“Star Trek” Adaptation Makes New York Times Bestseller List | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

“Star Trek” Adaptation Makes New York Times Bestseller List May 21, 2009

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Books,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

The new Star Trek movie is at the top of the box office charts, and now the book is working its way onto the charts as well. Simon & Schuster has informed TrekMovie that the Alan Dean Foster adaptation of the movie has made it on the New York Times best seller list, along with other top lists, the first Trek novel to do so in over a decade.

 

"Star Trek" biggest Trek book in years
According to S&S Star Trek editor Margaret Clark, the "Star Trek" adaptation is already in its fifth printing (and the official release date was only 9 days ago). The book is currently ranked 15th for trade paperbacks on the Publisher’s Weekly Chart, and 80th on the USA Today chart (USA Today mixes all categories). And Simon & Schuster was just informed that the New York Times list which will appear in the Sunday May 31st issue will rank Star Trek 15th for Paperback Trade Fiction. The last Star Trek novel to make the printed New York Times bestseller list was "Avenger" in 1997, by William Shatner (with Judy and Garflied Reeves-Stevens). Other Trek novels (and non-fiction) made the printed and ‘extended’ NYT lists in the 80s and 90s, so this is yet another indication that Star Trek is returning to its heyday.

"Star Trek" adaptation writer Alan Dean Foster is no stranger to the NYT list, but since their names also appear on the cover, Roberto Orci, & Alex Kurtzman will be able to add ‘New York Times bestselling author’ to their list of accolades. TrekMovie asked Bob Orci what he thought of the honor and he stated:

It shows you how far we have all fallen as a culture when the dopes that brought you Transformers could have their names on a best seller list. Talk about a parallel reality…Alan Dean Foster’s involvement must’ve made the difference!

Hopefully the popularity of the new "Star Trek" adaptation will increase awareness and interest in all of the Star Trek books, which come out at a frequency of about one per month. Of course fans are clamoring for new novels set around the continuity of the new Star Trek movie, but Pocket Books has yet to announce any. TrekMovie will be reporting on Pocket Books annual Star Trek presentation from the Shore Leave convention in July, where they will announce plans for 2010 and beyond, so keep an eye out for news on that front.

Available now in Trade Paperback and Audiobook
The "Star Trek" novelization is available now in trade paperback format and also an unabridged audiobook (on CD), read by Zachary Quinto.

 
"Star Trek" available at Amazon  (also on Kindle)


"Star Trek" audiobook available at Amazon

Limited edition signed hadcover coming June 8
There is also a limited edition hardcover version coming out on June 8th. Each book is signed by Alan Dean Foster and comes in a leather box with a numbered certificate of authenticity.


"Star Trek" collectors edition

The ‘collectors edition’ of "Star Trek" is available on June 8th and costs $35. You  can pre-order the book now at premierecollectibles.com.

Don’t forget Countdown
The "Star Trek" adaptation isn’t the only thing movie related item in book stores. If you want to get more backstory on Nero and Spock Prime, you should pick up the Star Trek Countdown comic trade paperback, which is a prequel to the Star Trek movie set in the Next Generation era after Star Trek Nemesis.

 
"Countdown (trade paperback)" is available at Amazon

Soundtrack too
And to complete your collection of Star Trek media, you can pick up the Michael Giacchino’s Star Trek Soundtrack, which is currently ranked as the 3rd best selling soundtrack at Amazon.

 
"Star Trek Soundtrack" is available at Amazon

Comments

1. somethoughts - May 21, 2009

I have to get my copy.

2. Captain Hackett - May 21, 2009

That is great news! I have already bought one and I am going to read it tomorrow. :)

3. RTC - May 21, 2009

Not one of the better movie adaptations, I’m afraid — surprising, given the author. But worth purchasing and reading.

4. Aqua - May 21, 2009

I have my copy, it’s as bad as the movie was good. They screw up the good lines in the movie, the storytelling was flat and uninteresting, and it doesn’t throw much enlightenment on the parts of the movie that the fast paced action didn’t permit it to address.

5. Aqua - May 21, 2009

Not only that, I’ve never seen a novelization of a movie flat out contradict a movie as frequently as this one, and not just in the minor details either. Some of the contradictions change the entire meaning of important scenes.

6. Rick Sternbach - May 21, 2009

When I and Mike Okuda wrote the TNG Tech Manual, it got onto a 1991 non-fiction NYT best seller list because it wasn’t exactly a written story, and for a very brief moment in time we outsold Stephen King and Tom Clancy. :)

7. MORN SPEAKS - May 21, 2009

I never “got” movie novelizations. Anyway, this has been stated before, but book companies and Paramount really dropped the ball on not having more book tie-ins like so many other movie franchises.

An art book, maybe a new chronology, or encyclopedia, or some sort of Trek 101 for newbies (there is one, but it’s not very good)

8. Bob Tudley - May 21, 2009

Why Premiere Collectibles for the Trek hardcover? You go to their website and it’s all stuff from political hacks whose fifteen minutes have been over for a while now. What’s the connection to Star Trek?

9. Valar1 - May 21, 2009

I saw one copy in WalMart the other day, I considered buying it, read one passage and found it fairly decent. I put it down to pay attention to my wife for just a sec and 10 mins later, after I attended to whatever she was going on and on about, it was gone. Some SOB has my copy, and I will find you.

10. JML9999 - May 21, 2009

I’m left with the impression ADF was given a way early draft and between rewrites and film editing explains the changes.

11. Brian from OR - May 21, 2009

I readed the adaptation really hoping that the scene with Nero escaping from Rura Penthe would be in the book. I was really disappointed when it was not included. I thought the adaption is priced too much for something that was just little bit over 275 pages. I was really hoping to have some of the questions that I had from the movie answered in the book, but no answers. One example was were where was Winona Kirk? (I know that Bob Orci answered that question with her being a Starfleet Officer and thats why she was off world.) It would have been nice to have a line about what happened to her in the book. Since ADF got a chance to see the movie earlier in the year, he really could have expanded details in the book. The one thing he did do well was describing more about Red Matter and how it works. I just feel that the adaptation is a little bit of a missed opportunity . It is a quick read for someone who does not have much to do for the day. The one thing I did like from the book was the ending.

