Post-STXI novels

[Procutus]

This question is aimed towards our editors and writers who frequent this board - I'm hopeful to get couple answers to this. Since it appears that the new Star Trek movie will either alter the existing timeline (or create a new one) I'm curious to know if future novels will conform to the ideas and themes in the movie, or if they will continue to take place in the Star Trek universe, as we currently know it.

Although I'm specifically wondering about the TOS line, this change in ST history conceivably affect the TNG/DS9/VOY era as well. Has there been any talk regarding this, or will the movie (and its novelization) be treated as a stand-alone story, that falls outside of the accepted continuity?

 

[ryan123450]

I doubt that anyone can answer this at this point. And the main reason for that is probably because no one has an answer at this point.

 

[Procutus]

^

Not necessarily. If the novelization is due to hit the bookstores at the same time as the film, then it's being written right now, which means that the good folks at Pocket Books know what direction this film is meant to lead the Trek timeline into.

So the question remains: Will they adhere to these new changes, or will they continue to work in the known Trek universe?

 

[Dayton Ward]

^ Since any answer would likely hinge on editors and/or writers having to confirm or deny any aspects of the new film's storyline, don't expect an answer in the short term, at least until such time as the Veil of Secrecy is lifted by Saint J.J.

 

[Procutus]

^

Good point Dayton. You are most likely right on that, but I figured there was no harm in asking.

I'm still having a bit of a hard time trying to pin down the exact timeframe (as in what year or years) the 23rd century scenes take place in. There seems to be a bit of a discrepancy, based on the few facts we have at this point.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Has there been any talk regarding this, or will the movie (and its novelization) be treated as a stand-alone story, that falls outside of the accepted continuity?

From what we know of IDW's Star Trek Countdown mini-series, that series will take Spock's story from "Unification" to the post-Nemesis opening of the new film. So at least one licensee sees the film, to borrow George Harrison's quote on the Rutles, "all part of the soup."

 

[ryan123450]

Has there been any talk regarding this, or will the movie (and its novelization) be treated as a stand-alone story, that falls outside of the accepted continuity?

From what we know of IDW's Star Trek Countdown mini-series, that series will take Spock's story from "Unification" to the post-Nemesis opening of the new film. So at least one licensee sees the film, to borrow George Harrison's quote on the Rutles, "all part of the soup."

Which, judging from what we've seen so far (which admittedly isn't much), seems odd to me because the new film looks to be pretty unrelated to the current continuity.

 

[Procutus]

^

It's not so much the look I'm having a hard time reconciling as the timeframe within the 23rd century.

According to the current Trek universe, there's a nine year period between Kirk graduating from the Academy to him taking over command of the Enterprise. What worries me is that the bulk of this film takes place right after he graduates and the 'situation' lands him in the center seat, leaving out his stints on board the Republic and Farragut.

Not to mention the 11 years that Spock served under Pike; what I want to know is whether the film's story takes this ino consideration.

 

[JD]

Spoiler: Trek XI

They've already said that Spock is coming from a period after Nemesis, so no matter what happens in the 23rd Century we do know that the 24th century stuff will still exists in some form.

Spoiler: My theory about the bad guy's backstory

I've actually been wondering if perhaps Nero will have something to do with all of the Romulan politics (either from the books, or a new version) after Shinzon's fall.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I may well be grasping at straws here, but I'm still not convinced that this film is a reboot of any kind. So it looks different - BFD. The 'look' is simply like the staging of a play: a way to interpret the story. You can imagine the entirety of TOS - all the episodes we are already familiar with - playing out with the 'look' of Trek XI, but it's still the same thing, really. Everything that happened in TOS, with everybody and everything looking like it did, happened with this look and feel as well. You may laugh, but consider this: Recasting one character doesn't mean a reboot, does it? We've seen that in many different forms in Trek. This is just another bit of recasting.

