Eh.. I've already won the tread for "didn't look it up first and trying to remember things from way back and f-ed it up!"
Any Trek authors pitched a post Romulus story to Pocketbooks yet?
- Thread starter ConRefit79
- Start date
Eh.. I've already won the tread for "didn't look it up first and trying to remember things from way back and f-ed it up!"
Didn't I just say that?
What a ridiculous straw-man. I pose a hypothetical that, based on current industry trends (see Spider-Man, 007, X-Men, etc.) is very possible, and you say I might as well ask something that is scientifically impossible.
I have no background with TNG, which is why I didn't comment on it, but I'm fairly certain that TOS made no such mentions as you claim. Yes, there was WWIII and the Eugenics Wars, but those were just wars. I'm pretty confident they never indicated either of those were nuclear, or that they brought humanity to the brink of extinction. And since I was commenting on the spirit of optimism in TOS itself, it doesn't matter what the other series' added to that.
I guess it all comes down to the definition of "space opera." I always thought of them as being the more melodramatic, less character-oriented type of sci-fi, but I understand the term is fairly vague and broad. But anyway, that definition is what I was thinking of when I said I thought of it as more than just space opera.
I can see your point. Perhaps the difference here, for some, might be that the main heroes of the movie were specifically trying to stop it. But, ultimately, it is just a matter of presentation.
Of course, "spectacular" must always be subjective.
Last edited:
I didn't agree with that, either. I'm sure if I had been there in 1979, I'd be making this same point.
But the point is, within the Trek universe as it canonically stands, there's abundant precedent for Starfleet technology and costumes changing radically in a short amount of time. This movie hasn't done anything new or unprecedented here.
But if it upset me even in movies that it did like, why should it not be expected to upset me here? I didn't agree with it then, or now. And furthermore, I don't think it made sense from an in-universe standpoint then as now. Just because they did that which didn't make sense before doesn't mean I'll be any more okay with it now.
I agree that it looks very nicely like a Starfleet vessel, but not one from any time before the TMP era. The show era had one look, the movie era had another; they picked the movie era.
Gonna have to agree to disagree there. There's not really any way I can argue that the approximation of the bridge was reasonable, but suffice it to say, it didn't strike me as having the intention of resembling the bridge from the show, in any but the broadest sense.
Clearly, what they wanted to do (and did) is to make something that looked different from the show. What I don't understand after a year (less, in fact, since I only started discussing well after the movie premiered) of tedious rehashing, is how that is considered a tribute?
I don't understand how that's a "need." You know how much of a traditionalist I am, so obviously I'm clearly biased, but I just don't see where that falls on Mazlo's Hierarchy. Do you think the Kelvin scene would've been any less dramatic if the sets and costumes had more closely (notice I didn't say "exactly") resembled those of the show, or the pilots?
That sounds to me kind of like you might be saying that using your imagination and coming up with something new is always better than copying old designs. I don't see how that sentiment could possibly come from someone who writes licensed fiction.
The letter of what was shown onscreen never indicated what timeline Old Spock was from, that's been the point this whole time. That's why you and others have been saying that the creators' intent must be considered.
My point was in reference to Greg Cox's suggestion that it was better than blowing up some generic planet. I agree that there's always more than one way to tell a story, I was simply pointing out that there's more than two.
And as far as I recall, I don't think I've discussed the destruction of Romulus before. (Was this point about Vulcan? I don't recall discussing that either, certainly not to this depth.)
If you are Sci can find any references in TOS to either the Eugenics War or World War III being nuclear, I'll gladly concede my point. But until then, I'm going with the viewpoint that they were wars that cost many lives, but didn't bring humanity to the brink of annihilation.
Well, that's certainly a valid viewpoint, but it's not the one I ever got, either from the show or from statements Roddenberry made elsewhere.
