NuTrek references in the novels

[Nerys Myk]

It's story elements owe a lot more to "Space Seed" than TWOK. (But it's still not a remake of either)

 

[DonIago]

Additionally it would hardly be the first movie to pay homage to a predecessor.

 

[Harvey]

Does that mean I don't get to complain about Star Trek III: The Search for Spock ripping of a whole scene of dialogue from "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" in this thread?

Nuts.

 

[Masiral]

Yeah, I could live with a warning like that. As for "trace amounts" of crossover or "reimagined" stuff... I feel the same way when I see nuDune nonsense inserted into a story that claims to be Dune.

Write all the nuTrek books you want. Just don't try to pass them off as real Trek, and keep cross-contamination out of it. The nuTrek fans will be happy with the book and the people who loathe nuTrek can safely ignore it. After all, it doesn't help when a reader sees some mention of a nuTrek detail of a character's life in a TOS book and mutters, "WTF!!! This author doesn't know what he/she's talking about!" when it doesn't match real Trek details.

How would you know that something is a nuTrek detail if you loathe nuTrek, and therefore, presumably, have not seen nuTrek?

You think I would love it if only I'd watch it?

That is not what I meant (or said) at all. You mentioned that you loathed nuTrek, so I wondering why you would know details and be able to recognize them if they showed up in other novels?

 

[Slyvon]

Wow I realize I'm new to the Trek books but I had no idea this was an event yet to come. I guess I just assumed it as something that had already happened and I haven't gotten far enough in my reading to see it referenced. So in two (story) years the following will be true:

-The Federation is still reeling from the Borg
-Martok seems to be hanging onto the Empire by a thread
-Cardassia is still in ruins
-Romulus will be destroyed
-The Andorians are marching towards extinction

Goodness by 2387 is there any group left doing OK?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Yeah, I've read that book several times. I never saw "Here Come the Brides" and had actually never heard of it before reading the book. So that part wasn't what annoyed me. It was the Doctor Who reference (the race who live in the "constellation of Kasterborus", aka the Gallifreyans) that annoyed me, since the in-universe physics and Earth history of Doctor Who and Star Trek are completely incompatible.

It annoyed you, but was it enough to ruin the novel for you and wish you'd never bought it? It was an extremely minor part of the book. And what about the Star Wars and (original) BSG references in that novel? I suspect that, like me, you never even noticed them. Here is the full list:

Several other television characters appear throughout the book. In San Francisco, Spock plays chess with a gunfighter dressed in black who matches the description of Richard Boone's character Paladin in the TV series Have Gun Will Travel (pages 180-182). Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry is credited for writing 24 episodes of this series.

The British TV series Doctor Who is referenced at least four times: the Fourth Doctor is described on page 13,Metebelis crystals from the serials The Green Death and Planet of the Spiders are mentioned on page 57, the Second Doctor is described on page 154, and Kirk recalls legends of a planet of stagnant time-travellers in the Kasteroborous galaxy on page 200.

Numerous other Western and science fiction characters make cameo appearances throughout the book. Page 13 features Han Solo ("a scruffy-looking spice smuggler") from Star Wars as well as Apollo and Starbuck from Battlestar Galactica ("a pair of brown-uniformed pilots from some down-at-the-heels migrant fleet"). Pages 153-154 feature Little Joe Cartwright and his brother Hoss Cartwright from Bonanza ("a good-looking boy in the dusty clothes of a trailhand just in from Virginia City, and his oxlike older brother") and Bret or Bart Maverick from Maverick. Emperor Norton and his dogs also appear. Matt Dillon (Gunsmoke), Lucas McCain (The Rifleman), The Rawhide Kid (Rawhide), and the Man With No Name also make appearances.

http://fanlore.org/wiki/Ishmael

And by that same token, how do you feel when places or people from Deep Space Nine or Enterprise are referenced in TOS novels?

 

[Timewalker]

How would you know that something is a nuTrek detail if you loathe nuTrek, and therefore, presumably, have not seen nuTrek?

You think I would love it if only I'd watch it?

