Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoilers)

[DimesDan]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

As I said last night, his Planet was just destroyed in front of him, he watched is Mother die right in front of him and the very reason he gave command over to Kirk was because he was emotionally comprimised, Both SpockPrime and Spock admitted this. Remember he is half human and also remember the reason Vulans surpress there emotions is because they ARE VERY emotional in nature. So with all this, I personally can give Spock some leeway about his log entry. Also remember THIS IS NOT the Spock from the five year mission, it is a younger and more emotional Spock and he will make mistakes especially under the circumstancies that he was under.

 

[JoeZhang]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

This is just plain silly - could a later writer do a story that says Spock was wrong? Yes they could, but to argue that what is presented on screen is wrong as a stand alone entity is just plain daft. We might as well start arguing about how Nero was actually Spock's son or that the glances between Kirk and Sulu mean that they were having a gay love affair off-screen.

sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

[Christopher]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

I just saw the movie this morning, and thought it was a-freakin'-mazing, and I've gotta go with the only 10,000 Vulcans left intrepretation myself. IMO Spock(s) made way to big a deal of it for it to have just been 10,000 that escaped from the planet.

What??? "Too big a deal" of the fact that six billion Vulcans had just died???? How is it even possible to make too big a deal out of that? It doesn't matter whether the survivors number in the thousands or the millions -- six billion dead is an unimaginably huge cataclysm, the extermination of the vast majority of an entire species. Even if there were sixty million survivors galaxy-wide, that's still a 99% fatality rate! Compared to six billion, the difference between ten thousand survivors and ten million survivors is statistically insignificant. But the former requires buying into some thoroughly unreasonable assumptions about the overall universe and the behavior of a starfaring civilization.

Plus, I wouldn't it would have been that important for Spock to rescue the High Council if there were millions of other Vulcans out there who could have the knowledge and skills that the Council did.

The people in that cavern included Spock's own parents. You really think he didn't have some deeper motive than just rescuing the council? Come on, he went there to save his mom and dad! He virtually said as much -- read the dialogue quoted in Dennis's post above.

Besides, it wasn't "knowledge and skills." In Spock's own words, they were responsible for preserving Vulcan's cultural legacy. And consider the name of the location where they were. The katric ark. A katra is a Vulcan mind or soul; an ark is a receptacle. In Foster's novelization, these were the keepers of Surak's consciousness, and they took its receptacle with them when they fled. None of them was carrying anything in the actual film, but what if they all were living receptacles for the katras of great Vulcans of old? That would make them indispensable.

 

[DimesDan]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

I just saw the movie this morning, and thought it was a-freakin'-mazing, and I've gotta go with the only 10,000 Vulcans left intrepretation myself. IMO Spock(s) made way to big a deal of it for it to have just been 10,000 that escaped from the planet.

What??? "Too big a deal" of the fact that six billion Vulcans had just died???? How is it even possible to make too big a deal out of that? It doesn't matter whether the survivors number in the thousands or the millions -- six billion dead is an unimaginably huge cataclysm, the extermination of the vast majority of an entire species. Even if there were sixty million survivors galaxy-wide, that's still a 99% fatality rate! Compared to six billion, the difference between ten thousand survivors and ten million survivors is statistically insignificant. But the former requires buying into some thoroughly unreasonable assumptions about the overall universe and the behavior of a starfaring civilization.

It would essentially be like if Earth got destroyed and HALF the population of my home town (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melksham) managed to get off planet and no one else. In no way what so ever did he make a too big a deal out of it. I thought he took it a bit too well so do tell, if in that situation, after watching your mother fall to her death mid Transport and then you watch your homeworld get eaten (essentially) by a black hole, how would you react? Me, I'd find the biggest bottle of Scotch I could find and just down it and pretty much fall apart.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

If they had shown a mass exodus of ships from Vulcan's surface, someone would have accused it of ripping off Titan AE.

 

[Geoff Thorne]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

If they had shown a mass exodus of ships from Vulcan's surface, someone would have accused it of ripping off Titan AE.

No one would ever accuse any film of that.

Not even a remake of TITAN A.E.

 

[Geoff Thorne]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

As I said last night, his Planet was just destroyed in front of him, he watched is Mother die right in front of him and the very reason he gave command over to Kirk was because he was emotionally comprimised, Both SpockPrime and Spock admitted this. Remember he is half human and also remember the reason Vulans surpress there emotions is because they ARE VERY emotional in nature. So with all this, I personally can give Spock some leeway about his log entry. Also remember THIS IS NOT the Spock from the five year mission, it is a younger and more emotional Spock and he will make mistakes especially under the circumstancies that he was under.

He didn't forget how to count.