***SPOILER ALERT***

I love the fact that Admiral Archer’s prized beagle reappears aboard the Enterprise at the end.

12. Daoud - May 21, 2009

Don’t forget too, Anthony, that the current edition of WIRED magazine guest edited by JJ has an excellent Comic Book that picks up with Spock on Delta Vega…. also a great addition to the movie adaptation for readers to enjoy. And written by K&O too… the art by Pope might throw some, but I think it adds a lot to the internal thoughts of Spock Prime.

13. Penhall99 - May 21, 2009

Awesome!

14. Ralph F - May 21, 2009

Yup, bought the Kindle edition as soon as it was available. Been telling my wife that the Alan Dean Foster signed edition would be an excellent Father’s Day gift.

I don’t think that a football is a very good Christmas present.

15. Ralph F - May 21, 2009

#6 – Rick/Congrats on that, eh. I remember that release was a big deal at my local Waldenbooks back in the day.

#7 – Morn Speaks. Wholeheartedly disagree with you re/movie novelizations; some of my favorite re-reads are film novelizations.

But also wholeheartedly agree with you re/lack of tie-in books, like:

“The Making of the Future: STAR TREK”
“The Art of STAR TREK”
“The STAR TREK Sketchbook”
“STAR TREK: The Illustrated Screenplay”

Most of these are cribbed from very much loved old STAR WARS book releases from back when. Oh, I forgot one:

“STAR TREK: SPLINTER OF THE VULCAN’S GLORY”

:-)

16. Fletch Gannon - May 21, 2009

A bit off topic but:

@6: Mr. Sternbach I just want you to know that I thought the TNG Tech Manual was incredible and I loved looking through it when I was a kid! It was a neat addition to watching the series knowing what the capabilities of the Enterprise-D were as I watched their adventures…

and…

@7: I agree that we should have had a tech manual of the new Enterprise…I want to know how many vats of Romulan Ale are being held in the engine room. Just a joke folks…IMHO, I think this new Enterprise is the best imagining since the D.

17. Ralph F - May 21, 2009

#5 – Aqua. Obviously you’ve never read 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. :) However, not really a novelization, per se, since it was written concurrently with the making of the film, if I recall my cinema history correctly.

18. Aqua - May 21, 2009

To Rick Sternbach, thank you EVER so much for writing the TNG tech manual :) I’m as much a techie as a trekkie and that book was like a gift from heaven. I just wish they had done that for each series.

19. Rick Sternbach - May 21, 2009

Well, kudos to Alan for the novelization, of course. Will have to congratulate him personally if I run into him at a local con.

20. Aqua - May 21, 2009

#17 – Ralph F. Actually, I have read it, but it’s been so long since I last saw it that I can’t make any comparison. If this novel really was written concurrently, I withdraw all my objections about it not squaring with the movie. I do maintain my objection that it was written flat and uninteresting in many parts, if if the writer either wasn’t experienced (and I know the writer is very experienced) or just wasn’t really paying attention to what was being written. It’s not often that I’ll have a harsh opinion of a trek book, but for this one I’m afraid I do.

21. Aqua - May 21, 2009

* as if, not if if

22. Charles Trotter - May 21, 2009

Alan Dean Foster did a good job with the adaptation for the most part, but he added some things that were redundant — like having characters state information that was stated just a page before or even just a few sentences prior, as in the Kobayashi Maru simulation. He also arranged scenes in a way that made no sense, like having Pike address the crew only after Sulu screws up (like he was expecting it to happen), and then tells Sulu to try again. So, yah, it was pretty flawed, but it was an entertaining read, nonetheless, and I’m happy that it’s made the best seller list. Congrats to all involved! Be great if they correct some of the flaws for the hardcover reprint, though. :)

23. CaptainDonovin - May 21, 2009

Won’t be getting the book myself but hopefully this will be good for the book side of Trek. The book store I frequent only has one shelf dedicated to Trek now, & I fear that will shrink as well.

I know some are hoping for a tech manual or Art Of tie in but from what I’ve heard they don’t sell well which is why you don’t see many of them from Trek. I hope this will change cause I would love something along those lines, especally something w/ specs on the space station & ships we saw.

24. VZX - May 21, 2009

That is a great book, Rick. If you do a Tech Manual for this new movie, how would you go about explaining the brewery in the engine room?

25. HPFangirl71 - May 21, 2009

I loved the movie but the plotline didnt sit right with me… dont think i’ll buy the new book for that reason, I dont understand how die hard trekkies can reconcile the messed up timeline in the movies with the timelines in the 10 previous movies and 5 series that had totally different historical timelines!! sorry if this spoils the book or movie for anyone but Kirks father didnt die, neither did spocks mother, or the entire planet of vulcan… the red matter could have been used to patch up the holes in the timeline and even saved Neros wife, child and homeworld… WTF people!! They wanted to conform to the non trekkie audience to make a different type of trek movie but they could have done it with a bit better homage to the original ideas the Gene had… he must be turning over in the heavens over this atrocity, sorry but thats my opinion of this book and the movie!!

26. Kirk=God - May 21, 2009

#24–in addition to it being just a more industrial look, had u ever considered that the brewery engine room is a nod to Scotty’s love of alcohol? LOL

10-to-1 says next movie we see a Starbucks on-ship as well as an Apple store and a Burger King xD

27. crazydaystrom - May 21, 2009

#17-
The 2001 novel was indeed written concurrently with the making of the film. If memory serves originally the book was to be credited ‘by Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick’ and the film ‘screenplay by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke’. Both were based on the short story The Sentinel by Arthur C. Clarke. Somewhere along the way Clarke ended up receiving sole credit for the novel but still shares screenplay credit with Kubrick.

and #6-
Mr. Sternbach, thank you, thank you thank you for all your contributions to Star Trek! I still have my first Wallaby 1980 edition of the Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology by Stan and Fred Goldstein and, as per the cover credit, Illustrated by the Brilliant Artist of the Space Age, Rick Sternbach! And the TNG Technical Manual by Sternbach and Okuda. I treasure them both!

28. S. John Ross - May 21, 2009

#24: I bet Scotty has it converted into a distillery by the next film.