Nearly. They rose from the ashes of war, not complete annihilation; which is precisely my point, that optimism, triumphing over adversity, can quite satisfactorily, dramatically, and believably happen without any planets blowing up.
Was that the most dramatic way to do it? To some, apparently so. But for others, you must understand, it can significantly diminish the perceived tone of optimism. That's all I'm suggesting.
But then, ID wasn't exactly serious, was it? Which would allow viewers to not take the destruction of cities as seriously.
400 people is still a tragedy, but it's a lot different than many billions. Again, what I'm saying is not that there shouldn't be tragedy, just that the magnitude thereof can be exaggerated to a very depressing degree. Would the tragedy have not worked if half of the Vulcans died instead of all of them?
Yeah, you caught me. I don't spend hours (or days) researching every detail of what I'm saying in an ultimately insignificant message-board discussion. But if it's so well-known, I'm surprised I haven't heard of it, with as much time as I do spend on the board. It's also well-known that Bennett wasn't a fan of Star Trek before coming on board, which is partially what I based my apparently erroneous assumption on. (Although, since you're a proponent of not making assumptions, you may as well post a source for this info, which I am, at this point, honestly curious about.)
Well, then, I stand corrected. They only gave the appearance of being completely ignorant. But anyway, my overarching point was that TWoK wasn't in the optimistic spirit of Space Seed, which still stands whether it was a product of ignorance or creative interpretation.
Perhaps, but KHAN is still largely regarded as one of the best (if not the best) STAR TREK movies ever made. Which suggest that staying to true to some abstract agenda is maybe not as as important as making a good movie.
Bring back Lindsay Prime!
Whoa, whoa, slow down there. Let's not do anything rash! Some things are better left in an alternate timeline.
So, there are still Romulans around, right? Despite Nero saying that he's the last of the Romulan Empire, wasn't that just crazy talk? So there can still be Romulan stories set after 2387?
If so, I think there are a lot of story possibilities in that.
But do you think TWoK would've suffered by having Khan be a more subtle strategist that didn't just yell all the time? Really, if Khan had been played by someone other than Montalban, would he really have been so memorable?
I'm not saying it's bad, just that it could've been even better. And it wouldn't have been better for the fact that it was consistent with the spirit of Space Seed, but because those things that it would've been consistent with were good in the first place. So, basically, what I'm suggesting is that staying true to that abstract agenda would likely have been no detriment to that good movie, and quite possibly even an improvement. Best of both worlds.
Bring back Lindsay Prime!
Whoa, whoa, slow down there. Let's not do anything rash! Some things are better left in an alternate timeline.
So, there are still Romulans around, right? Despite Nero saying that he's the last of the Romulan Empire, wasn't that just crazy talk? So there can still be Romulan stories set after 2387?
If so, I think there are a lot of story possibilities in that.
But do you think TWoK would've suffered by having Khan be a more subtle strategist that didn't just yell all the time? Really, if Khan had been played by someone other than Montalban, would he really have been so memorable?
I'm not saying it's bad, just that it could've been even better. And it wouldn't have been better for the fact that it was consistent with the spirit of Space Seed, but because those things that it would've been consistent with were good in the first place. So, basically, what I'm suggesting is that staying true to that abstract agenda would likely have been no detriment to that good movie, and quite possibly even an improvement. Best of both worlds.
Well, it's been nearly thirty years and KHAN is still the gold standard for TREK movies, so I think they made the right calls.
If anything, I suspect that "Space Seed" has benefited from its association with the movie. It's a good episode, but I'm not sure it would have made anybody's top ten back in 1978 or so. Most people would probably have cited "Amok Time" or "City on the Edge of Forever" instead. It's gained in stature and reputation because it's now the prequel to KHAN . . . .
Given the context of Roddenberry's other work -- Genesis II, Planet Earth, "Encounter at Farpoint" -- I think it's fair to assume that was the intent. Spock did say in "Space Seed" that the Eugenics Wars were the last and largest of Earth's world wars (though TNG later retconned WWIII into a later conflict), and considering how devastating the Second World War was, we're not talking about something that was "just a war."