That is not what I meant (or said) at all. You mentioned that you loathed nuTrek, so I wondering why you would know details and be able to recognize them if they showed up in other novels?

Why would you assume I wouldn't recognize it even if I loathed it? It's like saying that because I loathe nuDune, I wouldn't be able to recognize elements of it if it showed up in other novels (yes, I've read every one of those abominable books).

Besides... this forum is full of spoilers all over the place. Since I mainly post in the Trek areas, it's impossible to avoid seeing details of nuTrek. I knew quite a few details of the 2009 movie long before ever seeing it, and it lived down to my expectations and beyond. Why should I assume (from the spoilers and discussion I've seen here) that the second movie would be any better? Have the actors actually learned how to act in the meantime? Is Wesley/Chekov any less annoying? Have they fixed the rest of what was crap about the first movie?

Didn't think so.

Yeah, I've read that book several times. I never saw "Here Come the Brides" and had actually never heard of it before reading the book. So that part wasn't what annoyed me. It was the Doctor Who reference (the race who live in the "constellation of Kasterborus", aka the Gallifreyans) that annoyed me, since the in-universe physics and Earth history of Doctor Who and Star Trek are completely incompatible.

It annoyed you, but was it enough to ruin the novel for you and wish you'd never bought it? It was an extremely minor part of the book. And what about the Star Wars and (original) BSG references in that novel? I suspect that, like me, you never even noticed them. Here is the full list:

Several other television characters appear throughout the book. In San Francisco, Spock plays chess with a gunfighter dressed in black who matches the description of Richard Boone's character Paladin in the TV series Have Gun Will Travel (pages 180-182). Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry is credited for writing 24 episodes of this series.

The British TV series Doctor Who is referenced at least four times: the Fourth Doctor is described on page 13,Metebelis crystals from the serials The Green Death and Planet of the Spiders are mentioned on page 57, the Second Doctor is described on page 154, and Kirk recalls legends of a planet of stagnant time-travellers in the Kasteroborous galaxy on page 200.

Numerous other Western and science fiction characters make cameo appearances throughout the book. Page 13 features Han Solo ("a scruffy-looking spice smuggler") from Star Wars as well as Apollo and Starbuck from Battlestar Galactica ("a pair of brown-uniformed pilots from some down-at-the-heels migrant fleet"). Pages 153-154 feature Little Joe Cartwright and his brother Hoss Cartwright from Bonanza ("a good-looking boy in the dusty clothes of a trailhand just in from Virginia City, and his oxlike older brother") and Bret or Bart Maverick from Maverick. Emperor Norton and his dogs also appear. Matt Dillon (Gunsmoke), Lucas McCain (The Rifleman), The Rawhide Kid (Rawhide), and the Man With No Name also make appearances.

http://fanlore.org/wiki/Ishmael

And by that same token, how do you feel when places or people from Deep Space Nine or Enterprise are referenced in TOS novels?

The Doctor Who references jumped out at me because I know Classic Whovian history and Star Trek history (in-universe) are 100% incompatible with each other. They don't belong in a pro novel unless it's upfront that the work is a crossover.

As for the various westerns... I've seen a lot of Bonanza episodes, the SW and BSG references slipped my mind (I'll have to re-read this novel, obviously), and other than a few Gunsmoke episodes, I never saw those other shows. We had a grand total of 1 or 2 channels when I was growing up and those shows were new, so I never did have the chance to see them.

It seems like you're describing the novel version of a Mel Brooks movie, when you don't recognize most of the in-jokes.

It would be bizarre to see DS9 references in a TOS novel (unless the novel were taking place late in Spock's life) since none of those episodes happened throughout most of the TOS time.

References to Enterprise annoy me, since I don't acknowledge that series' validity as real Star Trek, either. It's just too out of step to have been what leads up to TOS.

 

[Ovation]

You think I would love it if only I'd watch it?

That is not what I meant (or said) at all. You mentioned that you loathed nuTrek, so I wondering why you would know details and be able to recognize them if they showed up in other novels?