So if we're worried about future TOS novels? We shouldn't be. We can either imagine them with the characters and imagery from the original series, or that from the new film. It's still the same TOS, still the same continuity, and I will need a lot more convincing before I can be convinced otherwise.

 

[Christopher]

Which, judging from what we've seen so far (which admittedly isn't much), seems odd to me because the new film looks to be pretty unrelated to the current continuity.

Not really. Based on what we've heard about clips from the movie, a few minor details of hard canon appear to have been contradicted, mostly dealing with numbers -- how old Chekov is, when Kirk graduated, how well Kirk knew Pike, backstory details like that. But that's based on partial information and there may be explanations we aren't aware of yet. More importantly, such contradictions aren't unprecedented in Trek history. TWOK contradicted TOS in a number of ways -- Khan knowing Chekov, Khan's supermen being uniformly Nordic rather than ethnically diverse, etc. ENT contradicted all previous statements about Kirk's Enterprise being the first starship of that name. Insurrection had Deanna claim she'd never kissed a bearded Riker, contradicting multiple TNG episodes. Spock said cast rodinium was the hardest known substance, then later said diamond was the hardest known substance, then later said tritanium was 21.4 times as hard as diamond. Data said he was "Class of '27" before it was established that he was born in 2335, and routinely used contractions before it was suddenly revealed that he was incapable of using contractions. And so on. You can find several YouTube mashups compiling all these contradictions.

So if this movie conflicts with a few throwaway lines about the characters' pasts, that doesn't strike me as being any more incompatible with the rest of canon than the rest of canon is with itself. The notion of the Trek universe as a single consistent reality is an imperfect one to begin with, and requires overlooking or rationalizing away a lot of discontinuities. At this point, it's too early to conclude that the movie's inconsistencies with the past are great enough to be irreconcilable.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

ENT contradicted all previous statements about Kirk's Enterprise being the first starship of that name.

I am not aware of any such statement.

 

[casey]

The one thing I am wondering about is

Spoiler: Trek XI

that if the speculation from the spoilers is correct and April was in fact not the first captain of the Enterprise, what is to become of the upcoming Captain April book???

 

[JoeZhang]

The new trailer seems to confirm something we've heard about, changes to one of the interpersonal relationships

Spoiler: spoilers about film

Kirk and Uhura seem to have at least a one night stand

 

[Procutus]

Which, judging from what we've seen so far (which admittedly isn't much), seems odd to me because the new film looks to be pretty unrelated to the current continuity.

Not really. Based on what we've heard about clips from the movie, a few minor details of hard canon appear to have been contradicted, mostly dealing with numbers -- how old Chekov is, when Kirk graduated, how well Kirk knew Pike, backstory details like that. But that's based on partial information and there may be explanations we aren't aware of yet. More importantly, such contradictions aren't unprecedented in Trek history. TWOK contradicted TOS in a number of ways -- Khan knowing Chekov, Khan's supermen being uniformly Nordic rather than ethnically diverse, etc. ENT contradicted all previous statements about Kirk's Enterprise being the first starship of that name. Insurrection had Deanna claim she'd never kissed a bearded Riker, contradicting multiple TNG episodes. Spock said cast rodinium was the hardest known substance, then later said diamond was the hardest known substance, then later said tritanium was 21.4 times as hard as diamond. Data said he was "Class of '27" before it was established that he was born in 2335, and routinely used contractions before it was suddenly revealed that he was incapable of using contractions. And so on. You can find several YouTube mashups compiling all these contradictions.

So if this movie conflicts with a few throwaway lines about the characters' pasts, that doesn't strike me as being any more incompatible with the rest of canon than the rest of canon is with itself. The notion of the Trek universe as a single consistent reality is an imperfect one to begin with, and requires overlooking or rationalizing away a lot of discontinuities. At this point, it's too early to conclude that the movie's inconsistencies with the past are great enough to be irreconcilable.

