Shatner's 'Trial Run'
- Thread starter Procutus
- Start date
The quick and easy answer is that CC is a good story that's earned the stretch, while STXI is a piece of crap that no amount to stretching can save.
A little more in depth to that train of thought: The authors, Shatner and Gar and Judy, were trying to build on, and reaffirm, what came before, and for the most part, they've stuck remarkably close to the established continuity, as well as their own. It's a pretty minor tweak to say that Kirk forgot meeting Spock at the Academy, and then move on with the story. On the whole, it's a pretty minor plot hole, easily filled, and more importantly, it moves the story along, which is the only justification for a plot hole, to get the plot moving.
STXI, on the other hand, has thirteen pointless plot holes, painstakingly documented, in one scene! that do absolutely nothing to move the plot along, and only manage to show almost all the characters, and by derivation, their superiors, in the worst possible light, for no other reason than to get some cheap laughs and show off some pretty CGI explosions. Plus, it was put together by writers whose stated purpose was to scrap the whole works and start over (but supposedly do it in some sort of fan-friendly way
). To put it simply, there is no moment where your inner Boon and Otter turn to each other and go "Germans?" "Forget it, he's rolling." It's a hyperdrive powered train wreck from start to finish and hasn't earned the right to a pass.
I agree with you, and that post is one of the reasons why I will pass on his work.
But can you agree that this is a subjective judgment that's solely in the realm of opinion?
Not trying to pick on the movie, but just to play devil's advocate, elaithin, since you say your opinions are exact opposites, can you state a scene in the book that has "thirteen pointless plot holes?" (Pardon my curiosity if that sounds like a ridiculous question.) I haven't read the book myself, so I don't know how easy or hard that would be.
Ha. Okay, well, not *exact* opposites. But I'll admit my derision for the Shatnerverse past 'The Return' is about same as CBA's feelings about Trek XI. I found the book to be a horribly meandering mess, with inconsistent characterization, continuity errors, and to be of (in my opinion) generally low quality. I thought it was far below what the Reeves-Stevenses are capable of, and I'm actually glad there won't be a sequel.
And on the other hand, I feel that Trek XI was a good story that's earned the strech, told by talented people whose body of work I largely enjoy.
And on the other hand, I feel that Trek XI was a good story that's earned the strech, told by talented people whose body of work I largely enjoy.
So, where do I fit in here, liking both Trek XI and Collision Course? 
So, where do I fit in here, liking both Trek XI and Collision Course?
The Worst of Both Worlds?
^The DC comic about the alternate universe where the Borg won? What's that got to do with...oh wait.
Never mind.
I too like both STXI and Collision Course, and fail to see the need for one to be crushed under the might of the other.
I like STXI a little more.
Never mind.
I too like both STXI and Collision Course, and fail to see the need for one to be crushed under the might of the other.
I like STXI a little more.
I was bewildered by early reviews of "Academy: Collision Course" and actually dreaded reading it. I had thoroughly enjoyed Shatner's first, fourth, fifth and TOS segments of his "Totality" trilogy, so he's always been hit and miss. I was pleasantly surprised when CC turned out to be a fantastic page-turner but... I still felt that the characters of Kirk Sr and young Spock, especially, were way off base, especially with what had been established in other novels (and even Shatner's own previous ST books). The whole smuggling operation involving Spock, Sarek and the Vulcans was really flimsy. Tarsus IV and Kodos were well done, but Shatner had already done it much better - and differently - in another book.
It wasn't a bad book, but it didn't feel like the "real" first meeting of Kirk and Spock either. I'd really loved it to have felt more like a prequel to other great Capt. April & George Kirk novels.
It wasn't a bad book, but it didn't feel like the "real" first meeting of Kirk and Spock either. I'd really loved it to have felt more like a prequel to other great Capt. April & George Kirk novels.
I think it goes without saying that it's all subjective. It's not like we can put ST09 through a CAT scan and say with scientific certainty that the film contains 97.344% fecal matter, with the remaining 2% being empty fluff, and a few trace elements of Star Trek for flavor.
Learning whose opinion to trust is all a matter of figuring out whose subjective standards line up with your own.
Yeah, especially when those views seemed to be based primarily on "most people liked it, so you must be some kind of weirdo."
Cuts both ways, Thrawn.
Cuts both ways, Thrawn.
Well, you ARE weird. Most people DID like it. For most reasonable definitions of "weird", that fits.
Which of course doesn't mean you're wrong; it means you have an unpopular opinion. Which is not actually my complaint, and never was. (I'm quite weird about a lot of things myself.)
My point is this: there are ways to have unpopular opinions with grace and intelligence; one of my favorite posters hasn't been around here in a while, but he really hated TrekLit's direction lately (which I have loved) and I honestly enjoyed reading his posts where he went into great philosophical detail about what bothered him. It increased my perspective on what I read. But I would bet you could count the number of posters here that agreed with him on one hand.
Your posts, on the other hand, tend to just call everyone that disagrees with you stupid. Or strongly imply as much.
I realize you may feel besieged by the weight of dissenting opinion and feel like you have to overcompensate by becoming as aggressive as possible, but it really just makes you come off like an ass. For all I know you're a perfectly lovely person, but your posts around here are condescending and irritating, and it's not because I disagree with you.
Which of course doesn't mean you're wrong; it means you have an unpopular opinion. Which is not actually my complaint, and never was. (I'm quite weird about a lot of things myself.)
My point is this: there are ways to have unpopular opinions with grace and intelligence; one of my favorite posters hasn't been around here in a while, but he really hated TrekLit's direction lately (which I have loved) and I honestly enjoyed reading his posts where he went into great philosophical detail about what bothered him. It increased my perspective on what I read. But I would bet you could count the number of posters here that agreed with him on one hand.
Your posts, on the other hand, tend to just call everyone that disagrees with you stupid. Or strongly imply as much.
I realize you may feel besieged by the weight of dissenting opinion and feel like you have to overcompensate by becoming as aggressive as possible, but it really just makes you come off like an ass. For all I know you're a perfectly lovely person, but your posts around here are condescending and irritating, and it's not because I disagree with you.
I was one of those who was dreading reading "Collision Course" due to my dislike of the "Totality" trilogy and was pleasantly surprised by it. I will agree that the characterizations of the characters were off and I didn't like some of the events depicted in the book for reasons most likely discussed in the book. I was looking forward to "Trial Run" and disappointed when I read it was not forthcoming any time soon. As Spock is fond of saying there are always possibilities but I'm not going to hold my breath. There are also flaws in "Star Trek 2009" but for the most part the film was IMO entertaining and it seems to have restored interest in Star Trek and given new life to the franchise at least in terms of the film.
Can you list these please?
He can't
Not off the top of my head, but give me a few minutes to dig up the link...
Please don't let it be 3D Master's review. You would lose the rest of your credibility.
Care to illucidate, for those of us who don't know who that is?