Why would you assume I wouldn't recognize it even if I loathed it? It's like saying that because I loathe nuDune, I wouldn't be able to recognize elements of it if it showed up in other novels (yes, I've read every one of those abominable books).

Besides... this forum is full of spoilers all over the place. Since I mainly post in the Trek areas, it's impossible to avoid seeing details of nuTrek. I knew quite a few details of the 2009 movie long before ever seeing it, and it lived down to my expectations and beyond. Why should I assume (from the spoilers and discussion I've seen here) that the second movie would be any better? Have the actors actually learned how to act in the meantime? Is Wesley/Chekov any less annoying? Have they fixed the rest of what was crap about the first movie?

Didn't think so.

It annoyed you, but was it enough to ruin the novel for you and wish you'd never bought it? It was an extremely minor part of the book. And what about the Star Wars and (original) BSG references in that novel? I suspect that, like me, you never even noticed them. Here is the full list:

Several other television characters appear throughout the book. In San Francisco, Spock plays chess with a gunfighter dressed in black who matches the description of Richard Boone's character Paladin in the TV series Have Gun Will Travel (pages 180-182). Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry is credited for writing 24 episodes of this series.

The British TV series Doctor Who is referenced at least four times: the Fourth Doctor is described on page 13,Metebelis crystals from the serials The Green Death and Planet of the Spiders are mentioned on page 57, the Second Doctor is described on page 154, and Kirk recalls legends of a planet of stagnant time-travellers in the Kasteroborous galaxy on page 200.

Numerous other Western and science fiction characters make cameo appearances throughout the book. Page 13 features Han Solo ("a scruffy-looking spice smuggler") from Star Wars as well as Apollo and Starbuck from Battlestar Galactica ("a pair of brown-uniformed pilots from some down-at-the-heels migrant fleet"). Pages 153-154 feature Little Joe Cartwright and his brother Hoss Cartwright from Bonanza ("a good-looking boy in the dusty clothes of a trailhand just in from Virginia City, and his oxlike older brother") and Bret or Bart Maverick from Maverick. Emperor Norton and his dogs also appear. Matt Dillon (Gunsmoke), Lucas McCain (The Rifleman), The Rawhide Kid (Rawhide), and the Man With No Name also make appearances.

http://fanlore.org/wiki/Ishmael

And by that same token, how do you feel when places or people from Deep Space Nine or Enterprise are referenced in TOS novels?

The Doctor Who references jumped out at me because I know Classic Whovian history and Star Trek history (in-universe) are 100% incompatible with each other. They don't belong in a pro novel unless it's upfront that the work is a crossover.

As for the various westerns... I've seen a lot of Bonanza episodes, the SW and BSG references slipped my mind (I'll have to re-read this novel, obviously), and other than a few Gunsmoke episodes, I never saw those other shows. We had a grand total of 1 or 2 channels when I was growing up and those shows were new, so I never did have the chance to see them.

It seems like you're describing the novel version of a Mel Brooks movie, when you don't recognize most of the in-jokes.

It would be bizarre to see DS9 references in a TOS novel (unless the novel were taking place late in Spock's life) since none of those episodes happened throughout most of the TOS time.

References to Enterprise annoy me, since I don't acknowledge that series' validity as real Star Trek, either. It's just too out of step to have been what leads up to TOS.

So your list of "true Trek" must be incredibly short, then. At that point, one might ask, why bother with Trek at all (particularly since the overwhelming majority of Trek, in its various iterations, seems to leave you in anguish rather than amusement)?

 

[Christopher]

Heck, much of TOS was "out of step" with other parts of TOS, since they were making it up as they went. Are they 200 years in the future or 700? Are they Vulcanians or Vulcans? Do they answer to UESPA, Space Central, or Star Fleet? Is Benecia pronounced "Be-nee-see-ya" or "Ben-uh-see-ya?" And the earliest movies were "out of step" with TOS as well -- the Klingons looked different, no recognizable technology or uniforms remained, Khan's people were no longer multiethnic, etc.

Fictional series reinvent their details as they go. It's just part of the process of refinement. You can find many contradictions within any single Trek series, so to treat the contradictions between different series as dealbreakers is a double standard.

