Nero/Alternate Universe...When did it actually become 'alternate'?

[OneBuckFilms]

I don't buy it... I don't buy the fact that Paramount wouldn't ask the question early on in the process. Especially considering Nimoy's then feelings towards acting in general and Star Trek in particular, because its' their money on the line.

Someone talked to Nimoy fairly early in the process I don't care what they say on the DVD.

You've never worked in an environment where complex organization, creativity and tight deadlines keep you hectic and busy, where you have to juggle 16 things at once.

I can tell this by this very response.

Bank Operations Manager for 12 years, I can't imagine a much more hectic environment... was responsible for 30 employees and a five hundred million dollar nightly deadline.

You don't forget the basics of your craft when things get hectic.

YOU don't. I don't. I've worked in Software Development for 12 years, before moving on to second-level technical support for a set of APIs. I can personally attest to situations where oversites occur.

In either case, we have insufficient information about othser scripts (whether alternate ideas existed), or whether they would have had the time to alter the existing story in a way that worked without Spock given whatever schedule they had at that time.

 

[BillJ]

YOU don't. I don't. I've worked in Software Development for 12 years, before moving on to second-level technical support for a set of APIs. I can personally attest to situations where oversites occur.

But these weren't people making movies for the very first time. I also don't believe that stripping Spock Prime from the movie would've created insurmountable issues to making the film. Because they could have kept the majority of the story intact by doing one of two things:

A) Simply had Quinto do double duty as both Spock and Spock Prime

or

B) Simply strip out the time travel elements

The first option would have allowed development to continue uninterrupted, the second would've required a reworking of the original story but I can't believe it would have set them back more than a few weeks.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

YOU don't. I don't. I've worked in Software Development for 12 years, before moving on to second-level technical support for a set of APIs. I can personally attest to situations where oversites occur.

But these weren't people making movies for the very first time. I also don't believe that stripping Spock Prime from the movie would've created insurmountable issues to making the film. Because they could have kept the majority of the story intact by doing one of two things:

A) Simply had Quinto do double duty as both Spock and Spock Prime

or

B) Simply strip out the time travel elements

The first option would have allowed development to continue uninterrupted, the second would've required a reworking of the original story but I can't believe it would have set them back more than a few weeks.

True, but A) would have incurred development time and resources for aging makeup, and would have failed to clearly create the link emotional link from old-to-new as it clearly would not have been Nimoy, and B) would have delayed proceedings while they gutted that aspect of the story to get things to work.

A few weeks is nothing to sneeze at at any stage of production.

There's a difference between simply "making the film" and "making the film in a way that works".

As for the "first time" section of this, it implies that mistakes like this simply don't occur with veterans.

Pointing back to my work envirnment, I can attest that this implication is patently false.

It is possible to be the best in the world at what you do, and still make boneheaded mistakes, or have major oversights.

Time and Pressure don't respect expertise or experience.

 

[JarodRussell]

Find me the evidence. I don't buy the writers lying for the sake of it.

Nimoy was called into a meeting with Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman BEFORE they wrote the script.

https://aintitcool.com/node/45445

Well, that's what the man himself says at least.

I stand corrected on when they called Nimoy. It was actually a little vague on the special features when they DID call him.

Strange, it sounded like you were pretty sure before, nothing about being vague.

 

[BillJ]

As for the "first time" section of this, it implies that mistakes like this simply don't occur with veterans.

Pointing back to my work envirnment, I can attest that this implication is patently false.

But forgetting to talk to the guy you want to feature in your film would've been a pretty large mistake. It'd be akin to wanting to surf the internet but not turning on your PC (or whichever device you use to surf).

 

[OneBuckFilms]

As for the "first time" section of this, it implies that mistakes like this simply don't occur with veterans.

Pointing back to my work envirnment, I can attest that this implication is patently false.

But forgetting to talk to the guy you want to feature in your film would've been a pretty large mistake. It'd be akin to wanting to surf the internet but not turning on your PC (or whichever device you use to surf).