The term used to refer to grand, larger-than-life space adventures with two-dimensional characters, like the work of E. E. "Doc" Smith. In modern terms, the original Star Wars trilogy is a classic example. But SF literature has its fashions like anything else, and there was a time when space-based SF took on a bad reputation and all of it was derogatorily labeled "space opera." Since then, the term has somewhat been redeemed and isn't considered a negative anymore.
But the question on the table isn't whether it upset you. The question on the table was whether the Abrams film was reconcilable with Prime-universe canon. Objectively, given past precedent, there's no reason it can't be. No offense, but I don't come to this board to talk about you. I come to this board to talk about Star Trek. So don't expect me to define things in terms that revolve exclusively around your preferences.
Creative license. Remember how Roddenberry wanted us to believe the Klingons had always had ridges? I get the impression that this film's designers are implying that Starfleet vessels always looked more like the ones we saw in the movies, and that the show only gave us a rough approximation of their appearance. And as much as I love Matt Jefferies' original design, I can see a definite logic in that. It would help ameliorate the radical TOS-to-TMP change that you're complaining about.
Ultimately, Star Trek is about the stories, not about the appearance of the ships. As long as the stories and the characters are satisfying, the visual representations are something I'm flexible about.
The broadest sense was all they needed. This film was not solely an exercise in nostalgia pandering to the existing fanbase. Its intent was to reinvent Star Trek as something that would appeal to a new audience. Homage to the original was a secondary concern. Given that, I appreciate that there's as much homage as there is.
You're only looking at one side of it. They wanted to make it their own, but they also wanted to include elements of tribute. As I said, the tribute was not the whole reason for doing this, so it's not the dominant feature -- nor should it be. Doing something purely for the sake of Trekkie nostalgia is fine for a fan film series like Phase II, but it'd be an idiotic way to relaunch a tentpole feature-film franchise. The whole point of this was to make it new, but they also chose to tie it to the old, to an extent that was reasonable given that it wasn't and shouldn't have been their highest priority.
I think that's a nonsensical question. They could've made the costumes as similar or as different as they wanted, and it would've made no difference to the quality of the film. But they chose to exercise their own creativity, and they have the absolute right to do so. Star Trek is not holy gospel. It's a fictional franchise. They're the ones in charge of making it now, and they have the right to make whatever artistic choices they want.
That's ridiculous. Licensed fiction is a specific type of work, one where I am specifically hired and paid to build on other people's concepts. I also do original fiction, and in that case I do definitely try not to merely copy other people's work.
And even in licensed fiction, I don't just imitate other people, and it's an insulting analogy for you to even suggest that. I build on the same themes and materials, but bring my own imagination and style to it, in the same way that two different composers writing for a specific selection of instruments can do two very different things with them rather than imitating each other.
I disagree. It was obviously meant to be the same Spock we've always known. I mean, he quoted the line, "I have been and always shall be your friend." That's something our Spock said verbatim in The Wrath of Khan. Why would they put those words in his mouth if it weren't the same Spock?
Why do you keep thinking this conversation is about you? Look at the title of the thread. The whole topic is about the destruction of Romulus.
Oh, come on, obviously it's a matter of degree. You don't need to have a planet literally blowing up before a story can be said to be about rising from the ashes of tragedy. I mean, come on, do you have any inkling of how horrible World War II was? How much death and devastation it caused, beyond anything the Earth had ever experienced before? Do you have any idea how profoundly out of touch it makes you sound to dismiss a war bigger than WWII as if it were no big deal, as if it didn't count as a vast and terrible tragedy?
Which only supports my point, because the whole point is that it is possible to tell optimistic stories about the aftermath of vast tragedies, because the key is in how the story is told.
