Hated it

[Timewalker]

This is why I haven't bought many Star Trek novels in recent years. Too much bother to return them for refunds if I find nuTrek crap in them.

Lord knows I've never had occasion to work any references to the new movies into my TREK books and have no plans to do so anytime soon.

That's good to know, since your books are the only new Star Trek ones I've been buying in recent years.

In any case, TNG appearances in TOS has not ruined those novels for me, so I am confused how nuTrek references (if any can occur at all) can ruin a book?

The events of TNG were intended to be a direct continuation of the events of TOS. They're meant to be in the same universe. TNG didn't retcon significant parts of the TOS characters' lives and say, "No, it didn't happen that way, it happened this way and by the way, a whole bunch of other stuff was different too for no logical reason except just because."

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

And really, how is referencing Captain Robau's glorious bald head or the annual Starfleet pot luck in the Laurentian system going to ruin a novel?

It is too hot for some.

Remember, TNG era Trek is a sterile affair.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

The only thing I really disliked about ST09 was the glee with which they offed Nero

I keep hearing about this supposed glee—it is a thing people seem to like to talk about—but I have yet to witness it for myself. Please indicate the location of the glee. Give exact time index, if possible.

I think they embraced that whole banter deal where K, S and Mc have a little chuckle at the end of an episode full of death and grief. So, homage.

 

[F. King Daniel]

This is why I haven't bought many Star Trek novels in recent years. Too much bother to return them for refunds if I find nuTrek crap in them.

Unless you hatewatch the new movies on a regular basis, there have probably been a few references which you have completely missed.

Are there licensing issues with say writing a Captain Robau novel set in the TOS era or a Captain Picard meets Nero set in the TNG era?

It appears so. Robau was invented for the new films (irrespective of in-universe timelines) and I gather that Pocket does not have the license to include material from the new movies. That hasn't stopped them sneaking in a few things, though...

I have to ask: is this even happening? I mean, I don't really get what the problem would be if it was, but I'm not aware of any nuTrek material making its way into the books yet. As far as I know, any such concerns are purely hypothetical at this point.

Awhile ago I made a thread listing them: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=250945

TNG didn't retcon significant parts of the TOS characters' lives and say, "No, it didn't happen that way, it happened this way and by the way, a whole bunch of other stuff was different too for no logical reason except just because."

They did, you just didn't notice. "Where No Man Has Gone Before", STV: TFF and others are physically impossible in a universe where crossing the galaxy is a decades-long journey as seen in TNG, DS9 and Voyager. So they never happened in Picard's world.
TNG: "Where Silence Has Lease" directly and intentionally contradicts TOS: "The Immunity Syndrome" with a blatant "that never happened."
DS9 states that "Rejoined" is the first artificial wormhole created, wiping TMP, where artificial wormholes are a known byproduct of unbalanced warp engines, out of existence (also, which version of TMP is the correct and canonical one?) There are more...

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I saw a guy who looked like Robau the other day, he was even in uniform though it was the by-association repulsive uniform of ticket inspectors, but he looked VERY much like Robau and I swooned just for a bit.

 

[Timewalker]

This is why I haven't bought many Star Trek novels in recent years. Too much bother to return them for refunds if I find nuTrek crap in them.

Unless you hatewatch the new movies on a regular basis, there have probably been a few references which you have completely missed.

Are there licensing issues with say writing a Captain Robau novel set in the TOS era or a Captain Picard meets Nero set in the TNG era?

It appears so. Robau was invented for the new films (irrespective of in-universe timelines) and I gather that Pocket does not have the license to include material from the new movies. That hasn't stopped them sneaking in a few things, though...

I have to ask: is this even happening? I mean, I don't really get what the problem would be if it was, but I'm not aware of any nuTrek material making its way into the books yet. As far as I know, any such concerns are purely hypothetical at this point.

Awhile ago I made a thread listing them: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=250945

TNG didn't retcon significant parts of the TOS characters' lives and say, "No, it didn't happen that way, it happened this way and by the way, a whole bunch of other stuff was different too for no logical reason except just because."

They did, you just didn't notice. "Where No Man Has Gone Before", STV: TFF and others are physically impossible in a universe where crossing the galaxy is a decades-long journey as seen in TNG, DS9 and Voyager. So they never happened in Picard's world.
TNG: "Where Silence Has Lease" directly and intentionally contradicts TOS: "The Immunity Syndrome" with a blatant "that never happened."
DS9 states that "Rejoined" is the first artificial wormhole created, wiping TMP, where artificial wormholes are a known byproduct of unbalanced warp engines, out of existence (also, which version of TMP is the correct and canonical one?) There are more...