My sentence still holds true. They may have been stuck without Nimoy because they assumed his involvement, and only ever worked on one basic story idea that met all of the required criteria.

Besides, looking at recent entries, they did contact him earlier on, but had no backup story plan, and would have had to start from scratch.

Creatively, they seemed to assume he was needed for the film to work.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Federation and Enterprise: The First Adventure both heavily contradict on-screen material and both were New York Times bestsellers. Paramount isn't dumb enough to shoot down a good story because it somehow doesn't fit.

These were created before TNG, when maintaining overall consistency was more important.

Federation and Enterprise: The First Adventure were probably largely consistent with Star Trek's event as established when the books were written.

Besides, it was LATER on-screen event that likely broke their ability to fit into continuity.

No matter who you paint it, Continuity has long been a sticking point for both Paramount and a significant portion of fandom.

The writers, as fans, certainly felt it was important.

Enterprise: The First Adventure was written twenty years after the premiere of Star Trek. Federation was released roughly a year prior to First Contact so Paramount knew they had two stories telling the same story in much a different manner.

Are you talking about original release dates, or re-releases of the novels?

Enterprise: The First Adventure was published in 1986, about a year before Star Trek: TNG premiered, and Star Trek IV was in the cinema or in production.

Nothing was established about the first adventure of James Kirk at that time.

Federation, was published in 1994, 2 years before Star Trek: First Contact's release in 1996.

They were likely approved by Paramount before the details of the events they conflict with were scripted or planned.

 

[BillJ]

These were created before TNG, when maintaining overall consistency was more important.

Federation and Enterprise: The First Adventure were probably largely consistent with Star Trek's event as established when the books were written.

Besides, it was LATER on-screen event that likely broke their ability to fit into continuity.

No matter who you paint it, Continuity has long been a sticking point for both Paramount and a significant portion of fandom.

The writers, as fans, certainly felt it was important.

Enterprise: The First Adventure was written twenty years after the premiere of Star Trek. Federation was released roughly a year prior to First Contact so Paramount knew they had two stories telling the same story in much a different manner.

Are you talking about original release dates, or re-releases of the novels?

Enterprise: The First Adventure was published in 1986, about a year before Star Trek: TNG premiered, and Star Trek IV was in the cinema or in production.

Nothing was established about the first adventure of James Kirk at that time.

Federation, was published in 1994, 2 years before Star Trek: First Contact's release in 1996.

They were likely approved by Paramount before the details of the events they conflict with were scripted or planned.

I stand corrected on Federation but Enterprise: The First Adventure was set before Where No Man Has Gone Before and featured the regular cast of the TV series.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Enterprise: The First Adventure was written twenty years after the premiere of Star Trek. Federation was released roughly a year prior to First Contact so Paramount knew they had two stories telling the same story in much a different manner.

Are you talking about original release dates, or re-releases of the novels?

Enterprise: The First Adventure was published in 1986, about a year before Star Trek: TNG premiered, and Star Trek IV was in the cinema or in production.

Nothing was established about the first adventure of James Kirk at that time.

Federation, was published in 1994, 2 years before Star Trek: First Contact's release in 1996.

They were likely approved by Paramount before the details of the events they conflict with were scripted or planned.

I stand corrected on Federation but Enterprise: The First Adventure was set before Where No Man Has Gone Before and featured the regular cast of the TV series.

So which events established on screen at that time were contradicted by those books?

 

[BillJ]

Are you talking about original release dates, or re-releases of the novels?

Enterprise: The First Adventure was published in 1986, about a year before Star Trek: TNG premiered, and Star Trek IV was in the cinema or in production.

Nothing was established about the first adventure of James Kirk at that time.

Federation, was published in 1994, 2 years before Star Trek: First Contact's release in 1996.

They were likely approved by Paramount before the details of the events they conflict with were scripted or planned.

I stand corrected on Federation but Enterprise: The First Adventure was set before Where No Man Has Gone Before and featured the regular cast of the TV series.