 

[Timewalker]

So your list of "true Trek" must be incredibly short, then. At that point, one might ask, why bother with Trek at all (particularly since the overwhelming majority of Trek, in its various iterations, seems to leave you in anguish rather than amusement)?

TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, plus the TOS movies 1-4, and 6. Add in the assorted novels, short stories, and fanfic based on these. I don't accept Star Trek V as "real" due to the nonsense of Sybok being the offspring of Sarek and a Vulcan "princess." I've already stated my reasons for not accepting Enterprise. I have a love/hate of First Contact - love, because the music is great, and I really like the character of Lily. Hate, because they butchered the character of Zefram Cochrane. I can't stand the rest of the TNG movies (yes, I've seen all of them).

So that actually gives me a lot of Trek to enjoy, and I am free to ignore the rest.

Heck, much of TOS was "out of step" with other parts of TOS, since they were making it up as they went. Are they 200 years in the future or 700? Are they Vulcanians or Vulcans? Do they answer to UESPA, Space Central, or Star Fleet? Is Benecia pronounced "Be-nee-see-ya" or "Ben-uh-see-ya?" And the earliest movies were "out of step" with TOS as well -- the Klingons looked different, no recognizable technology or uniforms remained, Khan's people were no longer multiethnic, etc.

Fictional series reinvent their details as they go. It's just part of the process of refinement. You can find many contradictions within any single Trek series, so to treat the contradictions between different series as dealbreakers is a double standard.

Your sarcasm is noted. I'm still not in agreement with you on the issues that led to my preference not to read your posts, but to say I have a double standard just because of inconsistencies within TOS itself is nonsense. I don't have to agree with you, and you will never convince me to like the nuTrek crap. Only Abrams et. al could convince me to like it if they would actually make a good movie. So far they haven't (in my opinion, of course).

 

[Masiral]

You think I would love it if only I'd watch it?

That is not what I meant (or said) at all. You mentioned that you loathed nuTrek, so I wondering why you would know details and be able to recognize them if they showed up in other novels?

Why would you assume I wouldn't recognize it even if I loathed it? It's like saying that because I loathe nuDune, I wouldn't be able to recognize elements of it if it showed up in other novels (yes, I've read every one of those abominable books).

If you find them an abomination, why do you read them? Why watch something that you hate? I really don't understand.

 

[Timewalker]

That is not what I meant (or said) at all. You mentioned that you loathed nuTrek, so I wondering why you would know details and be able to recognize them if they showed up in other novels?

Why would you assume I wouldn't recognize it even if I loathed it? It's like saying that because I loathe nuDune, I wouldn't be able to recognize elements of it if it showed up in other novels (yes, I've read every one of those abominable books).

If you find them an abomination, why do you read them? Why watch something that you hate? I really don't understand.

In the case of the nuDune books, I wanted to find out if they would get any better. I wanted to see if Kevin J. Anderson/Brian Herbert could demonstrate that they actually understood what Frank Herbert's books were actually saying. They didn't. Also, if I'm going to criticize something, it makes more sense if I've actually read or seen what I'm criticizing, right?

So yeah, when I get the chance to see STID for free, I'll watch it. If I see something in it I like, I will be honest enough to come back here and say so. But I'm not optimistic that will be the case.

 

[SeerSGB]

So your list of "true Trek" must be incredibly short, then. At that point, one might ask, why bother with Trek at all (particularly since the overwhelming majority of Trek, in its various iterations, seems to leave you in anguish rather than amusement)?

TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, plus the TOS movies 1-4, and 6. Add in the assorted novels, short stories, and fanfic based on these. I don't accept Star Trek V as "real" due to the nonsense of Sybok being the offspring of Sarek and a Vulcan "princess." I've already stated my reasons for not accepting Enterprise. I have a love/hate of First Contact - love, because the music is great, and I really like the character of Lily. Hate, because they butchered the character of Zefram Cochrane. I can't stand the rest of the TNG movies (yes, I've seen all of them).

