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

[kkozoriz1]

And speaking of which, folks tossing around terms like "genocide" and "holocaust" in an effort to gain sympathy and support for their POV kinda of piss me off and creep me out. It cheapens the deaths and sacrifices of the people who experienced those events out here in the real world. Its just not an apt comparison/allusion to make.(IMO)

Whatever word you choose to use to describe it, the Borg invasion caused major destruction and death. (Fictionally of course. Using genocide is from the POV of the characters of the stories.)

Attacked (Destruction Averted) - Core Systems
▪ Andor: (United Federation of Planets founding member and homeworld of the Andorian civilization- Devastated but saved from destruction thanks to the actions of Erika Hernandez).
▪ Beta Rigel: (United Federation of Planets member system, featuring homeworlds and colonies of several species of Rigellian including the Chelon- Devastated but saved from destruction thanks to the actions of Erika Hernandez).
▪ Tellar: (United Federation of Planets founding member and homeworld of the Tellarite civilization- Devastated but saved from destruction thanks to the actions of Erika Hernandez).
▪ Vulcan: (United Federation of Planets founding member and homeworld of the Vulcan civilization- Devastated but saved from destruction thanks to the actions of Erika Hernandez).


Attacked (Destruction Averted) - Other
▪ Ardana: (United Federation of Planets member world and homeworld of the Ardanan civilization- devastated but saved from destruction by the heroic sacrifice of the crew of warbird IRW Verithrax).
▪ Elas: (United Federation of Planets member world and homeworld of the Elasian civilization).
▪ Qo'noS: (Capital of the Klingon Empire and homeworld of the Klingon civilization- Devastated but saved from destruction thanks to the actions of Erika Hernandez).
▪ Troyius: (United Federation of Planets member world and homeworld of the Troyian civilization- Devastated but saved from destruction by the U.S.S da Vinci).


Destroyed - United Federation of Planets - Known and Speculated
▪ Aldebaran: (United Federation of Planets colony- Believed Destroyed, despite efforts by the Talarian Third Fleet to hold the line).
▪ Coridan: (United Federation of Planets member world and homeworld of the Coridanian civilization).
▪ Deneva: (United Federation of Planets member world and principally Human colony).
▪ Efros Delta: (United Federation of Planets member world and homeworld of the Efrosian civilization).
▪ Elas: (United Federation of Planets member world and homeworld of the Elasian civilization).
▪ Jouret IV: (United Federation of Planets colony world).
▪ Korvat: (United Federation of Planets colony).
▪ Lorillia: (United Federation of Planets member world and homeworld of the Lorillian civilization).
▪ Pandril: (United Federation of Planets member world and homeworld of the Pandrilite civilization).
▪ Mazar: (United Federation of Planets member world and homeworld of the Mazarite civilization).
▪ Ramatis: (United Federation of Planets member world and homeworld of the Ramatisian civilization).
▪ Regulus III and V: (United Federation of Planets major colony worlds).
▪ Risa: (United Federation of Planets member world and homeworld of the Risan civilization).
▪ Rhaandarel: (United Federation of Planets member world and homeworld of the Rhaandarite civilization).
▪ Sherman's Planet: (United Federation of Planets colony world).
▪ Starbase 234
▪ Starbase 343
▪ Starbase 157
▪ Weytahn


Destroyed - Independent Worlds - Known and Speculated
▪ Acamar III: (Independent world, homeworld of the Acamarian civilization).
▪ Adelphous IV: (Unknown).
▪ Barolia: (Independent world, homeworld of the Barolian civilization and major trading hub near the Triborder.
▪ Castor: (Unknown independent).
▪ Celes II: (Independent World).
▪ Hyralan: (Independent world).
▪ Nausicaa (Independent world, homeworld of the Nausicaan civilization).
▪ Yridia: (Independent world, homeworld of the Yridian civilization).
▪ Xarantine: (Independent world allied with the United Federation of Planets and home of the Xarantine civilization).
▪ Turkana IV: (World in anarchy and home of Tasha Yar).
▪ Suliban: (Independent World).
▪ Tarlac: (Conquered World of the Son'a Sodality and home of the Tarlac civilization).



