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

[F. King Daniel]

"All I got left is me' Bones"

I find it hard to believe this line has caused all this strife. Or any strife at all for that matter.

I'll laugh my head off if a nuTrek novel includes a scene where Kirk goes, "You know I call you 'Bones' becuase of Sawbones, right? I'm not reminding you about your divorce or anything."

 

[RookieBatman]

And that's where I think the whole premise is wrong. First of all, there is no baggage, that's the lame excuse of someone who wants to write for a universe but doesn't want to get know it, and that's just ugly. Second, the characters of TOS where mirrors of problems, fears and hopes of the 1960s. For the 2010s, Trek would have needed a set of completely new characters that mirror the problems, fears and hopes of today. The 60s where dominated by the Cold War and racial segregation, which is why a Russian sits on the bridge, getting perfectly along with Americans, and a black woman has an important position. Today we live in times of religious conflict, so where is the Muslim who gets perfectly along with his Jewish and Christian crewmates? Where's the homosexual? And the truly alien, non humanoid extraterrestial that would make this new Star Trek different from the rest of current mainstream science fiction TV shows and movies?

I basically agree with you, but just to play devil's advocate, would such an all-new-crew movie have performed as well without the legendary names of Kirk and Spock behind it?

 

[F. King Daniel]

No. The whole point was to see the characters we all love again.

 

[JarodRussell]

And that's where I think the whole premise is wrong. First of all, there is no baggage, that's the lame excuse of someone who wants to write for a universe but doesn't want to get know it, and that's just ugly. Second, the characters of TOS where mirrors of problems, fears and hopes of the 1960s. For the 2010s, Trek would have needed a set of completely new characters that mirror the problems, fears and hopes of today. The 60s where dominated by the Cold War and racial segregation, which is why a Russian sits on the bridge, getting perfectly along with Americans, and a black woman has an important position. Today we live in times of religious conflict, so where is the Muslim who gets perfectly along with his Jewish and Christian crewmates? Where's the homosexual? And the truly alien, non humanoid extraterrestial that would make this new Star Trek different from the rest of current mainstream science fiction TV shows and movies?

I basically agree with you, but just to play devil's advocate, would such an all-new-crew movie have performed as well without the legendary names of Kirk and Spock behind it?

Since there are many original movies out there that performed and perform better than Star Trek, yes. All a question of the right marketing, script and production. Yes, the marketing, script and production for this movie was right, no doubt, it obviously worked. But that does NOT mean that a movie with a whole new set of characters would have failed.

It's ironic. How many people were skeptic about Star Trek when it was originally planned and aired? Very similar to the fear "but without Kirk and Spock it won't work!".

Only that the achievement this time was not to create an iconic science fiction show that truly went where no one went before, this time it was only to upset the hardcore fans and make a rather hollow action movie that performed well. Granted, the hardcore fans cannot be pleased EVER, but did it really have to be this hollow and nonsensical?

 

[RookieBatman]

No. The whole point was to see the characters we all love again.

That's not true. The point was to draw in an all-new audience, who didn't already love (but had heard of) the old characters. If it was just people who already loved the characters, it wouldn't have been nearly as successful.

 

[RookieBatman]

Since there are many original movies out there that performed and perform better than Star Trek, yes. All a question of the right marketing and script.

But none of them have the geeky stigma that has been attached to Star Trek.

Only that the achievement this time was not to create an iconic science fiction show that truly went where no one went before, this time it was only to upset the hardcore fans...

Now, come on, I was just as upset by the movie as you were, but I hardly think that was their goal.

...and make a rather hollow action movie that performed well.

Performing well is all that matters in the movie biz.

 

[JarodRussell]

Now, come on, I was just as upset by the movie as you were, but I hardly think that was their goal.

I didn't mean that. Now that would be disturbing, lol. Like a checklist of "how can we annoy them", that would have been hilarious.

 

[RookieBatman]

Now, come on, I was just as upset by the movie as you were, but I hardly think that was their goal.

I didn't mean that. Now that would be disturbing, lol. Like a checklist of "how can we annoy them", that would have been hilarious.

Yeah, I kinda figured you were joking, but I just wanted to make sure.

