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

[Destructor]

Speaking as someone who's already had to write a post-apocalyptic Trek novel, I'd be more than happy -- I think "fucking overjoyed" would be a more apt description -- if Pocket and CBS Consumer Products decided to declare the 24th century bits of JJ's thing just as alternate timeliney as the 23rd century part.

That may be, but do try to start to come to terms with the fact that this will never, ever happen. Romulus has been destroyed in the TNG timeline. This was the stated intention of the author and will be the 'declaration' of Pocket and CBS Consumer Products forevermore. You may as well wish for someone to declare that Voyager was never lost in the Delta Quadrant after all.

Na.

Ga.

Ha.

Pen.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Tragedy has always been part of STAR TREK. Often in its finest moments . . ..

But Trek has always had at it's heart a feeling of optimism. The belief that things were going to get better. That WE would grow and better ourselves. The we would overcome the trails we faced and we would do it together. By joining with people that are different than ourselves. To find strength from our differences. Tragedy has been a part of Trek but a small part overall.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Tragedy has always been part of STAR TREK. Often in its finest moments . . ..

But Trek has always had at it's heart a feeling of optimism. The belief that things were going to get better. That WE would grow and better ourselves. The we would overcome the trails we faced and we would do it together. By joining with people that are different than ourselves. To find strength from our differences. Tragedy has been a part of Trek but a small part overall.

But usually the tragedy comes first, Think of the planets and people killed by the Doomsday Machine, the Space Amoeba and the flying hotcakes (Operation: Annihilate).

 

[Thrawn]

Tragedy has always been part of STAR TREK. Often in its finest moments . . ..

But Trek has always had at it's heart a feeling of optimism. The belief that things were going to get better. That WE would grow and better ourselves. The we would overcome the trails we faced and we would do it together. By joining with people that are different than ourselves. To find strength from our differences. Tragedy has been a part of Trek but a small part overall.

I don't see how this movie is different. I know Trent talks about this all the time, with both Destiny and Trek09, but I just don't see the qualitative difference between this tragedy and all the others. Yes, there's lots of people on a planet, but as has been mentioned before planetwide death has been an aspect of both the TV shows (Doomsday Machine et al) and the novels (Genesis Wave, for starters) since the beginning.

I didn't see a movie where, at the end, they're all like "oh fuck we lost VULCAN! Best give up now! Life is shit from here on out." So I don't really understand the problem.

A fundamental message of optimism is at best patronizing and at worst insulting if nothing bad ever happens. It's easy to be optimistic when it all works out, when no main characters die, when every mission ends in more or less success, when the Federation is never threatened, when it is the supreme power in the galaxy, when every problem can be handled. To make a message of optimism have meaning, sometimes shit has to go wrong. THEN being optimistic matters.

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.

Or, more personally, I teach in an area of Los Angeles that is a complete disaster, educationally speaking; my 11th graders have a 3rd grade level in mathematics when they get to me. The system has already failed, the tragedy has already happened. I get a new wave of refugees off of a destroyed world every year (if you'll allow a little melodrama in stretching the metaphor). What use is an inspiring message to me when it comes from situations where nothing bad has to be overcome?

 

[kkozoriz1]

The problem is seeing the prime Universe for the last time we get the destruction of Romulus. Our final view of the prime universe is a planet of billions being destroyed. It's a sad and depressing farewell to a setting we've enjoyed for decades. Lets add in Remus as well. There may be even more destruction that we didn't see. After all, this "supernova" had the ability to destroy the galaxy. How many planets were destroyed before Spock created the black hole?

It's a universe we'll still visit in the novels but for all intents and purposes, it's gone. It's a sad way to say goodbye to a friend.

Should Voyager have eded witht eh ship being destroyed just before they got home? Should Picard have failed Q's test in All Good Things? We expect our heroes to win in the end. Not always and not always without a cost. The destruction of Romulus was the last episode of the Prime Universe and it was a sad, depressing end. And it didn't have to be.

Hopefully the NuUniverse will have a sense of optimism. I really hope that.

 

[Thrawn]

I'd say that ending the Prime universe on Voyager's finale, Nemesis, or Enterprise's finale would all be substantially more depressing than hearing of Romulus's destruction in order to bring about the events that lead to this particular reboot, because all three of those were incredibly awful stories. The benefit I get from a fictional universe is, sort of by definition, based on how good the stories are and not anything else. I'm not really big on nostalgia.

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.

 

[BillJ]

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.

It's a movie that had a death toll of ten plus billion. Probably the same hundred people thought Schindler's List was optimistic too.

 

[Trent Roman]

How about something genuinely good instead of this ridiculous, agathist, Pollyannish, Leibnizian, upbeat attitude slathered onto a story in which the nominal heroes fail to prevent the genocide of billions? Here's what's readily obvious about any so-called optimism in Abrams' Product: it's a lie. An utter and complete lie. A manipulation of mood and tone to cover up what is a terribly dark and depressing set of events.

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.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Sci]

How about something genuinely good instead of this ridiculous, Pollyannish, Leibnizian optimism, upbeat attitude slathered onto a story in which the nominal heroes fail to prevent the genocide of billions? Here's what's readily obvious about any so-called optimism in Abrams' Product: it's a lie. An utter and complete lie. A manipulation of mood and tone to cover up what is a terribly dark and depressing set of events.

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.

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?

Optimism without results is nothing but empty faith.

Meanwhile, Thrawn has made it very clear that he'd be insulted if the Trekverse depicted optimism without tragedy.

 

[Thrawn]

Optimism without results is nothing but empty faith.

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

 

[kkozoriz1]

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.

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?