Destroyed - Klingon Empire - Known and Speculated
▪ Beta Thoridor: (Klingon Empire subject world).
▪ Beta Lankal: (Klingon Empire subject world).
▪ Gorath: (Klingon Empire world - Possibly destroyed, status unclear).
▪ Khitomer: (Klingon Empire colony).
▪ Morska: (Klingon Empire subject world).
▪ Rura Penthe: (Klingon Empire penal colony world).


Destroyed - Romulan Star Empire - Known and Speculated
▪ Devnar IV: (Unknown, possibly Romulan- Destroyed).
▪ Devoras: (Romulan Star Empire or Imperial Romulan State- Status unknown).
▪ Nequencia Alpha: (Romulan Star Empire world).

 

[Nerys Myk]

ST09 made it clear that Nero's goal was to get revenge on Spock by destroying his home planet and that was the WHOLE goal, Nero didn't have his eyes set on Earth, Andor, or any other target big or small, just Vulcan.

No, ST09 made it very clear that his goal was to destroy every single Federation planet. That's why he was trying to destroy Earth, too, instead of just waltzing away after destroying Vulcan.

I don't recall that, but if you say so. I remember a ridiculous amount of focus on Vulcan and Spock, I never got the sense that Earth or anywhere else was ever in any danger.

Nero attacks Earth in the last part of the movie. His drill hits San Francisco Bay near the Academy.

 

[Nerys Myk]

And speaking of which, folks tossing around terms like "genocide" and "holocaust" in an effort to gain sympathy and support for their POV kinda of piss me off and creep me out. It cheapens the deaths and sacrifices of the people who experienced those events out here in the real world. Its just not an apt comparison/allusion to make.(IMO)

Whatever word you choose to use to describe it, the Borg invasion caused major destruction and death. (Fictionally of course. Using genocide is from the POV of the characters of the stories.)

I'm fine with a character in the stories using the terms.

 

[LightningStorm]

Nero attacks Earth in the last part of the movie. His drill hits San Francisco Bay near the Academy.

lol, maybe I blacked out on that part of the movie. That part must have been terribly uninterestingly written, I have absolutely no recollection of that at all. Then it was a year ago and I've only seen it once.

 

[Trent Roman]

Or, it's a story about people who choose to believe in themselves and in the future as a result of the fact that they succeeded in stopping one genocide after failing to stop another. About people who choose to be optimistic about the directions their lives can go in because of the way they were able to overcome the cultural and personal boundaries that got in their way the first time around.

Huh? Overcome what? They stopped the second attack because Kirk, through mind-blowing coincidence, bumps into Old Spock, who then provides him with the nigh-magic technological solution in something of a 'deus in machina'. And they still nearly managed to cock things up. If that ship of fools feels high on itself because the powers of plot meant they stumbled into the solution, its a pretty thin feeling. And let's not forget that a founding member of the Federation has been wiped out, billions dead. Preening at a time like that, pretending that this is somehow a good situation, when the whole civilization should be in mourning... I found the end of the film very distasteful.

I'm sorry, but your emotional reactions to stories like Destiny and ST09 are just so fundamentally different from others that I have to ask: Maybe you're just a really morose person whose emotional reactions to something do not constitute the standard by which stories should be judged?

Isn't it traditional to exchange a few posts before resorting to ad hominems?

I think they got results; they beat him, didn't they?

Far too late. This isn't a situation where the hero experiences a setback but then overcomes in a fashion that overshadows the earlier setback. Their failure is equivalent to their success. And even that ignores the fact that the film represents a net loss--one that could have been worse, but still a scenario where the situation at the end is worse than the status quo ante. This is by no means victory; rather, it is mitigated defeat.

And speaking of which, folks tossing around terms like "genocide" and "holocaust" in an effort to gain sympathy and support for their POV kinda of piss me off and creep me out. It cheapens the deaths and sacrifices of the people who experienced those events out here in the real world. Its just not an apt comparison/allusion to make.(IMO)

Okay, I'm not unsympathetic to that, but what terms would you suggest? Calling the destruction of an inhabited world, the billions upon it, and the near-extinction of a species 'mass murder' feels like it's low-balling it something fierce.

No, ST09 made it very clear that his goal was to destroy every single Federation planet.