That distinction hardly matters. A death toll of five billion versus ten billion wouldn't change anything for the audience, because they're both incomprehensibly big numbers. And movies have to be compact in their storytelling. If you're going to depict a tragedy involving the Vulcan people, the simplest, most efficient way to do it is to destroy the whole planet. It's the shorthand of cinema.
About the art direction stuff, that's all it is: art direction. Why does it look different from "The Cage"? Because you can't expect a movie made in 2010 to look like a tv pilot shot forty years ago. But that doesn't have anything to do with the plot or what universe the story is set in. Again, it's like the reinvention of the Klingons in TMP. Why? Because they had a bigger make-up budget. End of story. No other explanation is required.
Look at it this way: if TOS had been shot in black-and-white, would we insist that the new movie took place in a different timeline because it was shot in color?
Same thing.
Look at it this way: if TOS had been shot in black-and-white, would we insist that the new movie took place in a different timeline because it was shot in color?
Same thing.
Heck, if we can accept Robin Curtis and Kirstie Alley as the same Saavik, if we can overlook the differences in appearance and pretend they're the same person, why can't we overlook the differences in the design of a set or a costume or a ship?
Even in universe, why would the sets and uniforms have to look like they would 20 years later? The sets and uniforms in TMP sure didn't look like TOS ( which took place only a couple of years prior). I think the pants, turtleneck and delta combo are fine for a pre-Cage uniform.
Christopher, The Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock obviously take place in different timelines, because Saavik looks like a different person- It's the only explanation! It's just so upsetting to me that Kirk just completely ignores that he is in a new timeline and doesn't make any effort to restore the timeline to it's original state- it's not even mentioned! Pocket books would be wise to treat Search for Spock as if it never happened.
^I'm starting to think we should treat this thread as though it never happened...
Again, that's a valid opinion, but that's all it is. I don't there's any more evidence for your position than there is for mine.
Of course it can be reconciled with past canon. Anything can be; if they decided to say that Prime Spock is actually a Klingon trying to take over the universe (and has been the whole time), I'm sure creative enough thinkers could even find a way to reconcile that. The question that originally started this branch of discussion, is whether it would make more sense to treat those scenes as Prime or another alternate timeline. As has been established, this has a simple objective answer from a practical standpoint, that the official version is that it's Prime. I can live with that.
But from a subjective, aesthetic standpoint, I think it would make more sense for that to be different timeline. Not that saying it's Prime doesn't make any sense at all, just less.
I'm in the apparent minority that thinks the original design was perfect right out of the gate, so anytime someone (including Roddenberry) speaks of the show version like it needed improvement, I'm not gonna be able to agree. In fact, my deep appreciation for the original design is why I have such trouble understanding why people constantly treat it like it needs fixing. If it were me, I'd be showing it off every chance I got! (I know it's a logical fallacy to assume everyone else should think like me, but just know that this is the standpoint I'm coming from.)
But I will give you that if we're assuming your model above, I can see the Kelvin fitting into TMP's universe, 30 years previous. The only problem with that, from a canon standpoint, is the original design's appearance on DS9 and ENT.
If that's what they're going for, though, I'd say it works well enough for that.
I agree completely, and we've already discussed elsewhere how my major problem with the movie is just that Kirk and Spock's depictions didn't particular appeal to me. And so, I would like to make it clear that I'm not purporting any of these things as reasons not to like the movie. As I've said many times, the Kelvin scene (which has been bearing the brunt of my scrutiny here) is absolutely my favorite scene of the movie, and I think on it's own, it stands up to the best that Trek has to offer. The fact that I didn't think the look was consistent with Prime didn't affect that for me in the least. But it would've certainly been a nice little bonus, that's all.
I don't know if that makes me sound nitpicky, but the intensity with which I discuss a topic isn't based on how critical an artistic factor I thought it was. It's purely based on how interesting I think the discussion itself is, in a vacuum. (Which is why I'm now debating on a number of points I don't care about much at all; because I find the discussions interesting and thought-provoking.) Like I said before, if it were 1979, I would probably be raising the same points, even though I love TMP.
