• 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!

Should novels set in the JJVerse rectify the film's plot holes?

Re: Continuity

To take this back on topic: No, the STXI novels should not attempt to "fix" the film to appease a few OCD haters who would have to be utter retards in the first place to even consider buying books based on a film they hate.

M'kay?
 
I think it would be better to say that the novels based on the film shouldn't try to make it conform to the continuity and style of the previous incarnations of Trek, but should instead embrace its distinctiveness. After all, if we tried to make the new novels feel just like the old ones, what would be the point? It's better marketing and a more interesting creative challenge to embrace the newness, to emphasize the differences.
 
Re: Continuity

To take this back on topic: No, the STXI novels should not attempt to "fix" the film to appease a few OCD haters who would have to be utter retards in the first place to even consider buying books based on a film they hate.

M'kay?

Harsh. Rude. But not wrong.
 
Roddenberry's take on why Spock's schoolmates treated Spock the way they did....

From "Inside Star Trek":

Gene Roddenberry: "And, as Spock grew into childhood, Ambassador--"

Sarek: "Yes, yes. There must have been times when his inner mind wondered if the fight to survive had been worthwhile. You see, while all Vulcans, including our children, live by the code of IDIC, and believe that diversity is to be admired and treasured, it must be understood that the display of emotion is considered on our planet to be grossly offensive. No, more than that. Shockingly indecent. I can only explain that our attitude is rooted in Vulcan history, involving events of such...bloody violence that it has left our race forever scarred and sensitive to displays of emotion. Whether or not this Vulcan attitude can be defended, the fact is it exists."

GR: "Young Spock was allowed no smiles, no tears, no anger..."

S: "Such emotions, so common among your school children, are shocking, even appalling, to a Vulcan child. Spock's playmates could only assume that the bearer of these emotions was exhibiting hatred for his fellows. Some desire to embarrass, to disgust them. The children were prepared to enjoy Spock's diversity; they were not prepared for my son's demonstrating what seemed to be an obscenity of the grossest kind."

GR: "It must have been a cruel existence for Spock."

S: "It was."

GR: "Then, what kept your family on Vulcan?"

S: "We felt... Spock's torture, of course. But Amanda and I also had a dream. One that justified even the risk of our precious son's life and sanity. What point is there in any life surviving unless it has meaning? The meaning of Spock's existence is the very meaning of our marriage: Could our two lifeforms combine, and offer something of value to other lifeforms?"

GR" "IDIC."

S: "Yes. Infinite Diversity from Infinite Combinations. It has given us quite a lovely Universe. I will return to Vulcan now, if I may."
 
Last edited:
Gene Rodenberry did like to rewrite history, didn't he? Remember the Paula Block interview in Voyages of Imagination where she claims that Gene pretty much wanted all of TOS and the TOS movies decanonized in favour of his TNG stuff?
 
Last edited:
^It's hardly unprecedented for a creator to look at his older works, find them flawed, and wish to revise them. Arthur C. Clarke completely rewrote his first novel, Against the Fall of Night, as The City and the Stars. David Gerrold has rewritten several of his novels, some more than once. Stephen King revised and re-released The Gunslinger to make it consistent with the subsequent Dark Tower novels he did years later. A lot of authors have expanded their short stories into novels and heavily rewritten them in the process. In cinema, we have cases like George Lucas reworking the original Star Wars trilogy, Ridley Scott doing the "Final Cut" of Blade Runner, and so forth.

And lots of authors and filmmakers who don't have the chance to go back and revise the original works simply disregard aspects of them when writing later works. Roddenberry is far from unique in that regard, and it's nothing to laugh at. If anything, it would be more risible to deliberately settle for creating an inferior or flawed work out of excessive, misguided loyalty to the mistakes or imperfections of earlier works.
 
You missed my point. What I meant was that saying stuff to the effect of "that's not what Gene would have wanted" is rather silly when Gene himself kept changing his mind about his universe.
 
The way I heard it was that he wanted to toss out TOS' third season and all the movies after TMP.

In any case, the only "decanonizations" that seems to have halfway taken hold were Franz Joseph's tech manual and blueprints, and TFF, an even they're still open debates.
 
The way I heard it was that he wanted to toss out TOS' third season and all the movies after TMP.
It's more complicated than that. From the Tim Lynch interview with Roddenberry's flunky Richard Arnold:
To Gene, anything that he did was canon. Now, I know he did the animated series, but we've avoided that ever since this new series began, because he never really thought that there would be any more live Star Trek. He really didn't. He knew that the fan phenomenon was happening, but like everybody else, he thought it'd just sort of peter out
and die, and quietly go away--not that he wanted it to, certainly, because it was his income at the time, he was going to conventions and making speeches, you know, drawing twenty thousand people at different colleges around the country. But, it kept growing and getting bigger, and eventually, obviously, the new series, films, it was gonna happen. But this was in the early '70s, when it was--he could have _bought_ the property, at the time, for $150,000. And if he'd had the money, he probably would've, but he didn't think it would be a good investment at the time. [**phone break**] So aside from the original series--

TL: Is it *all* of the original series? I've been hearing just the first two
seasons.