It's been a while since I've seen the film, but I thought Nero's aim was to destroy Vulcan and Earth because they were Spock's heritage, and Nero wanted to do to Spock what (he believed) Spock had done to him. In any case, I think LightningStorm's point stands: Nero was victorious. He didn't achieve all his goals, but as mad campaigns of extermination go, it was still quite succesful.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Nerys Myk]

And speaking of which, folks tossing around terms like "genocide" and "holocaust" in an effort to gain sympathy and support for their POV kinda of piss me off and creep me out. It cheapens the deaths and sacrifices of the people who experienced those events out here in the real world. Its just not an apt comparison/allusion to make.(IMO)

Okay, I'm not unsympathetic to that, but what terms would you suggest? Calling the destruction of an inhabited world, the billions upon it, and the near-extinction of a species 'mass murder' feels like it's low-balling it something fierce.

Destruction works for me. They're not real people. So no one was murdered. In the case of Romulus, in universe it was a natural disaster. Out-Universe it was a creative choice.

It's been a while since I've seen the film, but I thought Nero's aim was to destroy Vulcan and Earth because they were Spock's heritage, and Nero wanted to do to Spock what (he believed) Spock had done to him. In any case, I think LightningStorm's point stands: Nero was victorious. He didn't achieve all his goals, but as mad campaigns of extermination go, it was still quite succesful

NERO: It has happened! I watched it happen! I saw it happen! Don't tell me it didn't happen! And when I lost her, I promised myself retribution. And for twenty-five years, I planned my revenge against the Federation, and forgot what it was like to live a normal life. I did not forget the pain. That's the pain that every surviving Vulcan now shares. My purpose, Christopher, is to not simply avoid the destruction of the home that I love, but to create a Romulus that exists free of the Federation. You see, only then will she be truly saved. That is why I will destroy all the remaining Federation planets, starting with yours.

 

[Thrawn]

Where do I say that there's no light without darkness? What's getting to me is the degree of darkness. Let's keep upping the odds. Two dead planets in this movie. 60 billion dead in Destiny. What's next? We'll encounter a civilization living on a ringworld or in a Dyson sphere and kill them off too? As long as the bad guys are defeated then it's all tickety-boo?

Of course you must have conflict in drama. It's the nature of the beast. But does it have to be neath numbering in the millions or billions? How many people died in TMP? TWOK? Why is it so fashionable now to keep upping the death toll?

Of course there was death in TOS. Doomsday machine. The Changeling. Operation: Annihilate! That's three out of 79.

We've had the Dominion War on DS9. Wasn't there enough drama about the aftermath of that to tell compelling stories? As well told as Destiny was, and it was told very well indeed, the main purpose was to get rid of the Borg because people couldn't keep their hands off of them and just let them be. Voyager ended the Borg storyline for the time being. But they kept popping up. People kept saying how over used they were. Then just stop telling stories about them. Leave them alone. But, in order to put an end to overuse of the Borg we ended up with a story of devastated planets and billions of dead. And then hot on the heels of that we get two more planets wiped out. How long will we go before the next genocidal event?

Well, I mean, the same argument could be made in reverse. Why are you ok with genocide-level events in 3 of 79 episodes, but not in 1 of 11 movies? Or (umm, maybe a dozen or so?) out of several hundred novels?

But you mention three recent events - the dominion war, Trek09, and Destiny. Well, first of all, the dominion war was a reasonably long time ago; 10 years out of universe, and 6 years in (compared to Destiny). Also, with the exception of Genesis Wave, which is pretty much ignored in the ongoing continuity anyway, there weren't any genocide-level events in that time, and I would argue the Borg more than justified the higher stakes. And I would argue that the aftermath was hugely different; the aftermath of the Dominion War was essentially a return to the status quo for everyone but Cardassia, and Destiny changed the entire political landscape of the galaxy.

So I'd argue that, if we're talking about the Dominion War and Destiny, there's not much of a problem here. There's no trend; there's two separate stories about hugely different events with qualitatively distinct "aftermath"s, justified for entirely different reasons.

And that brings us to genocide-level events happening in Trek09 and Destiny, released 6 months apart. In this case, the two creative teams had *nothing* to do with each other! Neither had the slightest idea what the other was doing. It may be an unfortunate trend, but it's not a dramatic choice to make Trek all about genocides. The two were independently motivated and justified in completely different ways. And they set the destruction of Romulus twice as long after the dominion war as Destiny did.