You guys can wiggle all you want. The WRITERS OF THE FILM clearly meant 10000 Vulcans are left. They did not make some wobbly emotional speech about it but a sober grieving log entry and a subsequent conversation to shore it up.

You don't like it? Tough. Until there's a sequel saying otherwise, you're stuck with it. It's canon. Remember that?

Nothing you're saying is actually IN the movie. It's just theorizing so you can plug a hole that doesn't exist. He said there were 10000. He said they were an endangered species. Spock Prime dissuades him from leaving Starfleet to pitch in with the rebuilding because, unlike every other Vulcan, he could be in two places at once. Clear implication: the Vulcan diaspora was engaged in a mass exodus to the new homeworld. All hands on deck.

All hands wouldn't be needed if there were ten million of them. Spock's presence wouldn't be logically required. For ten thousand, you'd need everyone pitching in, which they clearly do.

This is WELL after Spock stops being "emotionally compromised." Spock Prime doesn't say, "Don't worry, there are ten million of us, we'll be fine." He says, essentially, "You would be right to leave Starfleet if I wasn't here, but I AM here, so your place is filled."

As I said: it's not even complex.

 

[JD]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

I just saw the movie this morning, and thought it was a-freakin'-mazing, and I've gotta go with the only 10,000 Vulcans left intrepretation myself. IMO Spock(s) made way to big a deal of it for it to have just been 10,000 that escaped from the planet.

What??? "Too big a deal" of the fact that six billion Vulcans had just died???? How is it even possible to make too big a deal out of that? It doesn't matter whether the survivors number in the thousands or the millions -- six billion dead is an unimaginably huge cataclysm, the extermination of the vast majority of an entire species. Even if there were sixty million survivors galaxy-wide, that's still a 99% fatality rate! Compared to six billion, the difference between ten thousand survivors and ten million survivors is statistically insignificant. But the former requires buying into some thoroughly unreasonable assumptions about the overall universe and the behavior of a starfaring civilization.

When I said they made to big a deal of it, what I meant was that if there still millions or billions of Vulcans left, then they probably would have made put more emphasis on the numbers of people who died, not the number who escaped.

Plus, I wouldn't it would have been that important for Spock to rescue the High Council if there were millions of other Vulcans out there who could have the knowledge and skills that the Council did.

The people in that cavern included Spock's own parents. You really think he didn't have some deeper motive than just rescuing the council? Come on, he went there to save his mom and dad! He virtually said as much -- read the dialogue quoted in Dennis's post above.

Besides, it wasn't "knowledge and skills." In Spock's own words, they were responsible for preserving Vulcan's cultural legacy. And consider the name of the location where they were. The katric ark. A katra is a Vulcan mind or soul; an ark is a receptacle. In Foster's novelization, these were the keepers of Surak's consciousness, and they took its receptacle with them when they fled. None of them was carrying anything in the actual film, but what if they all were living receptacles for the katras of great Vulcans of old? That would make them indispensable.

Yeah, I was aware of Amanda and Sarek's presence so I know that had a very big part of his rescuing the council.
I admit I was thinking of them as leaders, I didn't think about the cultural legacy and I didn't catch the stuff about the Katric ark, and was not aware of the Surak stuff. Plus, I realize now that even if they were just leaders, they were the leaders of VULCAN so no matter what they would be important to all of the Vulcan's, whether they were on colonies or living on other planets or whatever.

 

[JoeZhang]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

This is WELL after Spock stops being "emotionally compromised." Spock Prime doesn't say, "Don't worry, there are ten million of us, we'll be fine." He says, essentially, "You would be right to leave Starfleet if I wasn't here, but I AM here, so your place is filled."

As I said: it's not even complex.

And the key bits are:


Spock Prime: There are so few Vulcans left, we cannot afford to ignore each other.

and also:

Spock: In the face of extinction, it is only logical that I resign my Star Fleet commission and help rebuild our race.

 

[Christopher]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

When I said they made to big a deal of it, what I meant was that if there still millions or billions of Vulcans left, then they probably would have made put more emphasis on the numbers of people who died, not the number who escaped.

As I recall Spock's line, it emphasized both equally. The version in the novelization reads, "Of its six billion inhabitants, I estimate that no more than ten thousand survived." (Which also makes it explicit that he's not saying there are only 10,000 Vulcans left in the universe, just that only 10,000 of the Vulcans specifically living on the planet at the time escaped its destruction.)

 

[William Leisner]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

I'd just like to interrupt here, and remind everyone that the editors of The Onion may well still be monitoring this site for potential material.

Just a word to the wise.

 

[Sci]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

You guys can wiggle all you want. The WRITERS OF THE FILM clearly meant 10000 Vulcans are left.