And we’ve _already_ seen the Apple store :)

29. S. John Ross - May 21, 2009

(the above meant for #26 … d’oh)

30. Kirk=God - May 21, 2009

#28/#29-i meant an OFFICIAL Apple store not the iBridge LOL

31. S. John Ross - May 21, 2009

#30 – Maybe a NOKIA store as well :)

32. VulcanNonibird - May 21, 2009

The best Trek movie adaptions to date are those for Trek II and Trek III by Vonda N. McIntyre – they featured so much more than was in the movies. (HINT: Hire her for the next adaption!!!)

I’ve ordered a copy and mainly hope the Spock childhood scenes cut from the movie are inside….

33. Dennis T - May 21, 2009

So, will new novels set in the alternate Trek Universe be far off?

34. TomBot3000 - May 21, 2009

Oh, Vonda, if I rememer well, and I think I do, was a little darker and twisted in the adaptions, especially Wrath of Khan… I’m glad to hear Alan went into a little more detail on this Red Matter phenomenon.
:-)

35. MC1 Doug - May 21, 2009

#25: “I loved the movie but the plotline didnt sit right with me… dont think i’ll buy the new book for that reason, I dont understand how die hard trekkies can reconcile the messed up timeline in the movies with the timelines in the 10 previous movies and 5 series that had totally different historical timelines!!”

HPF, you do realize this TREK is an alternate timeline? Of course, every thing is different in this movie.

By the very fact that Nero–and his crew– destroyed the Kelvin, not to mention killed its Captain; killed Kirks’ father and countless other lives– and of course the worst action, the death of Vulcan– the course of history we know has been changed… It will be an interesting ride to see how Vulcan’s destruction will affect the future of the Federation.

The timeline we knew still exists, just not in this time frame.

The question remains, will the writers choose to plot a new course… or attempt to rectify the damage inflicted by Nero?

36. MC1 Doug - May 21, 2009

#26: and don’t forget they’ll surely have a Nokia kiosk on the rec deck.

37. pinky - May 21, 2009

What a confounding quote by Roberto Orci.

Is he suggesting that Transformers wasn’t garbage, because now they’ve written Star Trek? Or does he really think people are getting stupider? I mean, I understand he’s being sarcastic… but because Star Trek was decent does not make Transformers any better. It’s still garbage. I’m pretty sure Damon Lindelof had nothing to do with Transformers, either (you know, Lindelof, the unnamed assistant with the ST script?). Star Trek was a good movie and probably an even better book because the book will go at a reasonable pace and allow us to think and appreciate– but in no way does this mean anyone’s ‘fallen.’ In fact, it more correctly means that Orci & Kurtzman are rising. So good for them that they aren’t still writing Transformers-level sputum.

Still, a confounding statement.

38. MC1 Doug - May 21, 2009

#17: yeah and those readers of the novel 2001 will surely note the novel had the crew of Discovery going to Saturn, not Jupiter as it did in the movie.

From what I know of the making of the movie, Stanley Kubrick being the perfectionist that he was, was not satisfied with the Saturn created by his special effects crew, and as a result, they subsituted Jupiter instead… but by then it was too late to change this detail in Clarke’s novelization (this, long before the advent of desktop publishing where it would have been so easy to rectify).

39. chris fawkes - May 22, 2009

@9
Come and get me dude.

40. silverplated - May 22, 2009

i looove my tng tech manual!

41. sebimeyer - May 22, 2009

I would venture the guess that the lack of books, particularly non fiction books, are due to lack of Trek book sales during the last couple of years. If I remember correctly that was the reason why nonfiction Star Trek books were no longer published.

Would definitely be interesting to hear from some of the better known authors, such as the Reeves-Stevens duo, how they feel about the new movie. While it gives quite the jumpstart to Trek books, it is also set in a different timeline.

42. ucdom - May 22, 2009

Really?

I mean, REALLY????? FFS !!!

This book is DRIVEL.

What is astonishing, is that when you strip away the JJ gloss, visuals, pace, the VFX and the music, what you’re left with – the story – is desperately weak. And ADF does NOTHING to try and add to, or make sense of, the material. As several people have pointed out, he does some truly bizarre things with several scenes which, quite frankly, completely f**k them up.
This book provided the perfect opportunity to answer many of the questions that the movie leaves you with – such as the relationship between Spock and Nero in the future (in fact, all of the prequel comic), and the events that transpired during the ludicrous 25 years the Romulans are hanging about waiting for Spock. In fact, there’s a novel title… “Waiting for Spock”… take it away fans.

