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

[BrotherBenny]

As for the Mutara Nebula/Genesis thing, you have the Deus Ex Machina explanation that the torpedo has volatile protomatter and the energy produced from the warp core explosion would provide enough energy, and probably mutate the Genesis stuff, to turn the nebula into a planet.

In other words, magic. If you blew up your computer, would it "mutate" the programming of your Adobe Reader in a way that would make it spontaneously generate the Great American Novel? That's what I'm talking about here. The Genesis torpedo was supposed to be programmed to transform a specific target substrate in a specific way. It simply wasn't designed to work on a nebula. And you can deduce that purely from what was stated in the film itself. Diverging from reality is one thing, but when a story isn't even consistent within itself, that's simply cheating.

From Memory Alpha: "Within an extremely short time, fully developed plant life emerged, but this seemingly tranquil planet had a highly unstable core caused by the inclusion of protomatter in its Genesis matrix." To me this says that it wasn't really a computer program in the Genesis matrix, but DNA-programmed biological matter and the protomatter. We all know that radiation can mutate ordinary bio-matter, so what would be the effect of the radiation produced from a warp core explosion on the already highly unstable protomatter and the programmed bio matter in the Genesis matrix? I believe it could easily be enough to then use the material in the nebula to create a planet, but it was unlikely to have had a solid, or semi-solid, core and therefore is an unstable planet.

 

[ronny]

But in any case: please minimal continuity spackle in any JJverse novels.

CONTINUITY SPACKLE is now the name of my new band.

That ranks right up there with CONTINUITY PORN. I love it!

 

[Stevil2001]

I wish I knew where I got it from! Star Wars fandom, I think. Amazingly, this thread is already its top hit on Google.

 

[Thrawn]

Yeah, Star Wars fandom definitely. There was a fanclub, Club Jade I think?, that awarded Timothy Zahn and Michael Stackpole "Golden Trowel" Awards for applying continuity spackle to fix obvious and/or annoying plot holes in the original movie trilogy and the Jedi Academy Trilogy, respectively.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Christopher, isn't the reason McCoy is called Bones a fairly oblique reference to the term Sawbones from old naval times?

That's certainly the prevailing theory over the years, and is mentioned in a lot of the "making of" material, but I'm pretty sure it was never mentioned onscreen,

Except in A Piece Of The Action...

Bingo.

From "A Piece of the Action":

McCoy: Jim --

Kirk: Knock it off, sawbones.* I want to talk to this creep. I'm tired of playing pattycake with you penny-ante operators.

Oxmyx: Who're ya callin' a penny-ante operator?

Kirk: YOU'RE A PENNY-ANTE OPERATOR!

*Emphasis mine.

 

[EJA]

Sorry, but I think TWOK's errors are miniscule compared to XI's.

 

[JoeZhang]

I think the books should go the other way and each one should have a completely inexplicable scene that is never expanded upon or explained.

So for example, Kirk could go to Spock's cabin and he finds Spock playing cards with a horse. None of the characters question this and the presence of the horse is never explained.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

In other words, magic. If you blew up your computer, would it "mutate" the programming of your Adobe Reader in a way that would make it spontaneously generate the Great American Novel? That's what I'm talking about here. The Genesis torpedo was supposed to be programmed to transform a specific target substrate in a specific way. It simply wasn't designed to work on a nebula. And you can deduce that purely from what was stated in the film itself. Diverging from reality is one thing, but when a story isn't even consistent within itself, that's simply cheating.

From Memory Alpha: "Within an extremely short time, fully developed plant life emerged, but this seemingly tranquil planet had a highly unstable core caused by the inclusion of protomatter in its Genesis matrix." To me this says that it wasn't really a computer program in the Genesis matrix, but DNA-programmed biological matter and the protomatter. We all know that radiation can mutate ordinary bio-matter, so what would be the effect of the radiation produced from a warp core explosion on the already highly unstable protomatter and the programmed bio matter in the Genesis matrix? I believe it could easily be enough to then use the material in the nebula to create a planet, but it was unlikely to have had a solid, or semi-solid, core and therefore is an unstable planet.

BrotherBenny - being exposed to radiation WILL NOT give you superpowers.

Simiarly, radiation/explosion/whatever you want won't mutate DNA/a computer program/etc designed with a specific function in mind so that it can perform satisfactorily a completely different function (which is even more over the top than the original one).

Christopher's comparison is valid no matter what technobabble you wish to use. That 'genesis planet' IS SCIENTIFICALLY RIDICULOUS. It's magic.

 

[Christopher]

Sorry, but I think TWOK's errors are miniscule compared to XI's.

And that's just it. It's always going to be a matter of individual opinion which errors are more acceptable. So it doesn't make sense to expect the books to play favorites and treat a certain film differently just because certain individual fans have a harder time accepting it, because there are always going to be other fans who see it differently.

And in this case, there are a ton of fans who see it differently. ST 2009 is the most successful Trek film in ages, if not ever, and the purpose of the Abramsverse books is specifically to attract its new fanbase to the novel line, not to repel them by saying "Hey, we think that movie you loved was wrong and here's why in exhaustive detail."

 

[Therin of Andor]

an interview with ADF where he mentioned wanting to correct the origin of Bones being called Bones and they were very firm about saying no.