You make some very valid points there Christopher and I have to admit, after seeing part of the trailer last night, the look and feel of this movie has me psyched, so I'm probably going to be able to forgive it for incongruencies in canon and established history, once it's said and done. I've said repetively, and I hope I can still say it come next May, as long as it feels like TOS, then I'll come away basically happy.

I don't even mind the idea of a reboot that constitutes a new timeline, as long as that's clearly the case at the end. In other words, if young, just-out-of-the-Academy Kirk does in fact get elevated to Captain without any postings on other ships, okay. But don't try to sell me on the idea that this is then the same timeline that Old Spock came from, because in essence, a ripple effect has begun.

And I'll agree that's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Christopher]

ENT contradicted all previous statements about Kirk's Enterprise being the first starship of that name.

I am not aware of any such statement.

Well, there are the visual "statements" on the wall displays in the TMP rec room and the TNG observation lounge, both of which include multiple ships named Enterprise throughout history but exclude NX-01. And there were lines of dialogue in a couple of episodes referring to Kirk's ship as the first starship Enterprise. I can't recall specifics, but I'm sure they're in one of those YouTube mashups I mentioned.

 

[StarFleetVeteran]

ENT contradicted all previous statements about Kirk's Enterprise being the first starship of that name.

I am not aware of any such statement.

Well, there are the visual "statements" on the wall displays in the TMP rec room and the TNG observation lounge, both of which include multiple ships named Enterprise throughout history but exclude NX-01. And there were lines of dialogue in a couple of episodes referring to Kirk's ship as the first starship Enterprise. I can't recall specifics, but I'm sure they're in one of those YouTube mashups I mentioned.

Perhaps they only included Federation Starship Enterprises. NX-01 was United Earth Starfleet, and was supposedly retired in 2161, after the founding of the Federation.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

As I tried to say in my Spoilers thread, before that got bounced around the board and utterly derailed,

I see a lot of similarity between this movie and Killing Time...

Spoiler: random speculation

Nero travels so far back in time that he totally derails history, old Spock has to go back and fix things, although for some odd reason, he has to nudge it back on track at various points in the past, rather than one big hefty shove, hence the apparent scattershot glimpses of Kirk's past. My guess is that everything that happens in the movie will be completely different from history as we 'know' it, until the final reel when the two time lines converge.

It's the same sort of nonsense where the Borg attack on Earth in First Contact resulted in an alternate history where Enterprise happened (in which the Xindi attack created yet another alternate history). It's a comic book style reboot again and again and again, without actually admitting to being a reboot.

All I know is, that if Trek Lit intends to incorporate this continuity into the novel line, then I want the appelation of nu-TOS on the books, as i have no intention of reading them, even if the film is the greatest movie since Battleship Potemkin. It's no secret that I'm not a fan of cross-generational references as it is. To add cross time-stream references would just make my brain bleed.

 

[Christopher]

Perhaps they only included Federation Starship Enterprises. NX-01 was United Earth Starfleet, and was supposedly retired in 2161, after the founding of the Federation.

The displays in question include the aircraft carrier Enterprise, the space shuttle Enterprise, and the ring ship Enterprise. Obviously they aren't limited to Federation starships alone.

And you're making my point for me by showing how Trek fans find ways to rationalize contradictions. The point is that the original creators of the material in question intended one thing and those who came later chose to contradict that intent, and yet Trek fans still find ways to pretend it all fits together as a coherent whole. So if the new movie contradicts what "Who Mourns for Adonais" said about Chekov's age or what "Obsession" said about where Kirk served after the Academy and when, fans will find ways to reconcile or gloss over those conflicts as well. The few discrepancies we've seen so far don't prove that the movie will be in an incompatible reality.

 

[StarFleetVeteran]

The displays in question include the aircraft carrier Enterprise, the space shuttle Enterprise, and the ring ship Enterprise. Obviously they aren't limited to Federation starships alone.

Touché.