So which events established on screen at that time were contradicted by those books?

The fact that the regular TV cast was aboard the Enterprise prior to Where No Man...

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Nimoy was called into a meeting with Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman BEFORE they wrote the script.

https://aintitcool.com/node/45445

Well, that's what the man himself says at least.

I stand corrected on when they called Nimoy. It was actually a little vague on the special features when they DID call him.

Strange, it sounded like you were pretty sure before, nothing about being vague.

I was putting forward a likely explanation for events you could not believe which I believe are plausible, and IMHO true.

I stand corrected on the timing/stage first contact was established, not the fundamental issue that from the writer's perspective, Nimoy was essential.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

I stand corrected on Federation but Enterprise: The First Adventure was set before Where No Man Has Gone Before and featured the regular cast of the TV series.

So which events established on screen at that time were contradicted by those books?

The fact that the regular TV cast was aboard the Enterprise prior to Where No Man...

Oh? Where No Man didn't establish the date/time of any crew member coming aboard, not is it established on screen when Kirk took command, or whether Chekov was there.

As far as I could tell, most of the cast WERE on board the Enterprise during Where No Man Has Gone Before, though in different positions, with the notable exceptions of Chekov, Scotty and McCoy.

There is also nothing on screen in Where No Man to established that crew members not shown on screen were actually absent from the ship.

 

[BillJ]

So which events established on screen at that time were contradicted by those books?

The fact that the regular TV cast was aboard the Enterprise prior to Where No Man...

Oh? Where No Man didn't establish the date/time of any crew member coming aboard, not is it established on screen when Kirk took command, or whether Chekov was there.

As far as I could tell, most of the cast WERE on board the Enterprise during Where No Man Has Gone Before, though in different positions, with the notable exceptions of Chekov, Scotty and McCoy.

There is also nothing on screen in Where No Man to established that crew members not shown on screen were actually absent from the ship.

Read the book... then come back and tell me that the writer didn't force things (we'll say she 'finessed continuity') to get the gang of seven together for the story. Alot like a certain 2009 feature film.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

The fact that the regular TV cast was aboard the Enterprise prior to Where No Man...

Oh? Where No Man didn't establish the date/time of any crew member coming aboard, not is it established on screen when Kirk took command, or whether Chekov was there.

As far as I could tell, most of the cast WERE on board the Enterprise during Where No Man Has Gone Before, though in different positions, with the notable exceptions of Chekov, Scotty and McCoy.

There is also nothing on screen in Where No Man to established that crew members not shown on screen were actually absent from the ship.

Read the book... then come back and tell me that the writer didn't force things (we'll say she 'finessed continuity') to get the gang of seven together for the story. Alot like a certain 2009 feature film.

I might at that at some point. I saw a little of the Memory Beta summary (quick glance), and it sounds interesting.

The thing is, I'm not really sure how this detracts from the general importance of maintaining continuity with screened Star Trek.

You've quoted two books, I've shown Paramount's general policy during/post TNG to present, the arguments on this board, and the significant literature as evidence of a presumption of importance.

 

[BillJ]

Oh? Where No Man didn't establish the date/time of any crew member coming aboard, not is it established on screen when Kirk took command, or whether Chekov was there.

As far as I could tell, most of the cast WERE on board the Enterprise during Where No Man Has Gone Before, though in different positions, with the notable exceptions of Chekov, Scotty and McCoy.

There is also nothing on screen in Where No Man to established that crew members not shown on screen were actually absent from the ship.

Read the book... then come back and tell me that the writer didn't force things (we'll say she 'finessed continuity') to get the gang of seven together for the story. Alot like a certain 2009 feature film.

I might at that at some point. I saw a little of the Memory Beta summary (quick glance), and it sounds interesting.

The thing is, I'm not really sure how this detracts from the general importance of maintaining continuity with screened Star Trek.

You've quoted two books, I've shown Paramount's general policy during/post TNG to present, the arguments on this board, and the significant literature as evidence of a presumption of importance.