I'm pretty sure I mentioned at some point over a year ago about Mark Andrew Golding's essays in Best of Trek where he lists all the inconsistencies he found in TOS and concluded that TOS took place in many different universes (keep in mind that at the time those essays were published TNG didn't exist, so the acronym "TOS" didn't either). Since you enjoy documenting inconsistencies, you'd probably enjoy his essays.

It should be clear that I was talking about retconning the characters themselves, not how long it takes to reach the edge of the galaxy. I did notice that TOS uses actual names of stars, regardless of whether or not it makes sense to the story (ie. Vega is fairly close to Earth, while Rigel is not, plus some of the stars mentioned are very unlikely candidates for life-bearing planets at all, let alone intelligent life-bearing planets). TNG avoided this by making up names for stars or just not bothering to say which star the planet in question orbits.

 

[F. King Daniel]

If those things are now physically impossible, they never happened. If they are directly contradicted in a later episode (as in "Where Silence Has Lease" and "Rejoined") they never happened. Therefore, the lives and adventures of Kirk and crew have been altered - they just snuck it past you.

 

[Commishsleer]

The only thing I really disliked about ST09 was the glee with which they offed Nero

I keep hearing about this supposed glee—it is a thing people seem to like to talk about—but I have yet to witness it for myself. Please indicate the location of the glee. Give exact time index, if possible.

I couldn't even care less if they danced with glee, spat on Nero's severed head and urinated on his grave.
Nero killed billions. Nero killed Kirk's father, Spock's mother.

Yes yada yada yada, they're supposed to be Starfleet Officers, professionals but if one situation warranted not risking the $%#$@ universe to save a genocidal madman this was it.

If someone made a time machine and went back in time and killed Hitler when he was a baby I'd dance with glee (although in reality I probably wouldn't have been born).

 

[Nerys Myk]

I find the whole "Cowboy Kirk" concept pushed forth in Voyager to be an alteration of the character we saw in TOS. TOS Movies Kirk is different than TOS Kirk too. And not just because he's older. OTOH, McCoy is pretty consistent in TOS, TOS Movies and his TNG appearance. Chekov for some reason gets less and less intelligent every time we see him.

 

[Franklin]

"Unfortunately, Starfleet's enthusiasm affected even those who chronicled our adventures, and we were all painted somewhat larger than life, especially myself. Eventually, I found that I had been fictionalized into some sort of 'modern Ulysses' .... ...But there appears to be something in the nature of popular events which leads them into the habit of exaggeration."

That's James T. Kirk telling us the public stories of what happened to him and his crew during his five year mission are inaccurate accounts of the events. He goes on to say that he wants to make sure future stories are told more accurately. Kirk writes this in the preface to the story about V'Ger, as chronicled by Gene Roddenberry. (Or, Roddenberry's novelization of TMP.)

Because they knew they were doing something important, the Founding Fathers often thought about the future and how each of them would be depicted. John Adams, specifically, noted that the history of what they were doing in the late 1700s would end up being full of inaccuracies and contradictions because "real" history can never be told. That's why some founders tried to keep personal records of what was happening, both to cover their place in history in a positive light, and to chronicle reality as they saw it. They all knew reality was a matter of perspective decided by who wrote it and his point of view. Adams would probably laugh at the inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the HBO miniseries about him. He'd be flattered at the portrayal, but like Kirk, know it's not what really happened, even if it's history to those who see it.

Life is but a dream. Let's just enjoy the show.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I find the whole "Cowboy Kirk" concept pushed forth in Voyager to be an alteration of the character we saw in TOS. TOS Movies Kirk is different than TOS Kirk too. And not just because he's older. OTOH, McCoy is pretty consistent in TOS, TOS Movies and his TNG appearance. Chekov for some reason gets less and less intelligent every time we see him.

Kirk got larger than his already large life with the passing of time

Even the future needs heroes.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I find the whole "Cowboy Kirk" concept pushed forth in Voyager to be an alteration of the character we saw in TOS. TOS Movies Kirk is different than TOS Kirk too. And not just because he's older. OTOH, McCoy is pretty consistent in TOS, TOS Movies and his TNG appearance. Chekov for some reason gets less and less intelligent every time we see him.

Kirk got larger than his already large life with the passing of time

Even the future needs heroes.

He should have stuck to the diet.