So, let’s list the cock ups (the big ones anyway).
(1) The line where we discover the background to Bones’ nickname is changed to “All I got left is the skeleton”. What????? Who would say that? All she left me is my bones – *that* sounds good. So, the reader is left wondering why he’s called Bones. Idiot.
(2) The scene where Kirk tells Bones he’s taking the KM test for a third time is missing.
(3) Page 72 – worst joke ever. “Jim, you’re incorrigible”. “No, I’m not, I’m in the assembly hall.” My god, this only needed, “Really, what is it?”, “It’s a big room full of people, but that’s not important right now” to be sub-Airplane! dialogue.
(4) Okay, the Commander Spork line is not bad. I smiled… slightly.
(5) Inflamed epididymis? Really? Did you not mean epidermis? Because the epididymis is in your testicles…
(6) #22 correctly observed that the Starbase departure scene is screwed up, with Pike giving his pep talk BETWEEN Sulu’s attempts to engage the warp drive, so…. what? if Sulu had gone to warp first time, there would have been no pep talk…?
(7) For a time travel story, there is no sense of TIME. The timing of Nero’s drilling, the onset of tectonic activity, the distress call, and the time taken for the Enterprise to arrive at Vulcan is completely glossed over – I have no feel of any real sequence of events here. It all seems to happen in the space of an hour or so, but surely Vulcan is several days from Earth at warp speed? So, the drill starts, and Vulcan sends a distress call talking about seismic disturbances, but Amanda only comes out onto the patio to see what’s going on when the Enterprise is under way. Was she asleep???
(8) Okay, the line about Pike’s dissertation on the Kelvin is removed from the early bar scene, so when Kirk refers to reading Pike’s dissertation after running onto the bridge for the first time, you think…. what??
(9) There is no fleshing out of emotions – you only get CAPITAL letters to tell you when people are shouting. It’s a book not a f******g text message.
(10) When the Enterprise arrives at Vulcan, Pike asks Uhura to get Starfleet command on subspace, and she replies that there is the signature of a plasma drill in the atmosphere (how does she know??). BUT, a few pages later, Pike asks AGAIN for a link to Starfleet, and Spock replies that comms are blocked by a high energy device in the atmosphere. So, first Pike forgot (in the space of a few minutes) that comms were out, and the others forgot it was a drill.
(11) We remain none the wiser as to why the drop team need advanced hand-to-hand combat skills? What makes them think the drill head is manned in the first place??
(12) There are a couple of moments where people call Kirk ‘Jim’ and it just sounds wrong. The first time is when Sulu and Kirk are stuck on the drill platform, and Sulu says, “Jim, get over here.” But they just met before the drop, and Sulu is (apparently) senior to Kirk, so surely he would call him ‘Kirk’ if anything. Way too personal.
(13) If you want to know what a black hole in a planet’s interior would do then read The Forge of God, not Star Trek. Utter bollocks.
(14) Chekov saying ‘toopik’, which (тупик) does indeed mean deadend, but makes NO SENSE.
(15) Actually, Spock uses an awful lot of contractions. Spock’s cadence sounds much better when he says “it is” instead of “it’s”, for example.
(16) So… which regulation pertains to being emotionally compromised? Because Kirk cites regulation 121 the first time he tries it (before being thrown off the ship… itself a STUPID diversion) and then it becomes regulation 619 when Spock Prime talks to him before returning to the ship.
(17) Spock refers to Kirk as Lieutenant Kirk, not Cadet Kirk, on page 168. What is he?
(18) The whole deal with Spock Prime on Delta Vega (which, FFS, should have been called Delta Vulcanis, to avoid an absolute sh*t-storm) is treated very confusingly. How long has he been there? Long enough, it seems to have visited the Federation outpost several times (and yet returned to live in an ice cave several km away?????!!!), saying he had been aware of the presence of Scotty on the base “for some time” but had avoided contact until Kirk arrived. And what about this….Scotty is said to know of Spock “as a hermit and occasional visitor to the outpost for supplies.” So…. you’re more or less alone on an ice planet, but someone shows up and starts nicking food, and you don’t speak to him..?????!!!

Oh god, I’ve lost the will to live. The whole denouement needs so much more explanation and rationalisation of character motives – it whips by too fast on screen to worry the viewer, but the reader need SOME meat on the bone.

Oh, and the last few lines with the dog, the best bit of the book.

I give it 2/10

43. S. John Ross - May 22, 2009

#42: Bear in mind that many of the “changes” in the novelization might well be accurate transcription from a shooting script.

Item (1) sounds like improvement to me, since the idea that Bones is called Bones for any reason other than the obvious (old nickname for a doctor, short for “sawbones”) is a little bit insulting to the audience to begin with. In the next movie, we’ll probably learn that Scotty is called Scotty not because he’s a Scot, but because of a dog he once had, hence his obsession with transporting the dogs of other people.

Item (3) sounds like Orci & Kurtzman to me, or Foster doing a savage imitation of them.

“it whips by too fast on screen to worry the viewer, but the reader need SOME meat on the bone.”

I think this nails the cosmic challenge that doing the novelization – especially on a tight deadline – must have been. The new Star Trek movie is, no question, an exciting romp and a thrill-ride and all those other advertising terms. But slow it down by any measure at all and it becomes just how much of a testament that is to the skills of the actors, director, editor, etc … (and, in fairness, to the writers as well, since they were presumably on board with the idea that the movie should whiz along like a rollercoaster, and scripted accordingly).

The novelization doesn’t have the luxury of just running the text past your eyes at Warp 6, and (apparently) Foster didn’t have the luxury of developing it on his own, either.

44. Dom - May 22, 2009

Nice to hear, in a way. I guess Mr Foster had very little time to pull the novelisation together and, let’s face it, the film had a pretty clear direction from the outset as the Abrams/Kurtzman/Orci team knew what they wanted to do.

Vonda McIntyre’s three novelisation, on the other hand, benefitted from STII’s multiple different script drafts from multiple different screenwriters. Also, Trek wan’t so bogged down with canon then. There’d been three TV seasons, one movie, a cartoon, a few novels and comics at that point so Vonda could pretty much write what she wanted without much fear of contradiction. Her descriptions of the Trek universe pretty much shaped how I saw the wider universe Kirk and his crew lived in. Also, she gave names and characters to the tragic crew of Regula-One and depicted their horrific deaths in detail.

Maybe the next novelisation of a Trek movie can go a little wilder with the backstory now the new universe is up and running, assuming there’s more time to write it!

45. ucdom - May 22, 2009

#43

I think you make a fair point about material inherited from the shooting script (which is more or less all we get anyway) and the lack of time that ADF had to work with.
I’m a scientist, and I’m accustomed to doing a lot of writing. Moreover, I’m also accustomed to doing peer reviews of other people’s manuscripts, so I’m quite hard on any logical inconsistencies.
At best, I can churn out about 20,000 words a month (that includes doing data analysis and producing illustrations). I don’t know how much time ADF had – several months? – so it should have been possible to either edit the script a whole lot better, or add a substantial amount of back-story.

I will be very interested in hearing other reader’s opinions.

46. Dom - May 22, 2009

45. If I remember correctly, ADF had about a month, tops, to pull the novelisation together.

47. Mr Lirpa - May 22, 2009

#43, err… Scotty’s probably nicknamed “Scotty” because his surname is Scott, just a thought.

48. greenappleman7 - May 22, 2009

Should I get it?

I’ll wait until I finish Last Olympian and see some reviews.

49. Holger - May 22, 2009

Wow! Congrats to Alan Dean Foster.

50. Capt Krunch - May 22, 2009

43
The “bones” reference has received applause and laughter evertime I have seen it so I don’t believe it is insulting at all, rather well intended.

spoiler:
Something else he didn’t mention..on the last page what just happens to materialize on the Enterprise transporter..that famous prize beagle…
have we explained if this is Porthos or some descendent…he’d be pretty darn old at this point..@100 years old if I do my math correctly…

I just don’t think he had much time to write properly…It seems like it was announced shortly before the release of the movie anyway…so some mistakes can be forgiven…

51. Kirk's Girdle - May 22, 2009

It seems the mediocre review the book got here on Trekmovie didn’t hurt it much.