If it was really that important you wouldn't have the errors we've seen creep into the product over the years like Scotty thinking Kirk was alive during Relics and yet was there when he died in Generations (hell, Ron Moore was involved in the writing of both!) or cloaking tech being theoretical in Balance of Terror and yet in abundance in Unexpected and Minefield or that the fact sometimes the Eugenics Wars were three hundred years ago and sometimes they were two hundred years ago or that Data graduated with the class of '78 yet the first season of TNG takes place in 2364... so on and so forth. If a dullard like me can keep it straight, why can't Paramount, if it's truly that important?

 

[BillJ]

I might at that at some point. I saw a little of the Memory Beta summary (quick glance), and it sounds interesting.

It's your time to waste.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

The fact that the regular TV cast was aboard the Enterprise prior to Where No Man...

Oh? Where No Man didn't establish the date/time of any crew member coming aboard, not is it established on screen when Kirk took command, or whether Chekov was there.

As far as I could tell, most of the cast WERE on board the Enterprise during Where No Man Has Gone Before, though in different positions, with the notable exceptions of Chekov, Scotty and McCoy.

There is also nothing on screen in Where No Man to established that crew members not shown on screen were actually absent from the ship.

Read the book... then come back and tell me that the writer didn't force things (we'll say she 'finessed continuity') to get the gang of seven together for the story. Alot like a certain 2009 feature film.

Canon Events have always been pawns to the story.

With things like Chekov in Star Trek II, that can be applied more readily.

Reality is, from what I've heard, the novel tie-in writers have almost always worked around Canon, bending the rules to make things fit the overall canon, while adjusting minor things for the story.

But what this film did was not tie-in fiction, but a major change in the on-screen Star Trek canon. A very, very different beast.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Read the book... then come back and tell me that the writer didn't force things (we'll say she 'finessed continuity') to get the gang of seven together for the story. Alot like a certain 2009 feature film.

I might at that at some point. I saw a little of the Memory Beta summary (quick glance), and it sounds interesting.

The thing is, I'm not really sure how this detracts from the general importance of maintaining continuity with screened Star Trek.

You've quoted two books, I've shown Paramount's general policy during/post TNG to present, the arguments on this board, and the significant literature as evidence of a presumption of importance.

If it was really that important you wouldn't have the errors we've seen creep into the product over the years like Scotty thinking Kirk was alive during Relics and yet was there when he died in Generations or cloaking tech being theoretical in Balance of Terror and yet in abundance in Unexpected and Minefield or that the fact sometimes the Eugenics Wars were three hundred years ago and sometimes they were two hundred years ago or that Data graduated with the class of '78 yet the first season of TNG takes place in 2364... so on and so forth. If a dullard like me can keep it straight, why can't Paramount?

Ask Berman, Piller etc. Plenty of goofs to go around in Trek, you're right there.

It's likely a combination of time, workload and the sheer amount of details to keep track of.

Think of just how many hours of Star Trek has been produced. Mountains of it !!! Excrement Happens. They're writers, not Vulcans.

It made it overwhelming to a non-fan wanting to see what it was all about, and seeing all of this history they had to get to know.

Star Trek had to be rebooted in some fashion to be approachable. Hence the film's changes.

But as FANS, the writers (Orci especially, though Kurtzman also), and likely the studio also, wanted to keep the 40+ years of history intact. Two seemingly conflicting mandates, and they looked to Star Trek (TNG: Parallels) for a loophole that allowed both, and TOS for the best way to make this huge pill easier for us fans to swallow (Spock Prime).

There's probably as much emotional intuition as logic when it comes to something like this.

It's what felt right to the writers that likely guided their choices.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

I might at that at some point. I saw a little of the Memory Beta summary (quick glance), and it sounds interesting.

It's your time to waste.

That's not very encouraging

 

[BillJ]

I might at that at some point. I saw a little of the Memory Beta summary (quick glance), and it sounds interesting.

It's your time to waste.

That's not very encouraging

It's truly a poor book.