No, they did not. They clearly meant that of the six billion or more inhabitants of the planet Vulcan, 10,000 survived.

The question of whether or not there are a significant number of Vulcans that were off-planet at the time of the destruction of Vulcan is as yet unestablished. Once again, please stop trying to claim that your interpretation is the only valid one. You are not J.J. Abrams, Roberto Orci, or Alex Kurtzman.

ETA:

I'd just like to interrupt here, and remind everyone that the editors of The Onion may well still be monitoring this site for potential material.

Just a word to the wise.

You win the thread.

 

[Geoff Thorne]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

Damn you, Leisner, you green-blooded hobgoblin!

Stop being so reasonable!

 

[lawman]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

The thread seems to have gotten a bit derailed. Y'know what? I don't really care how many Vulcans still exist beyond the 10,000 who escaped the planet. I can see both sides of that argument, but it won't be resolved until some future story takes it on.

What I do care about is the future of the Trek book line in general. I was blogging just the other day, in fact, that as someone who's not particularly a fan of this movie, I value the book line even more than before as a place I can turn for Trek stories set in the universe I care about, and written with the intelligent tone I associate with Trek at its best.

Whether that will continue matters to me. Thus:

My biggest concern is whether two novel series set in different timelines will be allowed to continue. I'm dreading the announcement that the current novel series will stop because some Executive Moron at Paramount thinks that we are as dense as they are and will be confused by existance of two seperate continuities.

It's never been a requirement that all ST tie-ins have to be consistent with one another. And the Mirror Universe and Myriad Universes anthologies proved successful, demonstrating that audiences are willing and able to pay attention to more than one timeline. There's no business logic in cutting off part of your audience.

Besides, I doubt an executive would care about timelines or continuity or any of that. What matters to them is the success of the brand...

Ah, but they do care about successful marketing. Things need to be accessible for newcomers. Remember, that's why the new film is what it is, and not a continuation of the original timeline.

A lot of the people that were sitting next to me in the theatre will be expecting tie-ins to make sense with the new film. And it is conceivable an executive ruling might come down limiting tie-ins to the film only, so as not to confuse newcomers to fandom.

Such an eventuality would be highly unfortunate, but it is within the realm of possibility.

I hope Christopher et al are right and it is just worrying over nothing, but its still a possibility.

Paula Block, of CBS Consumer Products, is a "first fandom" ST fan and oversees all tie-in manuscripts. I can't imagine her not putting up a good argument to keep the old TOS line of novels and comics alive.

I am rarely buying the original TOS but books dealing with this version of TOS, I am most definitely interested!

I can see both sides of this argument, too. I certainly hope that Christopher's correct, and the licensed books will continue to tell new stories of the classic Trek universe, TOS-era included.

However, we shouldn't forget that some pretty severe constraints have been imposed on the book line in the past, and conversely that its freedom in recent years came at a time when there was no on-screen Trek prominent in the public consciousness.

What I fear is that the more popular this movie (and its prospective sequels) may become, the fewer people among the general public will have an interest in Trek books set in an "old" reality. Thus, not reader "confusion," but just disinterest and reduced readership (as expressed in the last post quoted above), might motivate the PTB to focus their resources on producing licensed material that dovetails with the on-screen product.

The Paula Block thing is a bit of actual concrete evidence, and an encouraging one. So the above is hardly an inevitable outcome... but OTOH it's not an impossible one. And it's one I'd hate to see. IMHO, "canon" notwithstanding, the written word is where the most authentic Trek is found these days.

---

If a person can jump from Cadet to Captain of the flagship after a week in space, there must be one hell of a shortage of senior officers around.

Considering that the home fleet was entirely destroyed and was so understaffed so they had to bring up cadets to actually fly the ships, that's pretty much the impression I got. Kirk got the captain's billet, at least in part, because there was no one else available.

Of course, in real world terms, it's just another example of time-compressed over-simplification in order to keep the pace of the film. Makes it hell for nitpickers like us, but we just gotta go with it.

Yeah. Unfortunately, that applies to so much of this movie....

 

[Smiley]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

I doubt that there will be reader disinterest in the original timeline. There may be increased interest in the new adventures of Kirk and Spock, but those who have been following Destiny, Vanguard, and the other lit stories should still care about new novels set in those eras. Enterprise should continue as it always has. Regardless of public opinion, we still have original timeline books at least through 2010 under the current contract.

 

[Lonemagpie]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

I can see both sides of this argument, too. I certainly hope that Christopher's correct, and the licensed books will continue to tell new stories of the classic Trek universe, TOS-era included.

However, we shouldn't forget that some pretty severe constraints have been imposed on the book line in the past, and conversely that its freedom in recent years came at a time when there was no on-screen Trek prominent in the public consciousness.