Now, can there be drama without planetary destruction? Sure. But there can also be drama without any death at all, and I could well say that my definition of optimism was a universe where death had been eliminated. It's an arbitrary dividing line, and I'm sorry if recent Trek has crossed yours too much.

But independent of arguing over pure opinions, whatever constitutes the kinds of stories you personally enjoy, this sort of slippery slope "how long before the next genocide!" kind of arguing just doesn't make any sense. The three events happen to all occur within the same continuity, but it wasn't actually anyone's choice to have that happen.

And, as others have argued repeatedly, it would be at best a highly unlikely choice for the Litverse to ignore this particular development, no matter how distasteful some find it.

 

[Sci]

Or, it's a story about people who choose to believe in themselves and in the future as a result of the fact that they succeeded in stopping one genocide after failing to stop another. About people who choose to be optimistic about the directions their lives can go in because of the way they were able to overcome the cultural and personal boundaries that got in their way the first time around.

Huh? Overcome what?

The cultural and personal boundaries that divided Kirk and Spock. You might have noticed that a major arc of the film was those two working through those boundaries to connect with one-another.

They stopped the second attack because Kirk, through mind-blowing coincidence, bumps into Old Spock, who then provides him with the nigh-magic technological solution in something of a 'deus in machina'.

Nothing in ST09 constitutes a deus ex machina, as none of the plot elements came out of nowhere to rescue the heroes from their peril with no effort on the heroes' part. That term refers to a specific trope, not any given plot McGuffin of which one disapproves. The Red Matter constitutes Chekov's Gun, not a deus ex machina.

Preening at a time like that, pretending that this is somehow a good situation, when the whole civilization should be in mourning...

So no one's allowed to feel good about themselves when they accomplish something great, even when something else horrible has happened?

Have you ever been to a funeral? Have you ever noticed that even though everyone's really sad that someone they loved has died, the attendants are also often very happy to see a great many loved ones they haven't seen in a very long time?

People can be happy and sad at the same time, y'know. One does not negate the other.

No, ST09 made it very clear that his goal was to destroy every single Federation planet.

It's been a while since I've seen the film, but I thought Nero's aim was to destroy Vulcan and Earth because they were Spock's heritage, and Nero wanted to do to Spock what (he believed) Spock had done to him.

Nope. Recall the scene where Nero is torturing Pike.

Transcript:

[Narada torture chamber]

(Pike is strapped to a table)

NERO: You must have a lot of questions for me. I only have one for you. I need the subspace frequencies of Starfleet's border protection grids. Specifically, those surrounding Earth. Christopher, answer my question.

PIKE: No. You answer for the genocide you just committed against a peaceful...

NERO: I prevented genocide. In my time, where I come from, this is a simple mining vessel. I chose a life of honest labor, to provide for myself and the wife who was expecting my child. I was off-planet, doing my job, while your Federation did nothing and allowed my people to burn while my planet broke in half. And Spock, he didn't help us. He betrayed us.

PIKE: No, no, you're confused. You've been misinformed. Romulus hasn't been destroyed. It's out there right now. You're blaming the Federation for something that hasn't happened.

NERO: It has happened! I watched it happen! I saw it happen! Don't tell me it didn't happen! And when I lost her, I promised myself retribution. And for twenty-five years, I planned my revenge against the Federation, and forgot what it was like to live a normal life. I did not forget the pain. That's the pain that every surviving Vulcan now shares. My purpose, Christopher, is to not simply avoid the destruction of the home that I love, but to create a Romulus that exists free of the Federation. You see, only then will she be truly saved. That is why I will destroy all the remaining Federation planets, starting with yours.

PIKE: Then we have nothing left to discuss.

(Nero grabs a Centaurian slug with tongues)

NERO: You will give me the frequencies to disable Earth's defenses. Centaurian slugs. They latch unto your brainstem, and release a toxin that will force you to answer. Frequencies please, sir.

PIKE: Christopher Pike, Captain, USS Enterprise, serial number...

NERO: As you wish.

(They forcibly open Pike's mouth and drop in the slug as he screams)

In any case, I think LightningStorm's point stands: Nero was victorious. He didn't achieve all his goals, but as mad campaigns of extermination go, it was still quite succesful.

