Star Trek (2009) novelization (finally) announced!
- Thread starter DarkHorizon
- Start date
The problem there is that Romulus isn't a desert planet, Vulcan on the other hand is. Unless that planet in the trailer is actually Mars.
^Or unless all the vegetation died and the oceans evaporated before the final cataclysm...?
There are pictures of the drilling rig thing over San Francisco, but I can't spot anyone fighting on the rig itself. I'm pretty sure the fight occurs over Vulcan, as the planet itself looks similar.
I haven't read much ADF, but with what I have read I wasn't that impressed. Its not awful, but I wouldn't hold ihis writing up to some of the current trek writers or other well known sci-fi names.
The Star Trek Logs were probably too limiting in that he couldn't move away from what was part of the on screen stories. I'm in the process of reading some of them now and the my reaction to the writing is very "ho-hum".
If I remember correctly, he also wrote "Splinter of the Minds Eye" way back for the Star Wars folks which did very little for me. I thought his story telling approach was boring, one dimensional, and limited.
This is, of course, a very limiting sampling of ADF's work. If I had the time to jump into some of his original work it might be worth it.
I don't generally read novelizations anyway, but it would seem the effort was to go out and get a "name". Which is fine.
Jason
The Star Trek Logs were probably too limiting in that he couldn't move away from what was part of the on screen stories. I'm in the process of reading some of them now and the my reaction to the writing is very "ho-hum".
If I remember correctly, he also wrote "Splinter of the Minds Eye" way back for the Star Wars folks which did very little for me. I thought his story telling approach was boring, one dimensional, and limited.
This is, of course, a very limiting sampling of ADF's work. If I had the time to jump into some of his original work it might be worth it.
I don't generally read novelizations anyway, but it would seem the effort was to go out and get a "name". Which is fine.
Jason
Then you may not know TAS very well, because ADF moves into lots of new areas in the Logs. The writing may seem "limiting" to you because it was assumed that the reading audience might be skewed younger.
He's a highly respected SF author, and he's done lots of novelizations over the years.
I guess you haven't seen the episodes, then. Foster "moved away" a great deal. Though he followed the same plots, he embellished them immensely, rewriting and expanding dialogue, adding new scenes and backstory, etc. In the last four volumes, at least 2/3 of each book -- more like 4/5 in the final volume -- was wholly original material. In Logs 7-9 he followed up a single episode adaptation with an original sequel that was about twice as long, and in Log 10 he added three new stories, one before, one during, and one after the events of the episode.
He also ghostwrote the novelization of the original Star Wars film.
Like Ian and Christopher said, that's completely wrong. No problem if his style's not to your taste, but the Star Trek Logs add a lot to the stories, and in one or two cases present things differently so that stories that seemed silly onscreen make more sense in print.
As I understand it, he followed the brief he was given, which was to write a Star Wars story with a limited cast and limited locations, to serve as a possible basis for a low budget Star Wars movie if the first movie didn't do well. As Christopher points out, he novelized Star Wars, and given how long it takes to get a book in print, it's likely that Lucas et al had no idea how big Star Wars was going to be when Foster was given the job of writing Splinter of the Mind's Eye.
Actually, I HAVE seen them. I will agree the final logs offered more depth than the others. Logs One-Six only gave about 196 pages for three stories each. Less than 70 pages to novelize each half hour....
Its a matter of perspective. Why would you assume I haven't seen TASS? Just because someone doesn't share your appreciation for a product or doesn't see the things you like in it, doesn't mean they haven't viewed the same material.
Its a matter of perspective. Why would you assume I haven't seen TASS? Just because someone doesn't share your appreciation for a product or doesn't see the things you like in it, doesn't mean they haven't viewed the same material.
It's got nothing to do with appreciation or liking; it's simply a matter of fact. You said:
But given how much he embellished and rewrote dialogue and filled in new plot (and even changed the spellings of many proper names), it's clear that he could and did "move away" and was not subject to very many limits. Maybe you meant to suggest something different, but the way that sentence is phrased, it suggests something that isn't factually true. And therefore anyone who is familiar with TAS and the Logs and then reads that sentence would inevitably conclude that you were unfamiliar with TAS.
So perhaps you should clarify what you actually intended to say in that sentence. Given that he did embellish and add a great deal, why do you feel he was limited?
But, they were definitely more extensive novelizations than the Blish adaptations of one-hour TOS episodes.
Which themselves are fascinating in what they change, maintain and downright do weirdly!
A
Amaris
Guest
Great pick! Now all I have to do is wait to pre-order it!
J.
J.
The artwork looks great...can't wait to get this. I guess I'll be seeing the movie first before the book comes out...
Zachary Quinto is narrating the Alan Dean Foster novelization of the Star Trek film for audio!
Similar threads