Looking at what's been happening in the 24th Century lines, it's clear they're moving to being an SF lit shared-world with its own audience, market and IP. There's no reason for that to change. Same goes for Enterprise.

If there are to be TOS-era novels - and I can't imagine there not being - then there's more chance of constraints on them, at least while the Abramsverse movie franchise is continuing. But in that instance there'd still be the post-Destiny universe for fans of arcs and continuity

 

[Strider]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

When I said they made to big a deal of it, what I meant was that if there still millions or billions of Vulcans left, then they probably would have made put more emphasis on the numbers of people who died, not the number who escaped.

As I recall Spock's line, it emphasized both equally. The version in the novelization reads, "Of its six billion inhabitants, I estimate that no more than ten thousand survived." (Which also makes it explicit that he's not saying there are only 10,000 Vulcans left in the universe, just that only 10,000 of the Vulcans specifically living on the planet at the time escaped its destruction.)

nuSpock's line about 10,000 people might have left it open to interpretation, but I doubt any future movie is going to make that a plot point. Quibbling about the number of Vulcan expats doesn't really seem like nuStar Trek's style, really. If Star Trek XII has some line along the lines of: "The surviving Vulcan population numbers some 48 million due to the sizeable portion of the population off world and scattered across numerous Federation planets, colonies, starships, and bases at the time of the fall" then I will eat my words.

No, I think we can safely assume that 10,000 is the number of Vulcans who escaped and the number of Vulcans left in the universe (give or take). It's an almost cartoon level of story logic I know, but oh well it was a pretty fun movie.

 

[Christopher]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

I can see both sides of this argument, too. I certainly hope that Christopher's correct, and the licensed books will continue to tell new stories of the classic Trek universe, TOS-era included.

However, we shouldn't forget that some pretty severe constraints have been imposed on the book line in the past, and conversely that its freedom in recent years came at a time when there was no on-screen Trek prominent in the public consciousness.

But those severe constraints were mainly due to the personality of one man, Richard Arnold, who had a rather... fundamentalist and exclusionistic view of Trek continuity and imposed it rather aggressively. Practically as soon as he was gone, the constraints began to relax, even though ST was still a very active on-air franchise at the time. I think it's unlikely that anyone else would choose to crack down on tie-ins as strictly as Arnold did.

What I fear is that the more popular this movie (and its prospective sequels) may become, the fewer people among the general public will have an interest in Trek books set in an "old" reality. Thus, not reader "confusion," but just disinterest and reduced readership (as expressed in the last post quoted above), might motivate the PTB to focus their resources on producing licensed material that dovetails with the on-screen product.

If that happens, if the bulk of the audience would rather see new-timeline material, then that's the natural evolution of the franchise and the tie-ins will have to adapt to it. But I wouldn't underestimate the power of nostalgia. Or the continued interest in the 24th-century portion of the franchise. After all, there's a whole generation of young adults now who grew up with TNG, DS9, and VGR. People like to see the shows they grew up watching. Yes, it's hoped that the movie will draw in a whole new audience to ST, but there's still a sizeable audience that consider "their" ST to be about Picard, Riker, Data, etc., so I don't think the new adventures of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy would cancel out that preference. I can see the new Kirk-era adventures maybe crowding out old-timeline TOS, but I don't see them crowding out 24th-century fiction.

 

[lawman]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

If there are to be TOS-era novels - and I can't imagine there not being - then there's more chance of constraints on them, at least while the Abramsverse movie franchise is continuing. But in that instance there'd still be the post-Destiny universe for fans of arcs and continuity.

I can see the new Kirk-era adventures maybe crowding out old-timeline TOS, but I don't see them crowding out 24th-century fiction.

This prospect does not cheer me. Half a loaf is better than none, but while I could cheerfully live without ever reading (say) a VOY novel, I'm rather fond of the 23rd century.

 

[JD]

Re: Trek XI's implications for future Trek novels (major movie spoiler

When I said they made to big a deal of it, what I meant was that if there still millions or billions of Vulcans left, then they probably would have made put more emphasis on the numbers of people who died, not the number who escaped.

As I recall Spock's line, it emphasized both equally. The version in the novelization reads, "Of its six billion inhabitants, I estimate that no more than ten thousand survived." (Which also makes it explicit that he's not saying there are only 10,000 Vulcans left in the universe, just that only 10,000 of the Vulcans specifically living on the planet at the time escaped its destruction.)

Ah, see now that makes sense. I'm really starting to wish that they had been more specific with this, but then again I guess they probably didn't anticipate this kind of debate over one line.

Anyways, I just wanted to share my interpretation and I've done that now so I'm happy.