 

[fireproof78]

I'll take your word for that. Anyway, it appears I'm not completely alone and in my defense, it could be that I was distracted by other more important matters. Never-the-less, I think that if you ignore the phrase "alternate reality" (which itself can be taken both ways) the rest of the time travel dialogue fits in as well or better if viewed as a normal Star Trek same universe scenario. In fact I have long held the view that the latter was originally intended, but was probably changed when someone figured they could have the best of both er, universes and perhaps avoid some fan grief.

I can understand your position, but I am afraid I have to disagree, respectfully. First of all, BTS details provide for the idea of alternate reality being the writers intent from the beginning.

Not necessarily. I didn't spot anything that indicated they always intended that outcome. Did you? Never-the-less, thank you for that link. Very interesting.



Yes, but as Mutoid pointed out, that's not the traditional "default" method (so people can be forgiven for jumping to a traditional conclusion). Even so, I don't think past Trek excursions involved the branching scenario. Without that you have to explain how time travel also gets you into a pre-existing alternate universe, not to mention why that universe is so similar to the one you just left. Even Bob said:

… And yet, oddly, as a practical matter, most people who see this movie will not have read this interview. Most of the audience will assume the classical time travel rules still apply.

Now, we can split hairs over the methodology, but it seems that depending on the method of time travel will affect the arrival point in the time streams, either in the same time stream, such as Voyage Home, or Guardian of Forever, or an alternate reality, jumping the streams due to a spatial anomaly, such as an ion storm (Mirror Universe), red matter black hole (Abramsverse).

There is a variety of interpretations, they can fit in to the Trek verse with little problem

Sorry but that's not my impression. Once you invoke Quantum Mechanics, branching will occur every time you time-travel as its a part the fabric of the universe(s) not part of the method of time travel. Indeed if I understand things correctly, its happening all the time irrespective of whether time travel is happening or not. Its just that time travel is likely to product significant and interesting branches so we follow them. Eg. in the Mirror Universe example, arriving would have created a branch (in the mirror universe) as would trying to return to their original universe. Interestingly the bad versions of Kirk and Co wouldn't have shown up in the "Prime" universe either but would have created their own branch off it. This means the universe they got back to (not their original one of course but a copy of it) wouldn't know anything about their evil twins.

Disclaimer: I understand there is a book called "Department of Temporal Investigations: Watching the Clock" by Christopher L Bennet that goes into these issues. Now it may explain why the above is wrong in whole or in part. Unfortunately I haven't read it (yet) so I don't know.

Well, I am unsure of what the traditional "time travel rules" are, so I am open to multiple interpretations, or multiple possibilities. Either quantum realities, or traveling along the stream. Again, both are present in TOS, so it really does not bother me either way.

Maybe I'm spoiled by Stargate and their dealing with quantum realities, or maybe that time travel is something that bores me as little more than a plot device to create the story. Regardless, all the stuff I have read, and several previous Trek stories support the idea of quantum realities, and that Nero's incursion created a new diverging point in history, leaving other realities intact.

That, however, is my understanding. Quite honestly, for me, it is a window dressing, and changes occur due to a variety of factors. Personally, I have no problems with Starfleet being very, very different after being attacked by a giant Romulan ship, coming shortly after a war with the Romulans. Things are different because the emphasis by Starfleet was different from one reality to another.

I get that nuTrek is not for everyone, but it does not undo all the rest of Trek by its existence, any more than the Mirror universe undid prime universe.

 

[Commishsleer]

I can understand your position, but I am afraid I have to disagree, respectfully. First of all, BTS details provide for the idea of alternate reality being the writers intent from the beginning.

Not necessarily. I didn't spot anything that indicated they always intended that outcome. Did you? Never-the-less, thank you for that link. Very interesting.

Wasn't a SG1 movie all about restoring the 'timeline' back to the way it was supposed to be? Maybe I didn't get the point of that movie then. I thought the team were all about convincing the President tolet them chane things so that the enemy (can't remember their name) didn't prevail and the SG1 team members didn't have dorky lives



Yes, but as Mutoid pointed out, that's not the traditional "default" method (so people can be forgiven for jumping to a traditional conclusion). Even so, I don't think past Trek excursions involved the branching scenario. Without that you have to explain how time travel also gets you into a pre-existing alternate universe, not to mention why that universe is so similar to the one you just left. Even Bob said:

Now, we can split hairs over the methodology, but it seems that depending on the method of time travel will affect the arrival point in the time streams, either in the same time stream, such as Voyage Home, or Guardian of Forever, or an alternate reality, jumping the streams due to a spatial anomaly, such as an ion storm (Mirror Universe), red matter black hole (Abramsverse).