 

[Greg Cox]

Only that the achievement this time was not to create an iconic science fiction show that truly went where no one went before, this time it was only to upset the hardcore fans and make a rather hollow action movie that performed well. Granted, the hardcore fans cannot be pleased EVER, but did it really have to be this hollow and nonsensical?

Okay, we probably don't want to rehash all the old debates about the new movie, which have already been fought ad nauseum in a dozen different threads. But I just want to point out that only a handful of "hardcore fans" were upset. I certainly consider myself a hardcore fan (and have written enough continuity porn to prove it!), but I thought the new movie was the best thing to happen to STAR TREK in years. IMHO, it really captured the rollicking, adventuresome spirit of TOS, while still updating the franchise for a new generation.

Narrowing the focus back to any future books, it goes without saying that any future nuTrek books are going to be written to appeal to nuTrek fans, not to appease people who were "upset" by the new film.

Nothing personal there. You don't write XENA books for TERMINATOR fans, and you don't write nuTrek books for people who don't like nuTrek. That would be silly.

 

[JarodRussell]

Only that the achievement this time was not to create an iconic science fiction show that truly went where no one went before, this time it was only to upset the hardcore fans and make a rather hollow action movie that performed well. Granted, the hardcore fans cannot be pleased EVER, but did it really have to be this hollow and nonsensical?

Okay, we probably don't want to rehash all the old debates about the new movie, which have already been fought ad nauseum in a dozen different threads. But I just want to point out that only a handful of "hardcore fans" were upset. I certainly consider myself a hardcore fan (and have written enough continuity porn to prove it!), but I thought the new movie was the best thing to happen to STAR TREK in years. IMHO, it really captured the rollicking, adventuresome spirit of TOS, while still updating the franchise for a new generation.

Narrowing the focus back to any future books, it goes without saying that any future nuTrek books are going to be written to appeal nuTrek fans, not to appease people who were "upset" by the new film.

Nothing personal there. You don't write XENA books for TERMINATOR fans, and you don't write nuTrek books for people who don't like nuTrek. That would be silly.

And that makes perfect sense, too. The movie is done, nobody can do anything about it.



But now what about the giant black hole that's now somewhere really close to our solar system? I mean that ball of red matter that created that one was pretty huge.

 

[Christopher]

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you there. The ship may have looked a little different, circumstances may have been altered, but in my own opinion (in which I am, again, the minority), the core personalities was the factor that was changed the most about the new movie.

No, the surface personalities were changed by the characters' different life experiences. But I think their fundamental natures were the same. Kirk was still a natural leader, a mix of intelligence and impulse, aggression and compassion. Spock was still a perennial outsider trying to balance the halves of his heritage. McCoy was still an irascible but compassionate physician. And so on. Their traits expressed themselves differently in various ways, but their essential nature wasn't that different.

And that's where I think the whole premise is wrong. First of all, there is no baggage, that's the lame excuse of someone who wants to write for a universe but doesn't want to get know it, and that's just ugly.

That's nonsense. You're forgetting who you're talking to -- me and Greg Cox. Can you seriously be trying to claim that Greg and I, two of the most continuity-geeky Trek authors in Pocket's stable, don't want to get to know the Trek universe????

I love working within the continuity of the Prime universe, and clearly Greg does too. But we also enjoyed the challenge of doing something fresh and different, something that let us explore a new take on the characters and world that we know and love. Just as we enjoyed doing Myriad Universes and getting the chance to create alternate Trek timelines of our own. Variety is good. Hell, that's the whole core message of Star Trek, that differences are something to be embraced and celebrated.

 

[JarodRussell]

And that's where I think the whole premise is wrong. First of all, there is no baggage, that's the lame excuse of someone who wants to write for a universe but doesn't want to get know it, and that's just ugly.

That's nonsense. You're forgetting who you're talking to -- me and Greg Cox. Can you seriously be trying to claim that Greg and I, two of the most continuity-geeky Trek authors in Pocket's stable, don't want to get to know the Trek universe????