Certainly he was more successful than he ever should have been allowed to become, but he still didn't achieve nearly the number of deaths and planetary destructions he aimed for (and could have achieved had the Red Matter not been retrieved). If the Federation of the 2370s encompassed around 150 Member Worlds, the Federation of the 2250s probably encompassed around 50 to 70 Member Worlds -- and who knows how many colony worlds under the Members' jurisdiction, which would also have been targeted.

Was the destruction of Vulcan an unspeakable tragedy and crime against sentience? Certainly. But did Kirk and Spock accomplish something great by saving not only Earth, but 50 or more other worlds? Yes. I'm sorry, but the number of lives they saved outweighs the number of lives they were unable to save.

 

[DonIago]

Sometimes I think people forget how casually TOS was willing to wipe entire civilizations off the map. Because really, it's not like Destiny or the new film are exactly changing any sort of long-standing precedent...except perhaps the one where minutes after tragedy has been averted the senior staff is on the bridge having a good laugh about their experiences.

 

[JarodRussell]

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?

Nope. No, wait, actually, yes.

Have you ever seen me moaning about Vulcan's destruction? I liked that, and I would have loved to see that in a TNG movie, too.

But had they destroyed Romulus in a TNG movie with "oh and btw, Romulus is gone, too", I would have also disliked that. It's kinda disrespectful to the work that came before. Spock had business there. They destroyed the entire Unification storyline and much of Spock's character arc with a simple side note. The destruction of Romulus would have deserved its own movie.

 

[Greg Cox]

Indeed, the movie did not end with Vulcan's destruction any more than other installements ended with what ever disaster was featured in their first half. The classic formula is usually setback and then victory. It's rarely win, win, win, end.

Exactly. Was The Doomsday Machine "doom and gloom"? "Genocide-chic"? Did it "glorify the failure" of its main characters?

What about THE WRATH OF KHAN? Did it spit on the coda of "Space Seed" by making a mockery of Kirk's final decision to give Khan and Marla a brave new world to conquer? So much for mercy and optimism!

Damn that Nicholas Meyer. Clearly, he had no respect for Trek's storied history and Roddenberry's vision. Why the bastard even killed Spock!

Clearly, the books should have ignored that callous, mean-spirited movie . . . .

 

[Christopher]

Damn, I hoped I was joking when I said it was too late to keep this thread from turning into another free-for-all argument about the movie.

Come on, people!! If you want to debate the movie itself, do it in the ST XI forum, for gods' sake! This is the Trek Literature forum! Can we have a little board discipline here, please? Can we try to limit discussions in this thread to how Trek literature could engage with the movie? I mean, really, this is getting ridiculous!

Take Voyager, for instance. I basically believe that the reason Voyager wasn't as popular as the rest had nothing to do with the cast or characters or episode-by-episode stories, and much more to do with the fact that they were in a situation with unbelievable dramatic potential, but NOTHING bad EVER happened to them, ever. There was never any sense of peril. So they were all optimistic, "we'll get home someday!", but I didn't give a crap because it certainly looked like the life they had out there was just fine. The optimism, the fundamental conflict of getting home, had no meaning because there was nothing pushing against it.

I saw VGR's failure of optimism in a different light. Optimism isn't just about hoping for your own life to get better; it's about believing it's worth striving to make other people's lives better. Every other Trek series was about people putting their own lives on the line to improve life for others, whether by advancing society's knowledge of the universe or defending civilization against threats. Voyager was about people whose primary motivation was their own well-being, and that made it ultimately too selfish and petty in focus. It would've been truer to Star Trek's optimism if the crew had put aside their self-centered fixation on home and hearth in favor of committing themselves to building something worthwhile in the Delta Quadrant.

The movie didn't end with billions of deaths but the prime universe did.

Only if you think the Prime Universe has ended.
...
And besides, even if it were canonically dead, it's not dead in the novels. And the novels are just as important to me as the canon.

Indeed. Let me again stress that we are not in the Movies forum, we are in the Trek Lit forum. The focus of discussion here should be from a Trek Lit point of view, or there's no point in having it here. The topic of this thread is not whether you liked or hated the movie, it's about how Trek literature will deal with the state of the Prime universe following the 2387 events established in the film. So please, people, let's try to remember that.