52. The Original Animated Next Generation Deep Space Voyager Enterprise - May 22, 2009

For those of you a bit aghast by this happening are forgetting the most obvious thing: it’s called the Best SELLING List, not best QUALITY. It’s on the list for the simple fact it’s sold umpteenmillion copies, poof, there it is.

Just because something sells in mass quantities doesn’t necessarily mean it’s any good. Think about it; your typical Disney/MTV pop star sells millions of records every year while the really good albums by, say, an industrial metal band is lucky to make sales of half a million a year. Why is that? Because for the most part people are simpletons, and as the saying goes, sh*t attracts many flies.

No offense to anybody here…

53. NC Trekker - May 22, 2009

Foster’s Log series books, especially the ones where he expands the stories, were among my favorites growing up. I guess I had higher expectations for the new novelization. It was disappointing. To me, it read like an outline rather than a book. I would love to see what Foster would do if given free reign and more time.

54. Shadowcat - May 22, 2009

I think Scotty’s nickname came from taking the “y” from his first name which is Montgomery and adding to his last name Scott hence “Scotty”. Just my theory. I happened to enjoy the book. I do wish that Mr. Foster had some more time to “flesh” out the characters a bit more. Oh, and I loved the part at the end when Porthos beams abord the Enterprise.

55. mntrekfan - May 22, 2009

Does anyone recall that when Generations was put out, it had the original ending intended and then the movie writers rewrote the ending for the movie, and the author didn’t have time to correct it until the paperback came out

56. Dr. Image - May 22, 2009

Trek = Domination!
LONG overdue!!
Yaaay!

57. 16309A - May 22, 2009

#11 Archers dog reappeared? Where?? I missed it! I love the Archer reference in the new movie!!

58. Brian from OR - May 22, 2009

#57 It happens at the end of the adaptation. There is no actually scene in the movie with it reappearing. But it would been kind of funny if they actually did film it and put it after the credits. Kind of like what happened to the dog at the end of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest.

59. Brian from OR - May 22, 2009

#55 Yeah I remember that. I still have the hard cover book in my grand mother’s bookshelf. I remember the paper back having a sticker on saying it was updated or something along the lines of that.

60. ucdom - May 22, 2009

#58

Yeah, I would’ve loved that. Could still be done for DVD release….*cough* JJ?

61. Unbel1ever - May 22, 2009

#60

I was hoping for that at the end of the credits, too. Alas, it didn’t happen.

62. sean - May 22, 2009

#43

I think you’re making a considerable assumption when you say the audience would be familiar with the ‘old sawbones’ origin of McCoy’s nickname. Most people I know had no idea that’s where it came from, and every time I’ve seen the movie (3 times now) that particular line about ‘everything but my bones’ gets a massive laugh/cheer from the audience. I was familiar with it because I looked into it ages ago, but no, I guarantee you the majority of the audience are totally oblivious. And why shouldn’t they? It hasn’t been in common use for ages.

Personally, I found the change very satisfying because it worked in fanon elements of McCoy’s backstory that a lot of us have held for years now. And rather than Kirk being a master at a Jeopardy category (Nicknames from the 1800′s, Alex), it’s a sign of personal affection between the two men.

63. Bart - May 22, 2009

44:

Dom, you are so right about Vonda McIntyre’s II and III novels. I can’t stress this enough; if you haven’t read them, drop everything you’re doing now and go find them. They both added soooo much to the story. The unseen days between II and III are packed with great scenes. By the time the movie actually begins in the “Search For Spock” novel, I think you’re past page 100 in the book. The minor characters are so fleshed out.

BUY IT!!!!

64. S. John Ross - May 22, 2009

#62: “I think you’re making a considerable assumption when you say the audience would be familiar with the ‘old sawbones’ origin of McCoy’s nickname.”

Fair point, but if I’m going to err, I’d rather err on the side of giving the audience more credit than less.

(and mea culpa on Scotty, but the point stands even if I should have constructed the example at a saner hour) :)

65. Colonel West - May 22, 2009

[quote]Bob Orci:

It shows you how far we have all fallen as a culture when the dopes that brought you Transformers could have their names on a best seller list. Talk about a parallel reality…Alan Dean Foster’s involvement must’ve made the difference![/quote]
—————————————————————————————————

Now that is how you make a sarcastic, pithy joke! Excellent work Mr.Orci!

That has to go on the back cover for the reprint!

66. braxus - May 22, 2009

I was planning on getting my copy and saw it recently in the book store. But up here in Canada they want $20 for the book which is a bit steep for a paperback. I’ll probably still get it, but that price is a bit much.

67. ucdom - May 22, 2009

#64

I have to say, I ALWAYS thought it was a given that Bones came from the Sawbones nickname given to the old naval surgeons. You can vaguely imagine a 23rd century youth not knowing that (although he scatters models of wooden sailing ships around his apartment 25 years later), so the “left with nothing but my bones” is pretty creative and fun. All the more bewildering that book cocks it up. Skeleton….. Jesus H. Christ…..

68. Danpaine - May 22, 2009

#52 – RIGHT ON.

This topic and the topic on the Blu-Ray DVD movie releases have cracked me up over the past couple of days.

The book wasn’t very good, “But…”

The DVD’s weren’t (for the most part) rendered as well as they could have been, “But…”

“But because it says Star Trek on it, we’ll buy it anyway.”

Well, NO, I won’t. You can’t polish a turd, folks.

69. Holger - May 22, 2009

49 (my own): Oh, and congrats to Orci & Kurtzman, too. It wasn’t Foster’s work alone.

70. trekboi - May 22, 2009

i was excited to see the adaption on the shelf till i saw it had no pictures and no “making of” section… might get it later…

71. Eli - May 22, 2009

so when are we gonna be able to download the warp screensaver from the official movie website?

72. Capt. Robau Is Kirk's Father - May 22, 2009

Wonder how much more control Paramount exercises over Trek novelizations now than they did when Vonda was writing hers. They were full of interesting details, which were either her own invention or from earlier screenplay drafts.