So that actually gives me a lot of Trek to enjoy, and I am free to ignore the rest.

Heck, much of TOS was "out of step" with other parts of TOS, since they were making it up as they went. Are they 200 years in the future or 700? Are they Vulcanians or Vulcans? Do they answer to UESPA, Space Central, or Star Fleet? Is Benecia pronounced "Be-nee-see-ya" or "Ben-uh-see-ya?" And the earliest movies were "out of step" with TOS as well -- the Klingons looked different, no recognizable technology or uniforms remained, Khan's people were no longer multiethnic, etc.

Fictional series reinvent their details as they go. It's just part of the process of refinement. You can find many contradictions within any single Trek series, so to treat the contradictions between different series as dealbreakers is a double standard.

Your sarcasm is noted. I'm still not in agreement with you on the issues that led to my preference not to read your posts, but to say I have a double standard just because of inconsistencies within TOS itself is nonsense. I don't have to agree with you, and you will never convince me to like the nuTrek crap. Only Abrams et. al could convince me to like it if they would actually make a good movie. So far they haven't (in my opinion, of course).

Seems like a excessive amount of thought / work to put into it.

I don't think anyone is trying to convince to like the new movies.

 

[Christopher]

Nothing I said was the least bit sarcastic. It was a simple assertion of fact. And I'm not saying you have to like any given incarnation of the franchise -- just that continuity differences are not, in and of themselves, a reason to reject it. A story can have continuity errors yet still be well-liked. The Wrath of Khan has enormous continuity problems vis-a-vis "Space Seed" and the rest of TOS, but fans overlook those because they like it. On the other hand, an awful episode like "And the Children Shall Lead" or "Shades of Gray" doesn't have any major continuity problems and is generally accepted as part of the overall Trek universe, but is still justifiably disliked. So the question of whether one likes something and the question of whether it's part of the overall continuity are separate issues. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Timewalker]

So your list of "true Trek" must be incredibly short, then. At that point, one might ask, why bother with Trek at all (particularly since the overwhelming majority of Trek, in its various iterations, seems to leave you in anguish rather than amusement)?

TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, plus the TOS movies 1-4, and 6. Add in the assorted novels, short stories, and fanfic based on these. I don't accept Star Trek V as "real" due to the nonsense of Sybok being the offspring of Sarek and a Vulcan "princess." I've already stated my reasons for not accepting Enterprise. I have a love/hate of First Contact - love, because the music is great, and I really like the character of Lily. Hate, because they butchered the character of Zefram Cochrane. I can't stand the rest of the TNG movies (yes, I've seen all of them).

So that actually gives me a lot of Trek to enjoy, and I am free to ignore the rest.

Heck, much of TOS was "out of step" with other parts of TOS, since they were making it up as they went. Are they 200 years in the future or 700? Are they Vulcanians or Vulcans? Do they answer to UESPA, Space Central, or Star Fleet? Is Benecia pronounced "Be-nee-see-ya" or "Ben-uh-see-ya?" And the earliest movies were "out of step" with TOS as well -- the Klingons looked different, no recognizable technology or uniforms remained, Khan's people were no longer multiethnic, etc.

Fictional series reinvent their details as they go. It's just part of the process of refinement. You can find many contradictions within any single Trek series, so to treat the contradictions between different series as dealbreakers is a double standard.

Your sarcasm is noted. I'm still not in agreement with you on the issues that led to my preference not to read your posts, but to say I have a double standard just because of inconsistencies within TOS itself is nonsense. I don't have to agree with you, and you will never convince me to like the nuTrek crap. Only Abrams et. al could convince me to like it if they would actually make a good movie. So far they haven't (in my opinion, of course).

Seems like a excessive amount of thought / work to put into it.

I don't think anyone is trying to convince to like the new movies.

Luckily, I have the right to choose how much thought/work to put into liking/not liking something, or reading/viewing something in order to know what I'm talking about when I talk about it.

As for people trying to convince me... of course they are. Why else are they defending this stuff?