In fact, I've often suspected that one of the reasons for the new timeline in ST09 was that Star Trek, as an entity, is now owned by two different corporations -- CBS and Paramount. If Paramount's films stay in the Abramsverse, CBS can set new TV series in the Primeverse, and both CBS and Paramount get to go in whatever directions they want without stepping on each-other's toes. Will that happen? Beats me. But bearing in mind the division of ownership between CBS and Paramount does suggest to me that the Primeverse isn't dead just yet.

Although there's nothing to stop CBS from developing an Abramsverse TV series, especially since Abrams and his team are a well-established TV production unit. After all, ultimately, CBS owns the whole shebang; Paramount retains a license on the movie rights. And given the success of Abrams' take on ST, I'm sure the CBS execs would be happy to have his name attached to any new Trek TV series.

Alternatively, now that ST2009 has set the precedent, CBS could just as easily establish yet another new timeline.

Bottom line, the studios and networks don't obsess over timelines to the extent that fans do. This is a business. It's about making a profit. In-universe continuity or timeline distinctions don't matter to them as long as the stories they're telling draw in an audience and advertiser dollars.

 

[Greg Cox]

The benefit I get from a fictional universe is, sort of by definition, based on how good the stories are and not anything else..

This.

 

[RookieBatman]

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.

I can't tell whether you were meaning to agree with me or not, but that's essentially what I was trying to say.

Look at how completely the technology and costumes changed in the much briefer interval between TOS and the movies.

I didn't agree with that, either. I'm sure if I had been there in 1979, I'd be making this same point.

Besides, the look is irrelevant.

Maybe to you, but not to everyone.

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.

But if it's not going to look even remotely similar, why bother saying it's the same universe and time-frame? (Especially since we can assume they wouldn't slavishly commit to the old continuity anyway.)

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.

But the point I'm making isn't that they were opposed to having ENT be in continuity with TOS, just that they really weren't trying. So, of course they wouldn't object to Coto putting in references, but it kinda seems telling that the biggest references we got to Trek future in the first couple seasons were Ferengi and Borg. If we're considering the intent of the creators, then shouldn't we consider indications of lack of intent, as well? If the creators of ENT made no concerted effort to keep their continuity in line with TOS, then does that indicate their intention was not for it to be in the same timeline?

(Mind you, I still understand and accept that the official story is that it is in the same timeline. I have the luxury of not needing to agree with it, though.)

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.

I think I already agreed that the first argument wasn't valid.

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.

Such a person can do one of two things; either accept that some other, very similar version of Kelvin, Robau, etc. existed in Prime (this seems like the more painless solution), or just consider those stories to be outside of their personal continuity. Not to say that such a decision precludes enjoyment of that story, as we've all discussed how such stories as Strangers from the Sky and The Final Reflection can still be enjoyed, though not in line with canon.

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.

Interesting, that does make sense. Certainly, a great amount of societal change can happen in a hundred years.

 

[RookieBatman]

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?

For myself, I really don't care all that much about whether Romulus was destroyed or not. I'm just trying to debate the concept of whether or not the intended Prime scenes must be taken as such.

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".

I agree. (More about the Kelvin scene than the 2387 stuff, as I wasn't paying much attention to that, so I don't have much opinion either way.)

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.

Yeah, I am a little bemused as to why creator's intent is being treated as so sovereign in this case. I can understand that the current powers that be wouldn't be interested in contradicting it, that makes sense. But it won't always be the case...

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 . . .

So, what if the books didn't get to 2387 until there was a new Sheriff in town? If we say, for the purpose of argument, that after one good trilogy, they decide to go with a total reboot and start all over from scratch for the next movie, would Abram's intent be so authoritative then?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Clearly your idea of a "more painless" solution is very different from mine, RookieBatman .

I remind you that since we are (or at least should be) taking about books here, you are free to pretend the costumes and spaceships looks like 1969's version Star Trek if you so wish. Just don't look at the cover art!

I'd also like to point out that Star Trek's had massive visual upgrades/retcons in 1979, 2001 and 2009. If you're willing to accept a single one of them, you should in fairness be willing to accept them all whether you like the film or episodes themselves or not.