RA: Very _firmly_, except where it's contradicted and then we have to kind of play with it...see, people can easily catch us, and say "well, wait a minute, in 'Balance of Terror,' they knew that the Romulans had a cloaking device, and then in 'The Enterprise Incident,' they don't know anything about cloaking devices, but they're gonna steal this one because it's obviously just been developed, so how the _hell_ do you explain that?" We can't. There are some things we just can't explain, especially when it comes from the third season. So, _yes_, third season is canon up to the point of contradiction, or where it's just so bad...you know, we kind of cringe when people ask us, "well, what happened in 'Plato's Stepchildren,' and 'And the Children Shall Lead,' and 'Spock's Brain,' and so on--it's like, please, he wasn't even producing it at that point. But, generally, it's the original series, not really the animated, the first movie to a certain extent, the rest of the films in certain aspects but not in all...I know that it's very difficult to understand. It literally is point by point. I sometimes do not know how he's going to answer a question when I go into his office, I really do not always know, and--and I know it better probably than anybody, what it is that Gene likes and doesn't like. And there've been times, for instance--

[knock on the door--scratch that subject]

TL: I think we've pretty much covered the canon stuff.

RA: Yeah. The novelization that Gene wrote himself, of Star Trek: the Motion Picture, he does not consider canon either, because he also went off on tangents, that he said that it's okay for individual writers to do that, and he certainly had some fun with it himself, filling in parts of the puzzle that he never would've been able to do on film, it would've been a ten-hour movie, but he doesn't want even that used for canon, because otherwise, where do you draw the line?
I think it would be fair to say that, in Roddenberry's mind, something like the original Star Trek happened in the past of Star Trek: The Next Generation, but it wasn't exact. Variations on a theme, rather than a prequel/sequel.

In any case, the only "decanonizations" that seems to have halfway taken hold were Franz Joseph's tech manual and blueprints, and TFF, an even they're still open debates.
The tech manual's copyrights, as they're held by Franz Joseph and not Paramount, has more to do with its "decanonization" than with anything Roddenberry said or did. Paramount doesn't own it, and they can't freely use it.
 
Not even Roddenberry could say firmly what his stance was on the subject, especially by that time, when his health, and mental acuity, was starting to falter.

We've already hashed out the matter of TAS in various threads, and it seems more like Richard was taking the general order of "don't do anything from TAS" and started filling in a lot of blanks on his own, coming to mostly fallacious conclusions, and since any public statement from Roddenberry or Paramount would have the potential of royally screwing up negotiations with Filmation, they had to let Richard's statements stand unchallenged.
 
What about the NuEnterprise's official size estimate of 700+ meters? A couple of the Starfleet ships that take off for Vulcan with it would have to be well into the 500-600+ meter area too. Is it plausible that Starfleet would be able to build ships this massive at this period in history? I've already posted a thread about this in the Star Trek Movies XI+ section, but I thought I'd mention it here as I know this is where a lot of authors of Trek fiction hang out, and I'd like their opinions.
 
What about the NuEnterprise's official size estimate of 700+ meters? A couple of the Starfleet ships that take off for Vulcan with it would have to be well into the 500-600+ meter area too. Is it plausible that Starfleet would be able to build ships this massive at this period in history?

Why not? I don't see any reason to assume you need a higher technology to build a bigger starship. If anything, it seems that higher technology allows smaller starships to achieve the same functions, because you have more compact and powerful drives, more automation to do things formerly requiring lots of people, etc.

So it's more a question of need. Remember, in 2233 the Kelvin was destroyed by what, as far as anyone in Starfleet knew, was an amazingly huge and advanced Romulan ship. It stands to reason that Starfleet would've perceived a potential new Romulan threat and built up a more powerful fleet in response. (This is the screenwriters' own behind-the-scenes explanation; they've also posited that scans of the Narada taken during the Kelvin incident allowed Starfleet to reverse-engineer some future tech and accelerate their own development.)
 
Aircraft carriers aren't getting smaller.

I see it as a build up to a perceived Romulan attack. Starfleet may be planning a preemptive strike against Romulus for all we know. Look at the support for the Iraq war before it was launched. Think what the reaction of the Federation would be if their first look at a Romulan ship in a century was of a ship the size of a city. A ship that took out a Federation ship without even breaking a sweat. They don't know that it's from another universe, they just know it's Romulan. For all we know Romulus and Remus are in the same state as Iraq is. Large amounts of infrastructure destroyed. Shipbuilding capability wiped out. And this could have happened between Neros' arrival and the time of the movie. That could even explain how Uhura knows the various Romulan dialects. There's a Federation force helping Romulus rebuild after the invasion.
 
Yes they are, Carriers have been getting smaller and smaller. Nimitz Class is smaller and so is the newer Ford Class which are smaller than the Enterprise.

Anyways, if we ,as a 21st Century civilization, can build skyscrapers that shadow carriers and anything else, then a 23rd Century civilization can build anything they want. If they want to build a kilometer long starships, whats to stop them. As explained, a warp bubble gives any vessel the capacity to enter lightspeed.
 
Considering that aircraft carriers need to be a certain size to give planes enough room to start, stop, and be stored, they're probably a bad example. Are cruisers bigger or smaller than they were a hundred years ago?
 
Compare this to the Comic Books; to DC & (especially) Marvel and the knots they get themselves into by continually reinventing their universes to make everything coherent. Please don't bring that mess to Trek.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top