I understand that, and don't really have a problem with it. But since consistency with the canonically established Prime timeline was only a secondary concern, why even bother indicating those parts were set in Prime? Especially since that was never even specifically stated, I don't think it would've hurt the movie if the Kelvin and 24th century scenes did just take place in another alternate universe (with no other changes). I don't think that would've been any less homage, either.
That's precisely the reason I'm engaging in this discussion.
I guess it just comes down to differing opinions of what constitutes a tribute. I think if they had had one fifteen minute scene that looked a lot more like the show, it would've been a great last hurrah for the traditionalists, but still wouldn't have been dominant or the highest priority.
Again (since it's the most positive thing I have to say about the movie, I figure I might as well keep repeating it), I was quite happy with the way the Kelvin scene ultimately manifested. But I don't consider it any more of a tribute than the rest of the movie. But, of course, that's all subjective.
But that's exactly what I'm saying. If keeping things the same wouldn't have altered the quality of the film, then how is changing things a "need?"
Of course they have the right do so! I never suggested anything remotely to the contrary. I just challenged the implication that it was necessary.
I don't see any reason you should be insulted by it; that's not the manner in which it was intended. I'm simply trying to say that, while using your imagination is good, when you're working within an established universe, it doesn't cheapen your own work or originality to copy the elements that others have already brought to that world.
I'm not saying he wasn't intended to be the same Spock. Just that it wasn't indicated onscreen. There just wasn't enough of his 24th century world to establish whether anything was different or not.
(Frankly, Old Spock isn't nearly as big a thing to me as the Kelvin scene. But I just feel that if anyone wants to treat him as not being from Prime, there's nothing that specifically contraindicates that.)
Um, because you said "didn't we have this conversation..." when replying to me. Thus, I inferred that I was supposed to be a part of that "we." If you weren't talking to me, then that answers your question about why the conversation repeats itself; because new people are taking part.
Yes, I do.
I suppose it would make me sound out of touch if I had made any such point, but I don't believe I did so.
I dare say there's a difference between optimism and comedy.
But I don't disagree with your point; apparently, the only place we disagree is how well that worked in this movie.
If it works for you, fine, I'm glad you can enjoy it. But don't act like that's the only good way to tell a story.
That's all well and good, but it doesn't answer my original question; do you think TWoK would've suffered by having Khan be a more subtle strategist that didn't just yell all the time?
If the answer is no, then it doesn't really matter whether TWoK or Space Seed was ultimately more popular. If another element of the less popular work could make the more popular one even better, then why not?
Maybe it's just because I'm an apparently crazy traditionalist who doesn't think the old designs needed any updating. I think they would've looked just fine in a movie made in 2010, but it seems I'm in the minority there. *shrug*
For what TPTB were trying to achieve, I don't think using the old designs would have worked. Granted their approach didn't work for everyone in the end, but you have to appreciate and respect that TPTB were in a situation where they were never going to be able to please everyone regardless, so they just tried to please the majority.
Mission accomplished, and the people who have problems with the film should settle for "Well, it didn't work as well for me as I would have liked, but hopefully the sequel will be more to my tastes." You know, that whole optimism thing we've been talking about lately...
Mission accomplished, and the people who have problems with the film should settle for "Well, it didn't work as well for me as I would have liked, but hopefully the sequel will be more to my tastes." You know, that whole optimism thing we've been talking about lately...
That's exactly how I feel. But I don't think that should disallow me from discussing it.
Nor I, but a lot of the critics' form of discussion seems...the most diplomatic word I can come up with is "pointless"...especially over a year after the film's release when very little that's new is being said. There are times when I enjoy re-reading the same material, but this (the topic in general, not this particular thread) isn't one of those times.
Similar threads
- Poll