73. THX-1138 - May 22, 2009

ADF novelization is all well and good. But let’s get the “Making of..” and “Art of..” books out please. I want a tech manual for the altered universe.

74. Robert Gillis - May 22, 2009

The soundtrack is wonderful, and the first one I picked up since First Contact.

75. Star Trackie - May 22, 2009

#43 “Most people I know had no idea that’s where it came from, and every time I’ve seen the movie (3 times now) that particular line about ‘everything but my bones’ gets a massive laugh/cheer from the audience. ”

It’s a great line, but there is no real indication that Kirk calls him bones because of that. Remember, Jim Kirk is an avid fan of American history, in fact, in Spectre of the Gun we learn Kirk has a fondness for America’s wild west. Kirk would be very familiar with the old term “Sawbones” and the fact is, in the “prime” timeline, he called McCoy “sawbones”. I just look at McCoy’s line as being a great line and commentary about his divorce, not the origin of his nickname. As far as I’m concerned, Kirk called the doc “Bones” because he was an old fashioned, country doctor.

76. Capt Krunch - May 22, 2009

I wish DK pub would do the visual dictionary and cutaway books for Trek that they do for Star Wars…those books are awesome!

Maybe they could add the beagle scene in the dvd release…..

77. AJ - May 22, 2009

73:

THX

I’m waiting for those as well. I’d like to read the rationalizations for all the designs (brewery, nacelles, etc), and a bit more info on the creation of the Narada. Also, the design of the earth landscapes in both Iowa and California are interesting.

But there has to be a good market for it. We may not see it until after ST13 (uh oh, now THERE’S an odd number to fear).

78. S. John Ross - May 22, 2009

#75 says: “It’s a great line, but there is no real indication that Kirk calls him bones because of that.”

No explicit indication, anyway, which (I agree) provides enough wiggle-room.

“Remember, Jim Kirk is an avid fan of American history”

Prime Kirk was. We honestly have very little idea of what this alternate Kirk is an avid fan of, apart from women and fighting (fast cars? Nokia? Jack Daniels? spilling salt? glowing with a sense of entitlement?) … the interest in American history might well have been something his father instilled in him, once upon a timeline.

“As far as I’m concerned, Kirk called the doc “Bones” because he was an old fashioned, country doctor.”

I think that’s a healthy way to look at it.

79. S. John Ross - May 22, 2009

#67: “All the more bewildering that book cocks it up.”

We have no specific reason to assume that the book _did_ cock it up. That might be the line as it was written in the script (it may have been Orci & Kurtzman’s idea of what subtlety is like).

80. sean - May 22, 2009

#64

Yeah, but the Scotty example is a bit daft, isn’t it? There’s a huge difference between Bones and Montgomery Scott, a Scot, being called ‘Scotty’. I don’t think anyone ever imagined a different explanation for that nickname.

If you served in the Navy back in the day, or were a surgeon, yeah, you might know the term. But the general public? I don’t think so. It’s a niche colloquialism, at best. Most people don’t concern themselves with etymology. Word lovers, sure, but I’d say most don’t have to the time to track down origins (think of O’Brien trying to explain ‘burning the midnight oil’ to Data).

#75

You’re thinking of the Prime Kirk, though. We don’t have any evidence American History is a hobby of this Kirk. I’d wager most people would have walked away from the Kirk-McCoy scene thinking that’s the origin of the nickname.

81. AJ - May 22, 2009

Don’t forget, “Star Trek” is a child of the 1960′s when Westerns ruled on TV. I think the average person would get ‘Bones’ as a reference to a country doctor, as it was probably common parlance on the tube at the time.

82. Unbel1ever - May 22, 2009

As I have read the book before seeing the movie, I have to say, I was positively surprised by the film. There was one scene in particular, that troubled me. Spock essentially torturing a Romulan, which has been replaced in the movie by the mind melt. I would have liked to see the Spock fighting scene though. I didn’t like the phaser fight, that replaced it. It looked wrong… more like kids playing laser tag than anything else.

I felt for what little time ADF had to write this book and how little the story provides for insight with its logical errors, plot holes and killing Trek constants, he did a pretty good job. As you read it, you feel the strain. You see where he tries to explain away certain issues, but simply can’t.
It feels to me, that ADF is more of an old school Trek author. He approaches this book as a ordinary ST novel, which it isn’t. The story would have needed massive background information from Bob and Alex, which they either were not able to provide or didn’t want to in the first place. Had I have been tasked to write it, I would have been utterly lost. Much of the details don’t make any sense in the world of Star Trek as it previously existed. But these details make it easier for an author to write a story around the story. I mean things like the Enterprise barely making warp 4, when a ship with the same name barely a century earlier already made warp 5. So a reference in this direction with regard to Archer was already killed by sloppy research. Now, without being able to draw from the original universe ADF had to try and find a solution himself. Given the time constraints he failed, but that’s hardly his fault.

Next time more effort needs to be put in the details. The truly great movies all have that love for details. Like e.g. Lord of the Rings.

83. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - May 22, 2009

75. Star Trackie:

Ya know it could be because of both. ;)

84. S. John Ross - May 22, 2009

#80: Yes, it was a bit daft; I’ve already “mea culpa’ed” it, above. But my use of ironic overstatement wasn’t accidental and may be read as further commentary on the film ;)

#82: “[...] which has been replaced in the movie by the mind melt. ”

God, man; that’s the entire film (and I say that with affection).

85. 16309A - May 22, 2009

Oh, and that soundtrack is awful!

86. sean - May 22, 2009

#84

Fair enough, though I still maintain ‘Old Sawbones’ is no longer a common phrase, and the confusion over it would be understandable.

87. Unbel1ever - May 22, 2009

#84

Subconscious typo ? Who knows !

88. Closettrekker - May 22, 2009

#43—”In the next movie, we’ll probably learn that Scotty is called Scotty not because he’s a Scot…”

Wouldn’t it have been more likely a play off of his actual name—Montgomery Scott?

89. Craiger - May 22, 2009

Anthony, just curious now that the new movie has premiered didn’t you say that after that TrekMovie would become TrekHQ? I could be wrong on that. Is this still happening and when would that take place? Or are you going to keep the TrekMovie name? Thanks, Craig.