He already changed it. He had McCoy say, in the novelization, that he had nothing left but his skeleton, making it seem like ADF didn't get, or didn't like, the joke used in the movie.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Not to pick on you, Christopher, but I think a good example is in Ex Machina, when you threw in the thing about Chekov leading an assault to retake engineering from Khan (to explain how Khan recognized him in TWoK).

IIRC, Vonda McIntyre had already suggested that Chekov and Marla McGivers had a lower decks friendship in the novelization of ST II, and Greg Cox picked up on this and expanded it a little in "To Reign in Hell".

 

[Christopher]

^And of course the bit about Chekov defending engineering from Khan wasn't mine; it came from Allan Asherman's Who's Who in Star Trek, published by DC Comics in 1987.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I think the books should go the other way and each one should have a completely inexplicable scene that is never expanded upon or explained.

So for example, Kirk could go to Spock's cabin and he finds Spock playing cards with a horse. None of the characters question this and the presence of the horse is never explained.

Nothing comes to mind at the moment, but I'm fairly sure we've had a few moments like this over the years.

 

[BrotherBenny]

ProtoAvatar, nowhere did I say that radiation gives you superpowers. I merely said that radiation mutates DNA. This is a scientific fact.

As for Genesis nonsense, I was playing devil's advocate. I'm fully aware that the whole idea is completely nonsensical.

 

[RookieBatman]

Sorry, but I think TWOK's errors are miniscule compared to XI's.

And that's just it. It's always going to be a matter of individual opinion which errors are more acceptable. So it doesn't make sense to expect the books to play favorites and treat a certain film differently just because certain individual fans have a harder time accepting it, because there are always going to be other fans who see it differently.

But it wouldn't actually be treating this film differently, since previous books have advanced similar fixes for issues in previous movies.

(Not that I care, I'm just playing devil's advocate.)

He already changed it. He had McCoy say, in the novelization, that he had nothing left but his skeleton, making it seem like ADF didn't get, or didn't like, the joke used in the movie.

Well, hey, it's better than nothing. But I don't understand why they (Kurtzman and Orci) couldn't have just had Kirk call him "sawbones." Maybe I'm wrong, but it seemed fairly obvious to me. Like, after I saw the movie, I asked my dad (who's not a Trekkie) if he knew why Dr. McCoy was called Bones, and he said, "Because it's short for sawbones, right?" To me, it's Occam's Razor. But maybe that's just me.

 

[JarodRussell]

I always had the impression that when the Genesis device detonated, it reformed a huge area with the rock Regula I orbited as its core.
The sun already existed, as evident in this particular shot: http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/twokhd/twokhd0569.jpg

ST 2009 is the most successful Trek film in ages, if not ever, and the purpose of the Abramsverse books is specifically to attract its new fanbase to the novel line, not to repel them by saying "Hey, we think that movie you loved was wrong and here's why in exhaustive detail."

At the moment they attract them by not releasing the books.

 

[Christopher]

But it wouldn't actually be treating this film differently, since previous books have advanced similar fixes for issues in previous movies.

But it's usually done affectionately, more about clarifying than "rectifying." I guess what I'm saying is that it would be a mistake to approach it from the perspective I think the original poster is suggesting, i.e. "This movie got it wrong and it needs to be fixed."

Okay, there is The Good That Men Do, but I doubt that would've gotten away with it if a) "These Are the Voyages" hadn't been so poorly received by fans and b) Berman and Braga hadn't moved on to other jobs by that point, removing them from the approval chain for Trek novels. Here we're talking about a very popular film whose creators are very much a part of the approval chain, and it would be foolhardy to bite the hand that feeds us.

More importantly, as stated, the goal of Abramsverse books would be to appeal to the new fanbase who just want to see more adventures in the spirit of the film. So in-depth continuity analysis or "fixes" of things that audience wouldn't even consider broken would be too much of a distraction.

But I don't understand why they (Kurtzman and Orci) couldn't have just had Kirk call him "sawbones." Maybe I'm wrong, but it seemed fairly obvious to me.

You just answered your own question. Why should any writer be satisfied doing something that the audience would consider obvious and predictable? Where's the fun in telling, or watching, an origin story that has no surprises?

 

[JarodRussell]

But I don't understand why they (Kurtzman and Orci) couldn't have just had Kirk call him "sawbones." Maybe I'm wrong, but it seemed fairly obvious to me.

You just answered your own question. Why should any writer be satisfied doing something that the audience would consider obvious and predictable? Where's the fun in telling, or watching, an origin story that has no surprises?

Because they are writing for Star Trek? If they want to be free in everything, they should be writing something original. McCoy's nickname being "sawbones" is not only canon, it also makes perfect sense. Their new "explanation" on the other hand, does not.

 

[Christopher]

^Why not? Why can't it be both? Kirk heard McCoy make an offhand crack about his wife leaving him only his bones, it struck him as ironic considering that McCoy was a doctor (i.e. "sawbones"), so he decided to use "Bones" as a nickname because of the combination of both factors. Makes perfect sense to me, and there's no conflict. Heck, it even explains why Kirk's nickname was simply "Bones" and not "Sawbones."

 

[JD]

Personally, I liked the movies explantion for the Bones nickname. I like it when movies reveal that things like that weren't what we thought they were.