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

[Greg Cox]

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.

When was the last time there was genocide in a STAR TREK movie? And what's wrong with blowing up a planet in a science fiction adventure movie? I'm pretty sure that dates back to E. E. Smith at least. And Ming the Merciless probably did it twice a week . . . .

Anyway, we probably don't want to let this thread degenerate into another pointless post-mortem on the new movie.

To get back to the original topic, the new movie is part of STAR TREK continuity now, so I'm sure various authors will get around to dealing with Romulus's destruction--once we get the all-clear to play with stuff from the new movie.

Just like we have with every other STAR TREK movie and tv show . . . .

 

[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.

(...)

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

Yes, "for the time being." As I mentioned upthread, it should take a while for the books to catch up to that point in the timeline, by which time the franchise is likely to be rerebooted, and the Abramsverse will be just as dead as the Primeverse (which, indeed, raises the question: if the Primeverse is a dead franchise, what do they care if our 24th century takes a different tack?). The key is to not get cute and start inserting references to those future events, or worse still time-jump forward to that point in order to jump on the careening bandwagon.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[kkozoriz1]

That's very true. It just would have been nice to have had a "And they lived happily ever after" to the original universe. As it is, it ended on a sad note. Hardly the usually optimistic tone of Star Trek.

(And we're in the lit topics so the various stories of destruction on a planetary scale were appropriate. Just sayin)

 

[JarodRussell]

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.

The Prime universe is no longer a going concern either.

 

[Trent Roman]

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.

Damn straight. There's been enough fucking genocide already; we don't need to add to that Abrams & Co's callous and repugnant casual annihilation of Romulus.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Greg Cox]

which, indeed, raises the question: if the Primeverse is a dead franchise, what do they care if our 24th century takes a different tack?

Good question, but I'd argue that the new movie is the public face and standard-bearer of STAR TREK now, so it would be odd to go out of our way to contradict it.

(Unlike ENTERPRISE which was no longer the focus of the STAR TREK media empire at the point Trip was resurrected.)

Plus, as pointed out before, if we want to write a Romulan story, we just set it before the planet blew up. Just like writing a flashback novel about Tasha Yar or Khan.

Again, as I keep saying, we've always taken our lead from the screen versions before. Why change that policy now? Especially since the new movie is a hit?

 

[ConRefit79]

OK, my thread is getting side tracked. Like it or not, the last film states Romulus is destroyed and Spock and Nero travel back in time which creates an alternate Universe.

So, one day the novels will catch up. Does this mean if the authors came up with a good idea, Pocket Books would delay the project until the prime novels catch up?

 

[Greg Cox]

Damn straight. There's been enough fucking genocide already; we don't need to add to that Abrams & Co's callous and repugnant casual annihilation of Romulus.

At least it's in good company. Krypton. Alderaan. The Genesis planet . . . .

Heck, all of STAR TREK derives from FORBIDDEN PLANET, which ends with Altair-Five blowing up!

The new movie is just carrying on in that grand tradition!

 

[Christopher]

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.

Also because TATV was unpopular -- which may be the same reason the String Theory trilogy got away with retconning "Fury." Here, though, we're talking about something hugely popular, more popular than anything with the name Star Trek on it has been in over a decade.

Anyway, we probably don't want to let this thread degenerate into another pointless post-mortem on the new movie.

Too late!

which, indeed, raises the question: if the Primeverse is a dead franchise, what do they care if our 24th century takes a different tack?

But it's not. The destruction of Romulus in the Prime timeline is an element of the Abrams movie. Now, Bad Robot might be fine with the novels ignoring, say, the whole Xindi conflict in Enterprise. But I doubt they'd be okay with us ignoring something from their movie, regardless of what timeline it's in.

So, one day the novels will catch up. Does this mean if the authors came up with a good idea, Pocket Books would delay the project until the prime novels catch up?

The novels have jumped around in time before. There's no reason they couldn't jump ahead to the post-2387 time frame in one book while still doing books set pre-'87.

At least it's in good company. Krypton. Alderaan. The Genesis planet . . . .

Earth, in Hitchhiker's Guide. A whole bunch of planets in Yamato/Star Blazers. And so on...

 

[JD]

I really don't understand why those of you who hate the new Trek movie can't just move the hell on and accept that there will be referrences to it in future products. Very few people liked Nemesis, but yet it has led to some of the best Trek stories ever IMO (A Time To..., Destiny, Titan), so how do we know this won't be true of the new movie. Not to mention that there are probably a whole hell of alot more people (myself included) who look forward to, and want to see references to the movie in the books.

 

[DonIago]

Indeed. Disliking the film is one thing. Rehashing the same points ad infinitum over a year after its release, especially when it degenerates into phrases like "callous and repugnant"...I don't see the point of this discourse. What are people trying to prove? My understanding is that most discourse of this nature is done either to inform or persuade. Well, we all have the information at this point, and I think anybody who was going to be convinced already has been.

 

[Greg Cox]

At least it's in good company. Krypton. Alderaan. The Genesis planet . . . .

Earth, in Hitchhiker's Guide. A whole bunch of planets in Yamato/Star Blazers. And so on...

Plus, closer to home, the Star Trek universe is positively littered with graveyard planets whose civilizations were destroyed by one catastrophe or another. Kirk used to stumble onto one every third episode or so . . .

The final frontier has never been a safe and cozy place.

 

[Turtletrekker]

I really don't understand why those of you who hate the new Trek movie can't just move the hell on and accept that there will be referrences to it in future products.

Agreed. And I'm saying that as a Trek '09 detractor.

Get over it folks, as it is getting really old.

 

[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?

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 . . . .

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.

Although the continuities as a whole are incompatible, why is that single element? Why can't a single "rogue" group of Iconians be responsible for the supernova?

Hell, thinking of that reminds me of all the old myths of the gods using mortals as their pawns. Wouldn't be so different here I think if Pocket went in that direction.

Wasn't it Doctor Who that said some events in the universe have to happen? (Though Spock had the same idea in the new film, with the Enterprise crew always together, no matter what parallel universe it is) As an addendum, maybe those same events occur in every universe in the multiverse.

 

[Christopher]

Although the continuities as a whole are incompatible, why is that single element? Why can't a single "rogue" group of Iconians be responsible for the supernova?

Why would we want it to be? That's STO's decision, made to serve their purposes. The books go in their own direction, so why not continue to do so? Why not tell our own stories instead of somebody else's?

 

[Nerys Myk]

I have to wonder, if the destruction of Romulas had taken place in a successful TNG movie would the same people be moaning about its destruction?

 

[BrotherBenny]

Although the continuities as a whole are incompatible, why is that single element? Why can't a single "rogue" group of Iconians be responsible for the supernova?

Why would we want it to be? That's STO's decision, made to serve their purposes. The books go in their own direction, so why not continue to do so? Why not tell our own stories instead of somebody else's?

I'm not saying that the books should use that explanation, I just asked if they would. I'm sure if Greg were writing the novel that centers on the supernova or its immediate aftermath he would use that explanation, just as you would come up with your own real-science extrapolation. Personally, I think it's too much of a cop-out to have the Iconians be ultimately responsible. STO used them because next to nothing is known about them.

 

[Christopher]

...just as you would come up with your own real-science extrapolation.

I already kinda did, and I alluded to it briefly in Seek a Newer World. Maybe someday that will see print.

 

[kkozoriz1]

If the "supernova" were caused by anyone then Nero's whole revenge against Spock goes down the toilet as a colossal case of mistaken identity.

 

[Nerys Myk]

A previously unknown phenomena would be my choice.