90. Closettrekker - May 22, 2009

S. John Ross, I see I came in late and started beating a dead horse!

Sorry…

91. Closettrekker - May 22, 2009

#82—”I didn’t like the phaser fight, that replaced it. It looked wrong… more like kids playing laser tag than anything else.”

I loved that scene, as Kirk and Spock were genuinely surprised and startled to find themselves having beamed into the midst of Romulan adversaries, as opposed to a more discreet locale aboard the Narada. The phaser fight was impromptu and terrific, IMO.

“There was one scene in particular, that troubled me. Spock essentially torturing a Romulan, which has been replaced in the movie by the (mind meld).”

Glad we didn’t have to see that. That would have been particularly distasteful, given some of the more pressing ethical issues regarding interrogation right now. I can even see how the emotionally compromised Spock might do it— holding Nero and his men accountable for Amanda’s death—-but this would have been the wrong time to test those boundaries with the character, IMO.

92. Tog - May 22, 2009

Must see news break from who else but ST Fans! Funny…

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film

93. Homeworld - May 22, 2009

#10: I think you nailed it.

Orson Scott Card, Terry Brooks, and others have all blasted the movie novelization route. The novelizers (let’s face it, they aren’t really the writers) have to be given early drafts simply because the proof/print/production lead time means they have to be finished long before the movie goes to final edit. Further, studios aren’t always the best at keeping their novelizers apprised of changes. Even worse, the novelizers have to seek approval on any changes or expansions within the story, and the studio/producers/screenwriters are often reluctant to give it.

I have mixed feelings on ADF’s own work, but in this case I suspect he did the best he could — and possibly the best he was allowed to.

The positive examples of Card’s extensive input into THE ABYSS and Brooks’ into, uh… PETER PAN (w/Robin Williams), I think, were complete anomalies.

94. roy - May 22, 2009

#25, So what if they wanted to confirm the movie to a non-trekkie audience. There is nothing wrong with that as it expands the audience who become receptive to Star Trek on the big screen over time. As for your comments, I hope you realise the Star Trek movie is for entertainment value and not meant to be confused with reality.

95. BS DETECTOR - May 22, 2009

When Kirk is born, it is 2233.04. Wrong from Kirk’s birthdate (according to canon) at 2231. Nero had nothing to do with that! Also, when the enterprise has its first mission, it is 2258, making Kirk just 15 years old. Chekov is 17! that makes Chekov two years older than kirk. So are you telling me that the kirk we see in the film is just 15 years old? So Star fleet is full of just TEENAGERS? Not since WW2 has anyone enlisted at a falsified age and that was just 16 years old! BULLSHIT MAN. BAD, BAD, STORY WRITING!

96. 21st May Shakuntala (Star One) Part 3 of 3 - www.bollyzone.tv | Funkvid Funzone - May 22, 2009

[...] “Star Trek” Adaptation Makes New York Times Bestseller List … [...]

97. Unbel1ever - May 22, 2009

#91

The surprise was still in the scene, but it wasn’t a phaser fight but Spock showing kick ass martial arts.

98. Christine - May 22, 2009

Time to go to Borders! :D

99. RED9 - May 22, 2009

The book SUCKS! So many inaccuracies, so much out of order, so many things wrong. The book was forced down ADF’s throat, rushed to finish, and then rushed to print. The book was based off of a first draft, not the final draft. Dont believe me? Check out the Yahoo! Groups Star Trek Books club, which houses many Trek authors.

The book SUCK!

100. Unbel1ever - May 22, 2009

#95

Erm, 2258-2233 = 25

101. Richard Daystrom - May 22, 2009

I know this isn’t part of this thread but I feel I have to say something about the new poll asking about “the villain” for the sequel. Why in the hell does it have to be a villain?? How about none of the above and a kick ass story about where no one has gone before?? Or do the movies have to have a villain to make a profit??

102. Unbel1ever - May 22, 2009

#101

Well, the movie clearly indicates, that we won’t be seeing any peaceful exploration anytime soon. I mean, Spock is mercyless and Kirk fires on an in his opinion already dead vessel. This alternate reality is more like the evil mirror universe than the prime.

103. Mazzer - May 22, 2009

You have to admire someone who can take such a shallow story and make over 200 pages of it, especially if it doesn’t cover stuff that isn’t in the script. The story clearly worked for a popcorn flick, but a book is another matter… good job ADF!

104. Capt. Robau Is Kirk's Father - May 22, 2009

Could someone have come in to polish the script after Orci / Kurtzmann?

105. spockatatic - May 22, 2009

I have several audiobooks read by various people, and I’ve heard the preview of this one, but I must say that Leonard Nimoy has done the best job with this. He sounds as if he is actually talking to you. William Shatner… great as Captain Kirk, not so much as an audiobook narrator.

106. Paulaner - May 22, 2009

So we have a blockbuster movie and a bestseller book? Wow, Trek is on steroids!

107. sean - May 22, 2009

#95

You seem to be having trouble with basic math.

2258 – 15 = 2243. Not the year this film takes place.

2258 – 2233 = 25 years.

Since Kirk’s birthdate was *never* mentioned on screen previously, there’s no canon to break with. Besides, the ST Chronology always pinpointed it as 2233. I don’t know where you’re getting 2231 from.

108. sean - May 22, 2009

#102

What a load of nonsense. Kirk destroyed the Narada so Nero couldn’t escape through time again, not to mention putting the crew of the Narada out of their misery (why let them slowly suffer as they descend into the black hole?). It’s not exactly the first time he’s done such a thing, unless we all want to forget the boot to the head he gave Kruge in Star Trek III. And please point out what Star Trek movie *has* been about exploration? Even TMP wasn’t.

109. S. John Ross - May 22, 2009

#108:

“Kirk destroyed the Narada so Nero couldn’t escape through time again [...]”

The black hole was tearing the ship apart and rendering it powerless. Kirk said explicitly that he felt Narada couldn’t survive.

“[...] not to mention putting the crew of the Narada out of their misery (why let them slowly suffer as they descend into the black hole?).”

Nothing said on-screen suggests that this is the case, and unless you think Kirk was lying or mistaken, he felt that the Enterprise could render aid, and said so.

“It’s not exactly the first time he’s done such a thing, unless we all want to forget the boot to the head he gave Kruge in Star Trek III.”

