Should novels set in the JJVerse rectify the film's plot holes?
- Thread starter EJA
- Start date
They were probably too busy figuring out what pre-revolutionary France was doing on a starship to worry about the horse.
Exactly. When I wrote my (sadly aborted) nuTrek novel, I set out to write a thrilling adventure that would appeal to everyone who enjoyed the new movie. The last thing I wanted to do was "rectify" anything.
There's a time and a place for "continuity spackle," as when, ahem, you're trying to get two full novels out of a couple of lines of dialogue from "Space Speed," but not when you're trying to launch a brand new line of STAR TREK novels aimed at readers who may have only seen the new movie.
Delayed, Greg. You mean delayed.
(*returns to Kill Bill-style revenge list made up of the names of the Bad Robot/Paramount staff with any contact to Pocket Books*)
(*returns to Kill Bill-style revenge list made up of the names of the Bad Robot/Paramount staff with any contact to Pocket Books*)
"Space Speed"?
"If this starship goes below warp factor five, it explodes!"
"If this starship goes below warp factor five, it explodes!"
^Wasn't there an episode of Enterprise where exactly that happened?
The real problem, I suspect, is that the term "sawbones" has largely fallen out of the vernacular. It's a bit of antiquated slang that would have required too much effort to explain.
It worked back in the sixties because tv audiences were still familiar with the term, probably because westerns hadn't fallen out of vogue yet. These days it would just have people scratching their heads.
The divorce bit works better in 2009.
When you only have two hours to tell a story, why bog things down explaining what a "sawbones" is? Especially when it doesn't advance the plot.
That's just good editing.
When you only have two hours to tell a story, why bog things down explaining what a "sawbones" is? Especially when it doesn't advance the plot.
That's just good editing.
If you can tell me how the car scene or the swollen hands and numb tounge advanced the plot, then I might tell you how they could have sneaked a good explanation for "sawbones" in there.
Oh no, the effort.
When you only have two hours to tell a story, why bog things down explaining what a "sawbones" is? Especially when it doesn't advance the plot.
That's just good editing.
If you can tell me how the car scene or the swollen hands and numb tounge advanced the plot, then I might tell you how they could have sneaked a good explanation for "sawbones" in there.
Different issue. The allergic reaction scene was intended as comic relief. Whether it worked as such is another issue, but that was its purpose. Likewise, the car scene established the young Kirk's rebellious nature via an exciting action sequence. Which is how you do things in movies.
On the other hand, how would explaining what "sawbones" meant have improved the movie? It wouldn't have made the story more exciting or moving or dramatic. Nor would it have told us anything about McCoy's past or character. It just would have been verbal clutter.
The "bones" line in the movie killed three birds with one stone: it explained the nickname, fleshed out McCoy's backstory, and got a laugh from the audience.
Mission accomplished!
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
Way to be a good friend, reminding him of his crappy divorce every time you talk to him.
"Hey Bones, remember how your ex-wife left you with nothing?"
Here's the thing why I think the "sawbones" thing is important. For one thing, Kirk is fond of antiques and Charles Dickens, which is why Spock gave him "A Tale of Two Cities" as a birthday present in TWOK. Coincidentally, in Charles Dickens' first novel "Pickwick Papers", you find the following dialogue:
Then, sawbones refers to amputation, which was a very common practice in the 19th century (and sadly, still is). And we learned how fond McCoy is of medical procedures of the past. So Kirk calling McCoy "Sawbones" or "Bones" is telling us something about BOTH characters.
I wouldn't have put an explanation for this in the movie at all to begin with. If I had to, I would have put it somewhere near the very end, in a triangle moment between Kirk, Spock and McCoy (which this movie heavily lacked).
Or a very subtle moment where McCoy comes into Kirk's quarters at the Academy, while Kirk is reading Dickens' book and during that conversation he refers to him as Bones for the first time. No spoonfeeding, but you have the association to McCoy's actual profession (and not to his divorce, which is silly), you have Kirk's fondness for antiques AND even a hint at why Kirk could have been "a stack of books with legs" at the academy.
Then, sawbones refers to amputation, which was a very common practice in the 19th century (and sadly, still is). And we learned how fond McCoy is of medical procedures of the past. So Kirk calling McCoy "Sawbones" or "Bones" is telling us something about BOTH characters.
I wouldn't have put an explanation for this in the movie at all to begin with. If I had to, I would have put it somewhere near the very end, in a triangle moment between Kirk, Spock and McCoy (which this movie heavily lacked).
Or a very subtle moment where McCoy comes into Kirk's quarters at the Academy, while Kirk is reading Dickens' book and during that conversation he refers to him as Bones for the first time. No spoonfeeding, but you have the association to McCoy's actual profession (and not to his divorce, which is silly), you have Kirk's fondness for antiques AND even a hint at why Kirk could have been "a stack of books with legs" at the academy.
Last edited:
I liked the old "Sawbones" stuff, but the line as delivered in the movie was a bit unexpected - and hilarious. According to Karl Urban, he actually suggested the line during his first meeting with JJ and it gave everyone a heartwarming laugh and it went into the script in the early drafts.
It doesn't rewrite the old connotation at all. Nicknames often have several meanings, or mean different things to the various people who use them. And that's why they stick. Because they seem appropriate at the time, but keep seeming appropriate in new situations. They become running gags. Certainly, the people who know my nicknames think there are different reasons for the terms.
A doctor grumbles about having nothing left but his bones. A Sawbones complaining about bones. Clever! A nickname is born.
It doesn't rewrite the old connotation at all. Nicknames often have several meanings, or mean different things to the various people who use them. And that's why they stick. Because they seem appropriate at the time, but keep seeming appropriate in new situations. They become running gags. Certainly, the people who know my nicknames think there are different reasons for the terms.
A doctor grumbles about having nothing left but his bones. A Sawbones complaining about bones. Clever! A nickname is born.
Indeed. It's worth noting that the "fact" of McCoy's divorce was never actually established canonically in TOS or the earlier movies. So if anything, that scene should be praised for its good continuity, taking an idea that had previously only been part of McCoy's unofficial, behind-the-scenes backstory and making it canonical at last.
i guess i sorta feel the same way.
heck it works in different context that way..
either as a doctor or for mccoys eye for the ladies we saw in places like shore leave.
and if c) Berman and Braga hadn't provided a convenient out by telling their story as a holodeck recreation of events from centuries before, rather than presenting it as a standard episode.
I could see this working for KirkPrime, but IMO at least, I really don't see either of those things being true of NewKirk.