• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Movie novelization by Foster (book discussion / possible spoilers)

J

jstimson

Ensign
Red Shirt
And of course, I meant "Movie novelization", not "Move novelization".

About 3/4's the way through the book and thought I'd start a thread on opinions.

So, opinions?

It reads pretty much as the movie plays. Was hoping for more, perhaps some explanations for some of the "iffy" parts in the movie, but it does not add a lot to the overall story. Bit disappointed there.

Noticed a bad science error. Not once, but twice, he refers to the drill platform as being "thousands of kilometers" above the surface of Vulcan when Kirk and Sulu are on it. At best it would be thousands of meters. To put it in Earthly terms, the upper layer of our atmosphere (the thinnest), called the Troposphere, has a max value of 17km near the equator.

Surprised a sci-fi author let this slip.

But overall, unless you are collecting, the book does not add much to the story at all.
 
Last edited:
Re: Move novelization by Foster

my only gripe so far (I haven't finished it yet) would be that he didn't quite catch the emotions and the poignancy of the Kelvin sequence. but then it'd be difficult for most writers to do so.
 
Re: Move novelization by Foster

I think it's a story that works better on screen than on paper, and it does bear the hallmarks of something that was pushed out quite quickly. I'm particularly disappointed at the lack of any behind-the-scenes accounts, or even a little note from the author about how he feels returning to Star Trek.

Not sure about some of the new dialogue either, particularly Uhura's attempted pun on "simulations" and "stimulations"...
 
Also, I think Foster embellished Kirk's dialogue so much that in many places, he doesn't come off as the likable smartass he is in the movie, but a rather annoying and unlikable one. That was one of my main gripes with the book.

Overall, it didn't add anything to the film. And that is something I would like to see in a novelization. I mean, if that's not there, why bother with a story you already know? Gene Roddenberry did this very well in his TMP novelization, and several of the later books too. As it stands here, the book doesn't play half as well as the film, because it can't of course have the visuals or the nuance of the performances. And where it fleshes things out, it does so in an unessential way, except maybe for a scene with young Kirk and his family where we realize why he stole the car. That could've really added something to the film, I believe.
 
The subplot with the corvette and George, Jr., is notably satisfying of the details included in the book. On this count, I favor the novelization's version over the movie and the "Johnny" person.
 
Overall, it didn't add anything to the film. And that is something I would like to see in a novelization.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was my problem with it.

I figured the book would augment the movie, but for the most part, it didn't. I was disappointed.
 
Isn't part of the problem that Foster was working on the original December deadline and was brought very late to the project? I haven't read it (I'll probably get around to it eventually) but it seems to me some of the issues raised here could have been mitigated by an extra draft or two (I know the extra months were there, in the end, but IIRC, Foster was already working on some other things). Perhaps he should not have taken it on with such a tight schedule on his side, but the time crunch seems to have played a role here. Thoughts?
 
Ovation said:
Isn't part of the problem that Foster was working on the original December deadline and was brought very late to the project? I haven't read it (I'll probably get around to it eventually) but it seems to me some of the issues raised here could have been mitigated by an extra draft or two (I know the extra months were there, in the end, but IIRC, Foster was already working on some other things). Perhaps he should not have taken it on with such a tight schedule on his side, but the time crunch seems to have played a role here. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I don't think Foster was working on the original deadline, but he did get brought in really late (February-March 09) into the whole process. In all honesty, they should've gotten Foster much earlier (December 08-ish) and worked more closely with him (maybe shown him the movie a few more tmes), the novel could've been better.

Then again, considering the trend of movie novelizations that strictly follow the films for some reason, all we might have gotten is a slightly more polished version of the book. The days of Vonda McIntyre and J.M. Dillard adding all sorts of depth to the movie through the novels are long gone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top