Nutrek lit vs Primetrek lit
- Thread starter TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME
- Start date
I like how you'll include a laundry list of wacky notions (and wacky promotions) that we're meant to accept in Star Trek movie history, but somehow, this is where you draw the line.Doesn't follow. Archer would already have been 121 years old when Nero arrived. If new advances in longevity came as a result of that change (and I can't imagine why they would have), they probably wouldn't have come along for at least a couple of decades (enough time for developing and testing any new medical breakthroughs), and would've been too late to do any good for someone that elderly.Alternate timeline. New meds. Nero's fault. Yada, yada, yada.
I guess you could use the same reasoning that made the NuEnt over twice the size of Ent-Prime.
It sounds a lot like Dayton's T2 story...
Wouldn't that count as an apology attempt? Just take it as a fact and be done with it. Just like Spock Prime, who can't return, nor change the timeline.
^ Dude, we get it. You didn't like the movie.
Definitely. They rather liked the name Piotr, but switched to Pavel at the last second.
What the hell does that have to do with it?
^ Because to me -- based on that and several other posts -- it looks as though you're only interested in using your dislike of the flick to pick at nits and thereby prolong "arguments." Chill-ax, dude. It's a movie 
Kirk got promoted very rapidly. There's nothing we can do about that, but there's definite storytelling potential to be mined from that, in as much as that promotion will be viewed by the people he commands in all sorts of different ways. That's definitely worth exploring, particularly if you're writing a story about a new captain settling into his new responsibilities, and perhaps making a mistake or three along the way.
Kirk got promoted very rapidly. There's nothing we can do about that, but there's definite storytelling potential to be mined from that, in as much as that promotion will be viewed by the people he commands in all sorts of different ways. That's definitely worth exploring, particularly if you're writing a story about a new captain settling into his new responsibilities, and perhaps making a mistake or three along the way.
It was actually just a reaction to the general notion that tie-in shouldn't be trying to "apologize" for the movies. Would you try to rationalize the 78 decks on the Enterprise-A, or Kirk's change from feeling young and optimistic again at the end of TWOK to being depressive and exhausted at the beginning of TSFS?
I would just forget about the promotion being too rapid or too contrived. Just accept the movie's story as being an introduction with a few glitches and move on.
I would just forget about the promotion being too rapid or too contrived. Just accept the movie's story as being an introduction with a few glitches and move on.
Well, for what it's worth, I'm not in the business of apologizing for anybody about anything. I am in business -- particularly with regards to tie-ins -- to take advantage of obvious storytelling opportunities when they're presented.
As for the Spock-Prime and resetting the timeline bit, it's been made clear that it ain't going to happen, so with respect to "nuTrek," we play the cards we're dealt. That means taking what we've been given and doing what's needed, not just to tell a decent Trek story, but also something that evokes the tone and feel of the film and not just make it a "TOS story with fresh paint," so to speak.
But Kirk's promotion, rapid as it was, realistically will provoke reactions of varying degrees to the people he now commands ("Cupcake," as one obvious example, though probably not one I'd pick). That's gold, so far as trying to flesh out the character dynamics for a novel in this "nuTrekverse" is concerned. So long as the license holder lets me do that sort of thing, I'd be going for it all out, if it was me.
As for the Spock-Prime and resetting the timeline bit, it's been made clear that it ain't going to happen, so with respect to "nuTrek," we play the cards we're dealt. That means taking what we've been given and doing what's needed, not just to tell a decent Trek story, but also something that evokes the tone and feel of the film and not just make it a "TOS story with fresh paint," so to speak.
But Kirk's promotion, rapid as it was, realistically will provoke reactions of varying degrees to the people he now commands ("Cupcake," as one obvious example, though probably not one I'd pick). That's gold, so far as trying to flesh out the character dynamics for a novel in this "nuTrekverse" is concerned. So long as the license holder lets me do that sort of thing, I'd be going for it all out, if it was me.
I'm reminded of the time my wife and I went to see the premiere of Terminator 2. We've got time traveling cyborgs from the future, other time traveling cyborgs that can assume any shape or identity, and the part the guy in front of me takes issue with? The moment he can contain his fanboy rage no longer? When the T-1000 drives the semi tractor off the overpass into the viaduct, and the truck is able to keep moving after slamming into the concrete. I quote: "That's bullshit!"
I'll never forget that as long as I live.
Reminds me of a moment when I was in a theater watching Independence Day. The alien saucers switch on their gigantic destructor beams, laying waste to entire cities, killing millions. Will Smith's character's wife is in a crowded tunnel as a wave of flames cuts through, engulfing dozens more.
She hides in some sort of maintenance closet to avoid the blast. Her dog is with her and just barely jumps in at the nick of time. The audience lets out a huge sigh of relief and gives a little cheer for the dog, whereas there was no reaction whatsoever to the carnage that preceded it.
Interesting stuff. Probably the explanation lies in the audience's expectations for certain kinds of fiction being so strongly conditioned that really outlandish things will go unnoticed, while a relatively minor detail will stand out.
I like how you'll include a laundry list of wacky notions (and wacky promotions) that we're meant to accept in Star Trek movie history, but somehow, this is where you draw the line.