Optimism without results is nothing but empty faith.

Meanwhile, Thrawn has made it very clear that he'd be insulted if the Trekverse depicted optimism without tragedy.

When I was in the theater watching IX there were a couple of people sitting behind me who's biggest reaction was when the member of the Vulcan High Council got crushed by the statue. They thought it was the best thing thus far. Is that the sort of reaction you expect from a Trek movie?

I gave up watching NuBSG after the New Caprica story line. I found that I no longer liked the characters and I came away from the show feeling more down than when I went in. It may have worked for NuBSG but I'd rather not get to that point with Trek. Kirk giving smiling when Spock told him that he didn't think they should offer surrender to Nero or his crew came close. It felt like Kirk was saying "Oh boy, I get to blow him up."

Christopher said somewhere on here that this was the best movie we could expect at this time due to the way Hollywood is. I sincerely hope that he's wrong. It could be much better.

 

[Nerys Myk]

How about something genuinely good instead of this ridiculous, Pollyannish, Leibnizian optimism, upbeat attitude slathered onto a story in which the nominal heroes fail to prevent the genocide of billions? Here's what's readily obvious about any so-called optimism in Abrams' Product: it's a lie. An utter and complete lie. A manipulation of mood and tone to cover up what is a terribly dark and depressing set of events.

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.

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?

Optimism without results is nothing but empty faith.

Meanwhile, Thrawn has made it very clear that he'd be insulted if the Trekverse depicted optimism without tragedy.

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.

 

[kkozoriz1]

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

 

[Thrawn]

When I was in the theater watching IX there were a couple of people sitting behind me who's biggest reaction was when the member of the Vulcan High Council got crushed by the statue. They thought it was the best thing thus far. Is that the sort of reaction you expect from a Trek movie?

There's a tremendous difference between understanding that light doesn't come without darkness and sitting there going "OH BOY PEOPLE ARE DYING HOW COOL!" Don't paint me with that brush.

I gave up watching NuBSG after the New Caprica story line. I found that I no longer liked the characters and I came away from the show feeling more down than when I went in. It may have worked for NuBSG but I'd rather not get to that point with Trek.

And that makes two straw-man arguments. You conflated appreciating the necessity of major setbacks with enjoying death, and then you conflated the enormity of the setbacks with the tone and spirit of the work. Neither is true.

First, the heroes fail. Then, on the heels of that failure, they get their shit together, and succeed. Optimism in two sentences, yes?

Trent seems to want to eliminate the first step, and by comparing to BSG you seem to imply the latter step is meaningless. Both are important.

 

[Thrawn]

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?

 

[LightningStorm]

Optimism without results is nothing but empty faith.

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

Not to butt in on you guy's argument/discussion but I can see how this would be a bit different from every other Trek bad guy/bad device except one, Shinzon, who they did actually stop.

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. And he succeeded in his plans. Just because the "heroes" caught him after the fact doesn't mean they beat him at anything, as he didn't have any designs on continuing his maniacal retribution.

This is notably different from say The Borg, or The Dominion, or The Genesis Wave because the end goal of the Borg pre-Endgame was to assimilate everyone and everything, so every time the heroes stopped them they won, sure the Borg cut a swath of destruction in route to their goal, but the ultimate goal was prevented. Same goes for post-Endgame Borg in Destiny, their ultimate goal was destruction of the ENTIRE Federation, and they destroyed a lot on the way, but they were stopped on the way to it. Same for The Dominion, same for the Genesis Wave, and I presume, the same for the Doomsday Machine*. Shinzon, however is basically exactly the same enemy as Nero, he planned on destroying Earth and (as near as Nemesis let on) Earth alone. It's almost as if Shinzon is to Picard as Nero is to Spock. But in Nemesis the heroes actually did succeed.

Now, as a matter of clarification, I did enjoy the new movie and don't agree with Trent's stance on it, but I do at least see where he's coming from on it and this particular example stood out to me as actually not being the same as past events where there must be adversity/tragedy before there can be optimism.

*"presume" because I consider TOS to be unwatchable, so I haven't actually seen this episode.

 

[Nerys Myk]

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

So did the DC Multiverse in the 80s. Not even gonna attempt to put number on the fictional deaths in that one.

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)

 

[Sci]

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.

ETA:

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

Only if you think the Prime Universe has ended.

First off, I'm not convinced that that was the last we'll ever see of the Primeverse. Sure, it's unlikely that Paramount will go Prime any time soon, but there's no particular reason that a future ST series might not be set there.

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.

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.

 

[kkozoriz1]

When I was in the theater watching IX there were a couple of people sitting behind me who's biggest reaction was when the member of the Vulcan High Council got crushed by the statue. They thought it was the best thing thus far. Is that the sort of reaction you expect from a Trek movie?

There's a tremendous difference between understanding that light doesn't come without darkness and sitting there going "OH BOY PEOPLE ARE DYING HOW COOL!" Don't paint me with that brush.

I gave up watching NuBSG after the New Caprica story line. I found that I no longer liked the characters and I came away from the show feeling more down than when I went in. It may have worked for NuBSG but I'd rather not get to that point with Trek.

And that makes two straw-man arguments. You conflated appreciating the necessity of major setbacks with enjoying death, and then you conflated the enormity of the setbacks with the tone and spirit of the work. Neither is true.

First, the heroes fail. Then, on the heels of that failure, they get their shit together, and succeed. Optimism in two sentences, yes?

Trent seems to want to eliminate the first step, and by comparing to BSG you seem to imply the latter step is meaningless. Both are important.

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?

You don't have to stack up the corpses to have drama.

 

[LightningStorm]

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.