybe I should pitch that.)

Seriously, though, how would blowing up some obscure world in the Romulan system be more dramatic than destroying Romulus?

And where was the harm, as far as the movies are concerned, since we're never going to see the Prime Universe on film again? And Romulus is still around in the new timeline?

The old Romulus might as well go out with a bang!

 

[Trent Roman]

You're making a dishonest argument here. ... Like I said, it's pointless to single out specific inconsistencies as evidence for the thesis that Spock Prime comes from a different reality, because Star Trek has always been full of inconsistencies and impossibilities.

You're getting bogged down in the details. I admitted that nothing I offered up was conclusive, because the film itself makes no comment on Spock's timeline of origin. None of the potential inconsistencies are meant to serve as proof, but elements that can be drawn in to support the hypothesis.

I remember back before the first post-finale ENT book came out, and there was a lot of speculation about what was gonna happen. Some people were saying that Pocket should just bring back Trip, with the reasoning that TATV was just a holo-program, and so it needn't have happened exactly that way.

Other people, including some authors, IIRC, replied very adamantly that such a thing would never happen, because Trip's death was what happened onscreen, and the showrunners' intent was for that to be exactly what did historically happen.

Yup, and it's been mentioned before. A double standard of their own, insisting that what was seen is immutable when the book line performed such a radical rewriting of a series finale--changing even including the year the events took place!--and with far more evidence onscreen for the original intent; as opposed to Abrams' Product, which, as repeatedly pointed out, never pronounces itself on the issue. "Old Spock is the previous Spock" is an assumption; fanon, not canon.

Occam's razor?

Occam's razor supports my position. To link Abrams' Product to the 'Primeverse' requires jumping through all those hoops and creating all those rationalizations, like those I suggested as examples, or Christopher's theory regarding the temporal mechanics. The assumption makes the scenario overly-complicated. But all those problems fall away with the simple invocation--"alternate universe".

That's the emotional crux of that whole plotline, not any nitpicky concerns over the art direction or whatever. ... Why else were we supposed to get all nostalgic and misty-eyed about him being reunited with Kirk?

Emotional crux? Nostalgic and misty-eyed? The only thing that scene made me feel was nauseated. Much like the rest of the film.

If you want to pretend that Abrams' Product had emotional resonance, then it shouldn't make a difference where Old Spock comes from, because (a) whoever Spock is, it's not our Kirk; and (b) in the alternate universe scenario, Old Spock remains Kirk's friend, as he explicitely states.

Why are some people so determined to prove that the new movie is somehow invalid, illegitmate, and unconnected to the "real" STAR TREK--even to the point of deliberately misunderstanding the movie just to prove that Nimoy's character wasn't the real Spock?

Because, in this case, the premise allows us to. And it's not a misunderstanding because the scenario put forward was never in the movie. It's an alternate interpretation.

Besides, the look is irrelevant.

The look isn't irrelevant; in-universe, it implies the work of no small number of Starfleet and/or civilian designers, engineers, etc. If the look is different, then something must have happened in-universe such that one set of designs were favoured over another.

It's a Spock. But only it's quantum spin resonance technobable tag thing can tell you from which universe it's a Spock from! My point was more if author's wanted to ignore the destruction of Romulus and still write stories set in the prime universe, there was nothing specific in the movie that made it impossible.

Precisely. That's the whole point. The premise is set up in such a way that it is easily disconnected from the extent franchise--as, indeed, it was never connected in the first place!

But, as Christopher also pointed out, we don't make a point of finding ingenious ways to ignore the movies and tv shows our books are based on . . . .
That would just be rude.

And, as I keep pointing out, it's happened before, most notably with "These Are the Voyages..." and the ENT-R. The opportunity and precedant exist.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Greg Cox]

And, as I keep pointing out, it's happened before, most notably with "These Are the Voyages..." and the ENT-R. The opportunity and precedant exist.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

I'd argue that the thing with Trip was a special case, which Pocket got away with because ENTERPRISE was no longer a going concern and the franchise had just passed into new hands anyway.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that licensors tend to worry less about dead franchises and characters that are never going to appear on screen again . . .

(We got away with murder in the last two 4400 books!)

That's way different from ignoring the new movie, which is STAR TREK for the time being.

 

[kkozoriz1]

And where was the harm, as far as the movies are concerned, since we're never going to see the Prime Universe on film again? And Romulus is still around in the new timeline?

The old Romulus might as well go out with a bang!

Since we on;y saw the Prime Universe in flashbacks the destruction of Romulus struck me as "We're setting up over here but we're going to blow up something in the old universe just because we can." Our last knowledge of the Prime Universe is the death of billions and the destruction of a major player in what had come before. Kind of like leaving the old neighborhood for college and your last look back shows your neighbor's house exploding.

 

[Greg Cox]

And where was the harm, as far as the movies are concerned, since we're never going to see the Prime Universe on film again? And Romulus is still around in the new timeline?

The old Romulus might as well go out with a bang!

Since we on;y saw the Prime Universe in flashbacks the destruction of Romulus struck me as "We're setting up over here but we're going to blow up something in the old universe just because we can." Our last knowledge of the Prime Universe is the death of billions and the destruction of a major player in what had come before. Kind of like leaving the old neighborhood for college and your last look back shows your neighbor's house exploding.

Maybe. But a wistful look back over your shoulder isn't very exciting . . . .

Characters and planets are like action figures. They should not be kept on the shelf, pristine and untouched. They should be beaten up and played with until they break!

 

[kkozoriz1]

Would it have made that much difference to the film if there was some other reason for Spock and Nero to go back in time and split off the NuUniverse? The "Genocide of the Month Club" gets old really fast. Besides, if a body count is what you want there's six billion dead Vulcans in the new movie already.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Eh, Q has the Omnipotent Powers of Plot.

One could have the idea that Q was toying with Picard and Spock when he blew up Romulus with a magical supernova threatening the entire galaxy.


I would say there is only one Q Continuum.

Paramount/CBS licensing is far more powerfull than the Q.

Good thing that Paramount/CBS licensing also obeys to other powers and is not a universal constant.

In the TrekLit Universe they are more powerful than God, Q and anything else you can name.

 

[F. King Daniel]

And where was the harm, as far as the movies are concerned, since we're never going to see the Prime Universe on film again? And Romulus is still around in the new timeline?

The old Romulus might as well go out with a bang!

Since we on;y saw the Prime Universe in flashbacks the destruction of Romulus struck me as "We're setting up over here but we're going to blow up something in the old universe just because we can." Our last knowledge of the Prime Universe is the death of billions and the destruction of a major player in what had come before. Kind of like leaving the old neighborhood for college and your last look back shows your neighbor's house exploding.

Always finish with a bang!