I love working within the continuity of the Prime universe, and clearly Greg does too. But we also enjoyed the challenge of doing something fresh and different, something that let us explore a new take on the characters and world that we know and love. Just as we enjoyed doing Myriad Universes and getting the chance to create alternate Trek timelines of our own. Variety is good. Hell, that's the whole core message of Star Trek, that differences are something to be embraced and celebrated.

Don't take that too personal, since I'm not blaming Greg or you but the creators of the movie.

 

[Greg Cox]

Plus, I seriously doubt that the movie folks rebooted the franchise because they didn't want to learn the old continuity. Heck, they supposedly read several of the novels.

The reboot was a good idea because:

1) STAR TREK movies are not just for hardcore fans. It's not supposed to be an exclusive club. The idea was to give newcomers a fresh start that didn't require them to be experts in Trek first.

2) More importantly, once you decide to start over again, you need to reboot so we don't know what happens next. That's the best thing to come up out of the reboot. We're not locked into the idea that Soren is going to kill Kirk someday, that Scotty is going to get trapped in a transporter baffle, that Spock and Uhura will never get married and have kids, that Chekov will never get eaten by a giant space iguana or whatever.

New series. New future. New rules.

It's not laziness, it's liberating.

 

[JarodRussell]

2) More importantly, once you decide to start over again, you need to reboot so we don't know what happens next. That's the best thing to come up out of the reboot. We're not locked into the idea that Soren is going to kill Kirk someday, that Scotty is going to get trapped in a transporter baffle, that Spock and Uhura will never get married and have kids, that Chekov will never get eaten by a giant space iguana or whatever.

New series. New future. New rules.

It's not laziness, it's liberating.

Believe it or not, during the platform fight I was thinking "they should have killed off Sulu instead of Olsen". Now that would have been surprising. And I was disappointed that Spock actually returned to the Enterprise instead of helping his people in the end.

Do you think anyone of the main cast will die or leave or turn evil in the next movie? I doubt it.

 

[JD]

So? There are plenty of other unexpected things that can happen to characters other than dying or leaving the ship. Now, I'm just laying this on you, but I've never understood why people always assume that for something to be suprising people have to die. Just look at how many suprising non-fatal things have happened in the Relaunchs, Vanguard, Titan, ect. that did not involve deaths. We've seen things like people's relationships change, secrets being discovere, betrayals, marriages, changes of position on the ship, and we've even had several births. I found all of those things very shocking, and not a single one involved death.

 

[RookieBatman]

You don't write XENA books for TERMINATOR fans...

Although you could probably find a way to have that make sense.

No, the surface personalities were changed by the characters' different life experiences. But I think their fundamental natures were the same. Kirk was still a natural leader, a mix of intelligence and impulse, aggression and compassion. Spock was still a perennial outsider trying to balance the halves of his heritage. McCoy was still an irascible but compassionate physician. And so on. Their traits expressed themselves differently in various ways, but their essential nature wasn't that different.

We've already had a very similar disagreement before, and insomuch as most of these discussions are pretty subjective, interpretations of characters' fundamental nature is something I think is particularly futile. I can say that I didn't find Kirk to be particularly intelligent nor compassionate, and I didn't think Spock acted anything like a Vulcan. But like I said, it's not as if I can prove that to you, it's all just impressions. If I could only see in those characters what you and many other people apparently saw, then I'd probably be able to enjoy this movie. But alas, it eludes me.

The reboot was a good idea because:

1) STAR TREK movies are not just for hardcore fans. It's not supposed to be an exclusive club. The idea was to give newcomers a fresh start that didn't require them to be experts in Trek first.

2) More importantly, once you decide to start over again, you need to reboot so we don't know what happens next. That's the best thing to come up out of the reboot. We're not locked into the idea that Soren is going to kill Kirk someday, that Scotty is going to get trapped in a transporter baffle, that Spock and Uhura will never get married and have kids, that Chekov will never get eaten by a giant space iguana or whatever.

New series. New future. New rules.

It's not laziness, it's liberating.

But all those things would still apply if they had just established a whole new crew. Sure, there would still be some continuity to remember, but if they fudged a couple points of background here and there to make it easier for the noobs, it really wouldn't have been any worse than what the original series itself did in its growing pains.