 

[SeerSGB]

TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, plus the TOS movies 1-4, and 6. Add in the assorted novels, short stories, and fanfic based on these. I don't accept Star Trek V as "real" due to the nonsense of Sybok being the offspring of Sarek and a Vulcan "princess." I've already stated my reasons for not accepting Enterprise. I have a love/hate of First Contact - love, because the music is great, and I really like the character of Lily. Hate, because they butchered the character of Zefram Cochrane. I can't stand the rest of the TNG movies (yes, I've seen all of them).

So that actually gives me a lot of Trek to enjoy, and I am free to ignore the rest.


Your sarcasm is noted. I'm still not in agreement with you on the issues that led to my preference not to read your posts, but to say I have a double standard just because of inconsistencies within TOS itself is nonsense. I don't have to agree with you, and you will never convince me to like the nuTrek crap. Only Abrams et. al could convince me to like it if they would actually make a good movie. So far they haven't (in my opinion, of course).

Seems like a excessive amount of thought / work to put into it.

I don't think anyone is trying to convince to like the new movies.

Luckily, I have the right to choose how much thought/work to put into liking/not liking something, or reading/viewing something in order to know what I'm talking about when I talk about it.

As for people trying to convince me... of course they are. Why else are they defending this stuff?

Did I say you didn't? No, I didn't. I was saying from my POV, that, if you really do that, then I think it's excessive.

No one is trying to convince you of anything. They're talking about a movie they happen to like and addressing the point of the thread: whether or not Nu-Trek references are a bad thing in the novels.

Posting on a messageboard is sort of a two way conversation.

 

[SeerSGB]

Nothing I said was the least bit sarcastic. It was a simple assertion of fact. And I'm not saying you have to like any given incarnation of the franchise -- just that continuity differences are not, in and of themselves, a reason to reject it. A story can have continuity errors yet still be well-liked. The Wrath of Khan has enormous continuity problems vis-a-vis "Space Seed" and the rest of TOS, but fans overlook those because they like it. On the other hand, an awful episode like "And the Children Shall Lead" or "Shades of Gray" doesn't have any major continuity problems and is generally accepted as part of the overall Trek universe, but is still justifiably disliked. So the question of whether one likes something and the question of whether it's part of the overall continuity are separate issues. That's all I'm saying.

At the end of the day, well written is well written. A story that is solid and entertaining can withstand an in-joke or quickie reference here or there.

I don't care what "universe" a book is set in, so long as I have fun reading it and it keeps my interest. Canon and continuity issues are of zero problem with me.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I 100% approve of "NuTrek" references in Prime Trek novels.
Robau and the Kelvin in TOS.
Blown up Romulus and MIA Spock in TNG/DS9/VOY.
Kirk's parents being Winona and George.
Uhura being a skilled linguist.

I also approve of references from STV, Voyager, Nemesis and Insurrection and even the Alternative Factor*. (All of which I have varying degrees of dislike for.) Could be a silk purse in that collection of sow's ears.


*Any of you authors ever tried to tackle that one?

 

[Christopher]

Kirk's parents being Winona and George.
Uhura being a skilled linguist.

Both of which originated in the novels and were adopted by the movies.

I also approve of references from STV, Voyager, Nemesis and Insurrection and even the Alternative Factor*....

*Any of you authors ever tried to tackle that one?

There's one Strange New Worlds story that brings back Lazarus -- in fact, the very last story in the very last volume, "Reborn" by Jeremy Yoder. And there must've been some reference to the episode in the Crucible trilogy, since it referenced every episode. Beyond that, though, I don't think it's been touched, which is fine with me. As I've said before, the episode contradicts canon, depicting dilithium and antimatter differently than every other episode does, as well as being inconsistent and incoherent within itself. So I treat the whole thing as apocryphal. I did, however, incorporate elements of the engineering set seen in the episode into my description of the engineering section in Forgotten History, though just in passing.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Kirk's parents being Winona and George.
Uhura being a skilled linguist.

Both of which originated in the novels and were adopted by the movies.

But ST09 canonized them. (cue angelic choir)
Which means they are retroactively part of the contamination