There is a variety of interpretations, they can fit in to the Trek verse with little problem

Sorry but that's not my impression. Once you invoke Quantum Mechanics, branching will occur every time you time-travel as its a part the fabric of the universe(s) not part of the method of time travel. Indeed if I understand things correctly, its happening all the time irrespective of whether time travel is happening or not. Its just that time travel is likely to product significant and interesting branches so we follow them. Eg. in the Mirror Universe example, arriving would have created a branch (in the mirror universe) as would trying to return to their original universe. Interestingly the bad versions of Kirk and Co wouldn't have shown up in the "Prime" universe either but would have created their own branch off it. This means the universe they got back to (not their original one of course but a copy of it) wouldn't know anything about their evil twins.

Disclaimer: I understand there is a book called "Department of Temporal Investigations: Watching the Clock" by Christopher L Bennet that goes into these issues. Now it may explain why the above is wrong in whole or in part. Unfortunately I haven't read it (yet) so I don't know.

Well, I am unsure of what the traditional "time travel rules" are, so I am open to multiple interpretations, or multiple possibilities. Either quantum realities, or traveling along the stream. Again, both are present in TOS, so it really does not bother me either way.

Maybe I'm spoiled by Stargate and their dealing with quantum realities, or maybe that time travel is something that bores me as little more than a plot device to create the story. Regardless, all the stuff I have read, and several previous Trek stories support the idea of quantum realities, and that Nero's incursion created a new diverging point in history, leaving other realities intact.

That, however, is my understanding. Quite honestly, for me, it is a window dressing, and changes occur due to a variety of factors. Personally, I have no problems with Starfleet being very, very different after being attacked by a giant Romulan ship, coming shortly after a war with the Romulans. Things are different because the emphasis by Starfleet was different from one reality to another.

I get that nuTrek is not for everyone, but it does not undo all the rest of Trek by its existence, any more than the Mirror universe undid prime universe.

I thought the SG1 Continuum movie was all about restoring the timeline. I thought the SG1 team were all about convincing the President to let them change the timeline back to what it was supposed to be. So the enemy didn't win and the SG1 team members didn't end up with dorky lives.
And that the altered timeline people didn't want that because their lives would disappear.
It wasn't oh your timeline will still be here and we'll jump to another one. It was your timeline will be changed so that Earth will have the upper hand and defeat the enemy guys. Unless I misunderstood the whole movie.

 

[fireproof78]

I thought the SG1 Continuum movie was all about restoring the timeline. I thought the SG1 team were all about convincing the President to let them change the timeline back to what it was supposed to be. So the enemy didn't win and the SG1 team members didn't end up with dorky lives.
And that the altered timeline people didn't want that because their lives would disappear.
It wasn't oh your timeline will still be here and we'll jump to another one. It was your timeline will be changed so that Earth will have the upper hand and defeat the enemy guys. Unless I misunderstood the whole movie.

Well, in the series they actually had access, for a time, to a quantum mirror, allowing the user to jump from parallel reality to parallel reality, though it was destroyed so they did not have access to it, nor did they really want to leave Baal with that kind of technology and power over the galaxy (bad enough the guy figured out how to clone himself ). In addition, Continuum had a host of other problems not related to time travel, but I digress

Like I said, window dressings to me, that do not impact my enjoyment of the overall franchise, in either Stargate's case of Star Trek's case.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I find the whole "Cowboy Kirk" concept pushed forth in Voyager to be an alteration of the character we saw in TOS. TOS Movies Kirk is different than TOS Kirk too. And not just because he's older. OTOH, McCoy is pretty consistent in TOS, TOS Movies and his TNG appearance. Chekov for some reason gets less and less intelligent every time we see him.

Kirk got larger than his already large life with the passing of time

Even the future needs heroes.

He should have stuck to the diet.

Remember when Zoe said they were "big damn heroes"?

Embrace the big. It makes it sexy.

 

[Amaris]

And really, how is referencing Captain Robau's glorious bald head or the annual Starfleet pot luck in the Laurentian system going to ruin a novel?

So that's why they were there. Well, if the potato salad is good, I'm unlikely to leave anytime soon, so I get it.

 

[Maurice]

...my scene would be something akin to the old trope where if you make a point of showing a shotgun hanging on a wall, its a good bet at some stage it will be taken down and used...

The "trope" is Chekhov's Gun, and you're not quite relating its meaning accurately.

Chekhov's gun is a dramatic principle that requires every element in a narrative be necessary and irreplaceable, and that everything else be removed.