And if you have a whole new crew, you don't have to choose between doing something different (as far as characterization) and doing something true to the character.

 

[Greg Cox]

2) More importantly, once you decide to start over again, you need to reboot so we don't know what happens next. That's the best thing to come up out of the reboot. We're not locked into the idea that Soren is going to kill Kirk someday, that Scotty is going to get trapped in a transporter baffle, that Spock and Uhura will never get married and have kids, that Chekov will never get eaten by a giant space iguana or whatever.

New series. New future. New rules.

It's not laziness, it's liberating.

Believe it or not, during the platform fight I was thinking "they should have killed off Sulu instead of Olsen". Now that would have been surprising. And I was disappointed that Spock actually returned to the Enterprise instead of helping his people in the end.

Do you think anyone of the main cast will die or leave or turn evil in the next movie? I doubt it.

Maybe not. But at least the moviemakers don't have to spend the next six movies trying to make sure their new version of Trek match up to forty years of old STAR TREK history, with all the nitpicking that would entail. ("Wait! The plot of STAR TREK XIII contradicts three lines from 'The Trouble with Tribbles'--canon violation!")

It's like peeling off a bandage. It may sting a bit for a moment, but it's better to rip the old continuity away in one bold move than tug at it feebly for the next six movies!

 

[RookieBatman]

So? There are plenty of other unexpected things that can happen to characters other than dying or leaving the ship. Now, I'm just laying this on you, but I've never understood why people always assume that for something to be suprising people have to die. Just look at how many suprising non-fatal things have happened in the Relaunchs, Vanguard, Titan, ect. that did not involve deaths. We've seen things like people's relationships change, secrets being discovere, betrayals, marriages, changes of position on the ship, and we've even had several births. I found all of those things very shocking, and not a single one involved death.

This is also a good point. Did anyone think there was even a slight chance of Chekov getting eaten by a giant space iguana during the course of the original series? I'm guessing not. But we still found plenty to be excited about.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

But all those things would still apply if they had just established a whole new crew. Sure, there would still be some continuity to remember, but if they fudged a couple points of background here and there to make it easier for the noobs, it really wouldn't have been any worse than what the original series itself did in its growing pains.

And if you have a whole new crew, you don't have to choose between doing something different (as far as characterization) and doing something true to the character.

So - instead of using Kirk&co, they should have used a couple of nobodys?

RookieBatman, Kirk&co are WELL-KNOWN.
That's VERY valuable - you see, the value of a franchise is largely given by how well-known it is.
Not using Kirk&co would have been quite stupid.

And the decision was made to 'reboot' the universe - perhaps because it was felt that the TOS universe is anachronistic, perhaps because it was decided that telling the desired stories and attracting new fans would mean letting go of a detailed universe, known only by a few.

 

[RookieBatman]

But all those things would still apply if they had just established a whole new crew. Sure, there would still be some continuity to remember, but if they fudged a couple points of background here and there to make it easier for the noobs, it really wouldn't have been any worse than what the original series itself did in its growing pains.

And if you have a whole new crew, you don't have to choose between doing something different (as far as characterization) and doing something true to the character.

So - instead of using Kirk&co, they should have used a couple of nobodys?

RookieBatman, Kirk&co are WELL-KNOWN.
That's VERY valuable - you see, the value of a franchise is largely given by how well-known it is.

Why are you telling me this as if I don't already know it? I just made that point myself up-thread. I didn't say a new crew would be the best fiscal option, I just asserted that it would take care of the issues Greg Cox pointed out.

Not using Kirk&co would have been quite stupid.

That's what people said in the 80's when they were starting The Next Generation.

And the decision was made to 'reboot' the universe - perhaps because it was felt that the TOS universe is anachronistic, perhaps because it was decided that telling the desired stories and attracting new fans would mean letting go of a detailed universe, known only by a few.

They had their cake and ate it too. They wanted the mythos that was known, but not to be beholden to it. And there's nothing objectively wrong with that; the Bond franchise has reinvented itself a bunch of times. It wasn't the reboot itself that I minded, but the versions of Kirk & co. that they ended up with simply didn't appeal to me.