The difference is that those are things we have to accept because they've been shown onscreen. In this case, all we know is that there's a Starfleet admiral named Archer who likes beagles; it is only conjecture, not canonical fact, that it is an incredibly aged Jonathan Archer. And I see no reason to prefer that conjecture over the far more reasonable interpretations that exist. If they'd come right out and said that it was the same Jonathan Archer who commanded NX-01, then of course I'd have to accept it. But they didn't, so I'm free to interpret the reference to an admiral named Archer in a more plausible way.
You mean it's not you? I thought you were writing one of the four?
that's been done. something to do with some muppet deciding to label every turbolift stop as a different deck, IIRC.
thumbtack said:
Not me. The first four "nuTrek authors" are Christopher, Greg Cox, Alan Dean Foster, and David Mack (I don't remember which order they're going in, publication-wise).
The four are:
Alan Dean Foster
Christopher L. Bennett
David Mack
Greg Cox
...damn you WARD!!!!!
I'm reminded of the time my wife and I went to see the premiere of Terminator 2. We've got time traveling cyborgs from the future, other time traveling cyborgs that can assume any shape or identity, and the part the guy in front of me takes issue with? The moment he can contain his fanboy rage no longer? When the T-1000 drives the semi tractor off the overpass into the viaduct, and the truck is able to keep moving after slamming into the concrete. I quote: "That's bullshit!"
I'll never forget that as long as I live.
Reminds me of a moment when I was in a theater watching Independence Day. The alien saucers switch on their gigantic destructor beams, laying waste to entire cities, killing millions. Will Smith's character's wife is in a crowded tunnel as a wave of flames cuts through, engulfing dozens more.
She hides in some sort of maintenance closet to avoid the blast. Her dog is with her and just barely jumps in at the nick of time. The audience lets out a huge sigh of relief and gives a little cheer for the dog, whereas there was no reaction whatsoever to the carnage that preceded it.
Interesting stuff. Probably the explanation lies in the audience's expectations for certain kinds of fiction being so strongly conditioned that really outlandish things will go unnoticed, while a relatively minor detail will stand out.
And I totally understand that. Just because it's science fiction, meaning that there are aliens or robots using technology that is never explained, and hence magic, doesn't mean that suddenly humans would be able to breath in water, walk through fire, or trucks would be able to crash though into a wall without getting destroyed, etc...
Science fiction doesn't exclude realism. Guns are empty after 15 shots. Humans can only jump 1-2 metres (and that only if they are trained athletes), cars and trucks are not invincible, etc... people know that a car crash will seriously damage the car. You can't take that away from them, forcing them to suspend their disbelief. People can suspend their disbelief about things that aren't explained anyway. Artificial gravity in spaceships. Death laser beams like the one in Independence Day. Liquid Metal Terminators. We don't know how they work, so we don't know their limits, so we can't argue about how realistic they are, so we accept it.
If you start to explain those things, and either explain them wrong or use them beyond the limits of what you explained, then you'd again run into the same problem.
What I find surprising is that you, as an author, dismiss something like that as "fanboy rage", when it's clearly just a natural reaction of the audience that is to be expected (no offense
). Some people are willing to accept everything, others are not. And a science fiction or fantasy context shouldn't be used as an excuse for unrealistic events. Humans are humans, cars are cars, and have well-known limits. That doesn't change when they are on space ships, travelling at warp, or in Middleearth, dealing with Orks.
Last edited:
What I find surprising is that you, as an author, dismiss something like that as "fanboy rage", when it's clearly just a natural reaction of the audience that is to be expected (no offense
I think most people had issues with Kirk being promoted to Captain right out of the academy but the difference between a "natural reaction of the audiene" and "fanboy rage" is how long the person is upset. If you're still carping about it months later and using that as some starting point for complaining about the novels, you're probably suffering from "fanboy rage".
What I find surprising is that you, as an author, dismiss something like that as "fanboy rage", when it's clearly just a natural reaction of the audience that is to be expected (no offense
I think most people had issues with Kirk being promoted to Captain right out of the academy but the difference between a "natural reaction of the audiene" and "fanboy rage" is how long the person is upset. If you're still carping about it months later and using that as some starting point for complaining about the novels, you're probably suffering from "fanboy rage".
Probably. But not the guy who saw Terminator 2 in theaters and shouted "That's bullshit" when he saw something unrealistic (which is what I was refering to).
What I find surprising is that you, as an author, dismiss something like that as "fanboy rage", when it's clearly just a natural reaction of the audience that is to be expected (no offense
I didn't "dismiss it." I found it funny, and still do. The lengths to which some people will wrap themselves around the axle with regard to this, that, or the other thing never ceases to amuse me.
Well, for what it's worth, I only actually give 4 of the 11 Trek movies an unreserved "thumbs-up" (2,4,6,8). I much prefer Trek on TV.
I never said that Trek 11 was the worst Trek movie ever or anything, just that I didn't care for it. To each their own, y'know.
Total agreement.
I never said that Trek 11 was the worst Trek movie ever or anything, just that I didn't care for it. To each their own, y'know.
Last edited:
Similar threads