In other words, you should cut out anything if it's going to go unused. If a shotgun in not going to be fired in act two, you don't show it in act one. In the case of ST09, if the narrative introduced the notion of parallel universes in the first act, then it would be obligated to use it later in the story. It doesn't necessarily work in the reverse.

In other words it both prepares you for, and makes clearer, the later scene that was actually in the movie. That scene could be altered a bit to make sure it ties in properly, but the ground work would have been done.

Your proposed scene would be what we call "telegraphing" and "hanging a lampshade on it". Much too obvious, and narratively unnecessary.

 

[UFO]

Well, I am unsure of what the traditional "time travel rules" are, so I am open to multiple interpretations, or multiple possibilities. Either quantum realities, or traveling along the stream. Again, both are present in TOS, so it really does not bother me either way.

You do surprise me. Surely you've heard of the "grandfather paradox" and are aware of why its a problem? Anyway, traditional time travel rules", as you put it, are those used in (I think) all of TOS and most (if not all) of canon Trek. That's why, despite a vague (from my POV) two word clue in ST09, it would be reasonable to imagine nuTrek works the same way. Sure, Prime Trek had parallel universes and the like, but they didn't usually involve time travel IIRC. Mostly it was just a matter of jumping from one universe to another, which as I explained, didn't seem to create any extra universes, as nuTrek would appear to require.

I get that nuTrek is not for everyone, but it does not undo all the rest of Trek by its existence, any more than the Mirror universe undid prime universe.

That seems to be the general consensus, yes. But I'm not sure why you seem to be justifying the multi-verse decision or implying that my issue has something to do with people not liking nuTrek. I merely believe the movie, by itself, doesn't adequately rule out the single universe scenario, which it should, given it was the maker's intention to do so. Obviously some people are better prepared to pick up on the one phrase that casts any doubt on a classic interpretation (See "Traditional time travel rules" above). BTW, I believe the original Mirror universe story didn't involve time travel, so wasn't likely to overwrite anything.

...my scene would be something akin to the old trope where if you make a point of showing a shotgun hanging on a wall, its a good bet at some stage it will be taken down and used...

The "trope" is Chekhov's Gun, and you're not quite relating its meaning accurately.

Chekhov's gun is a dramatic principle that requires every element in a narrative be necessary and irreplaceable, and that everything else be removed.

In other words, you should cut it out anything if it's going to go unused. If a shotgun in not going to be fired in act two, you don't show it in act one. In the case of ST09, if the narrative introduced the notion of parallel universes in the first act, then it would be obligated to use it later in the story. It doesn't necessarily work in the reverse.

Ah, thank you for your assistance. That seems more extreme than I had in mind however. Not sure what you mean by not working in reverse though? Are you referring to the fact that chronologically the actual universe was created first? I'm only worried about conveying information to the audience when its appropriate from them to know it.

In other words it both prepares you for, and makes clearer, the later scene that was actually in the movie. That scene could be altered a bit to make sure it ties in properly, but the ground work would have been done.

Your proposed scene would be what we call "telegraphing" and "hanging a lampshade on it". Much too obvious, and narratively unnecessary.

But necessity is the issue at hand. I believe it was necessary to do something. Anyway, telegraphing sounds about right, but from the link you gave, definitely not "hanging a lampshade on it". I am not suggesting that the events are implausible or a plot hole. I just want the point to be clear. I mean, if the film makers want the audience to know something, and its not important that it be withheld till the end of the movie etc, then "obvious" is the way to go in my view. Certainly its better than not being obvious enough. Besides, they did something almost identical in STiD with Khan's blood and the Tribble and that ran the risk of harming the impact of Kirk's death.

But perhaps the best thing to do would be to have Uhura say something like: "A parallel universe?" instead of "An alternate reality”. That would mean something concrete to me and would certainly stand out more. I have since seen it suggested the two phrases are almost interchangeable! I guess not to everybody.

 

[Maurice]

In other words, you should cut it out anything if it's going to go unused. If a shotgun in not going to be fired in act two, you don't show it in act one. In the case of ST09, if the narrative introduced the notion of parallel universes in the first act, then it would be obligated to use it later in the story. It doesn't necessarily work in the reverse.

Ah, thank you for your assistance. That seems more extreme than I had in mind however. Not sure what you mean by not working in reverse though? Are you referring to the fact that chronologically the actual universe was created first?

I am referring to the concept of Chekhov's gun specifically. If you set something up early in the story, you should to pay it off towards the end, but the reverse is not required. You do not have to set up everything. A guy can pull a gun without previously establishing he has one. Follow?