 

[RookieBatman]

Dramatic? Eventful? Something important enough for a major relaunch of the series?

The consequences of which (in the 24th century) these storytellers will never have to deal with.

Blowing up some generic planet we've never heard of before wouldn't have had nearly the same oomph!

Or then, they could've not blown up anything. It's not like the destruction of a planet was the only conceivable way to tell that story.

Look at GENERATIONS, where Kirk dies to save some unknown planet we never even see. Kind of anti-climatic.

I never thought so. Dying for a bunch of complete strangers is, in many ways, a lot more heroic than dying for loved ones.

And I bet if you asked any 100 random people coming out of nuTrek if they thought the movie was optimistic, they'd say yes in a heartbeat. I'm not sure what else you want.

My opinion is that they wouldn't have given the question of optimism a second thought. That's really not what it was about.

Optimism without results is nothing but empty faith. To call a fictional world optimistic can't just limit oneself to the attitude of characters, some brained-out Pangloss standing on a charred ruin and burbling about how great things are. Optimism is also a factor of story and setting--and on those counts, recent Trek fails by a wide margin.

I agree. The whole reason that TOS was considered optimistic was not about the characters' attitudes (about the same as any other show), but the fact that it depicted a future where humanity hadn't blown itself up with atomic bombs, or killed itself off in petty wars, but instead had unified and learned to work together. Well, the Vulcans didn't blow themselves up, but even two people couldn't unify and work together enough to prevent someone else from doing so.

Or, to put it another way; if somebody had written a story before 2001 about the World Trade Center being blown up, would that be considered optimistic? Sure we can rise from the ashes, but I think really the core optimism of TOS was that we got our act together before we had any really serious ashes to rise from. Averting the crisis instead of recovering from it.

Exactly. Was The Doomsday Machine "doom and gloom"? "Genocide-chic"? Did it "glorify the failure" of its main characters?

Who would've enjoyed "The Doomsday Machine" if Kirk had figured out how to kill the thing after it had chewed its way through the Rigel system? I think that's the more apt analogy.

 

[RookieBatman]

What about THE WRATH OF KHAN? Did it spit on the coda of "Space Seed" by making a mockery of Kirk's final decision to give Khan and Marla a brave new world to conquer? So much for mercy and optimism!

A little bit, yeah. Don't get me wrong, I like TWoK well enough, but one can basically assume that all Meyer or Bennett knew about Khan was "genetic superman exiled by Kirk."

I have to say, throughout the course of my life, my overall appreciation for Space Seed and TWoK have been inversely proportional. When I was a kid and thought TWoK was as cool as it can get, I think Space Seed was just boring. Now that I can appreciate the rich characterizations in Space Seed, TWoK (while still a good popcorn movie) really does seem like a bit of a mockery of what came before.

The benefit I get from a fictional universe is, sort of by definition, based on how good the stories are and not anything else..

This.

Ditto. But how good a story is, is of course a very subjective thing.

Clearly your idea of a "more painless" solution is very different from mine, RookieBatman .

Well, naturally. But then, I don't really practice such thorough "timeline-parsing" myself. I generally just try to enjoy each story on its own merits, and not worry about what universe it's in while I'm reading it. I only do that afterward if I feel it will provide me significant enough intellectual stimulation.

I remind you that since we are (or at least should be) taking about books here, you are free to pretend the costumes and spaceships looks like 1969's version Star Trek if you so wish. Just don't look at the cover art!

Except for the ones where they don't have the right era represented on the cover.

I'd also like to point out that Star Trek's had massive visual upgrades/retcons in 1979, 2001 and 2009. If you're willing to accept a single one of them, you should in fairness be willing to accept them all whether you like the film or episodes themselves or not.

I already said that I felt the same about the changes in TMP (which I love) as I do about the changes in STXI (which I do not love).

 

[Greg Cox]

You know, SUPERMAN: THE MOTION PICTURE began with a planet blowing up, annihilating an entire civilization, but I don't remember anyone describing it as genocide-chic or comparing it to Schindler's List.

It's possible to take this stuff too seriously. Sometimes a space opera is just a space opera!

 

[RookieBatman]

Sometimes a space opera is just a space opera!

I agree with that, but I felt like Star Trek has generally been a bit more than just a space opera.