As long as we’re remembering it, let’s remember that it was so dramatic precisely because it was exceptional.

What bothers me most about the treatment of the Narada and her crew is the way it’s staged, with the conversation between Kirk and Spock where Kirk explicitly labels his olive branch as “compassion” and Spock makes it very plain that he is – on this occasion – opposed to compassion (implicitly: because Nero killed his Mommy).

What we get … or at least, one legit interpretation of what we get, is three people acting out of vengeance: Kirk lost his da-da, Spock lost his ma-ma, and Nero lost his family and his world. All three men, ultimately, make life-or-death choices about others, in every case voting “death.” But because Kirk & Spock do it at the end, it’s supposed to be a good thing, with a thin justification based on Nero being prideful and slapping Kirk’s offer away (Nero’s crew might well have felt differently, and even then, Nero wasn’t in a position to make the call at that point).

Now, to be clear, I’m not rejecting the events, per se, just the staging of them and the character’s attitudes toward them: The destruction of the Narada _could_ have been presented as a tragedy. It could have been presented as a necessary, but terrible, consequence of Nero’s senseless crusade of vengeance. But instead, Spock’s rejection of Kirk’s gesture of compassion is basically presented as a joke (and painfully: it works as one – the audience laughed at the screening I saw), and the destruction of Narada and crew presented as a cheer-and-smile moment, complete with Kirk’s response of “you got it” to Nero stating he’d prefer to die in agony. Yay, agony.

BobOrci has said here (and I agree with him) that this film didn’t need “moralizing.” I have no argument against that; it’s a sensible choice. But a film can be moral _without_ moralizing, and – at least at the ending, arguably – this film was anything but. It’s very easy to see a “it’s okay when the White Hats do it; it’s only bad when the Black Hats do it” version of “morality” in the film’s ending action bits. Of course, as you’ve demonstrated, it can also be interpreted differently.

“And please point out what Star Trek movie *has* been about exploration? Even TMP wasn’t.”

Indeed, none have, though we’ve had a few, at least, that dealt with “new life and new civilizations,” and it might be nice to see some of that.

110. ucdom - May 22, 2009

#109

Agree completely. You’re a very sensible chap; are you sure you’re a trekkie….

duck and cover

111. S. John Ross - May 22, 2009

#110 “Agree completely. You’re a very sensible chap; are you sure you’re a trekkie….”

I have a toy tribble.

112. ucdom - May 23, 2009

I have a real tribble

Next…..

;-)

113. Holger - May 23, 2009

101 Richard Daystrom: I agree 100%. The TV shows worked well without a villain of the week, even TOS did not feature many real villains.
But it seems to be a requirement in cinema to have a personified evil in order to make movies more exciting. That was the reason why the inconsistent Borg Queen concept was introduced in FC, for example. I doubt that we will see a sequel movie without an evil villain the audience is supposed to focus negative emotions on.

114. Charles Trotter - May 23, 2009

42. ucdom

Yeah, I’m gonna have to agree with you on all points there. Having had the chance to read over it again, and looking over your points, I have to say it is not a very well-written book. I mean, Foster throws in some good details here and there, but the majority of the book is flawed, nonsensical, and contradictory. Apparently, whoever was responsible for editing the book was asleep at the job. I’m really hoping the book’s screw-ups are fixed for the collector’s release in July. It’s a bit late for the general public, though; they’re being exposed to this book and are no doubt going, “what the f***?”

Overall, I give the book a 4/10. Actually, I’ll give it 4 1/2 for that last bit with the beagle reappearing. That was pretty funny.

115. Charles Trotter - May 23, 2009

And why the heck was Foster given so little time to write the book? Why didn’t they approach him earlier? And if he was busy, why not give it to someone else? Oy!

116. ucdom - May 23, 2009

#114, 115

Absolutely, I agree completely. I’m a fan of Foster’s – I loved his sci-fi comedy involving a space-ship crashing on an ice planet; I forget what it was called.
I think he had waaaaaaaaay too little time, and source material which was poor, possibly self contradictory, even baffling at best. Before I became a scientist, I spent my youth writing novels and film scripts – I KNOW I could make a decent book out of this story. I’d probably need to spend six months straight (which I do not have) on it.

One wonders what would have happened if the movie was released last Christmas. Perhaps someone would have photocopied the script a couple of hundred thousand times and sellotaped them together with a couple of bits of card then thrown ‘em at bookshelves saying, f**k it, too late. Guess we’re lucky to get anything.

117. Closettrekker - May 23, 2009

#95—-”When Kirk is born, it is 2233.04. Wrong from Kirk’s birthdate (according to canon) at 2231. ”

There is no canonical entry regarding Kirk’s birthdate. We only know that he is 34 years of age in the episode “The Deadly Years”. However, all we know about that episode’s placement in the timeline is that it takes place prior to 2270 and post 2265 (according to VOY’s “Q2″).

“Also, when the enterprise has its first mission, it is 2258, making Kirk just 15 years old… Chekov is 17… So Star fleet is full of just TEENAGERS?”

I have to question your mathematics. Since Kirk is born in 2233 (perfectly legitimate, canonically), he is 25 years old in 2258.

Chekov is 22 years old in the episode “The Apple”, which also must take place prior to 2270 and after 2265 (prime). This is the only canonical contradiction with regard to the age of any of the characters.

Basically, Orci and Kurtzman have retconned VOY’s notion that the (prime) 5-year mission ends in 2270. It must now have ended quite a bit earlier—-since Chekov is 17 in 2258, the events depicted in “The Apple” must take place in 2263 (prime). Otherwise, Chekov is not being honest when he claims his age is 22 in response to Captain Kirk’s question.

I think that Orci was either unaware of the dialogue in “Q2″ that pinned down the time period of the original 5 year mission, or he willfully ignored it in an attempt to give teens in the audience a character with which to identify (artistic license). Either way, it doesn’t matter. The latter canonical entry (ST09) supercedes the previous one (VOY “Q2″). Chekov is 17 in 2258.

This is, at best, a minor retcon…and future trivia fodder. Chekov being 22 at any point during the original 5 year mission was never exactly critical to anything in the Star Trek mythos. Who really cares?

118. sean - May 23, 2009

#109

“The black hole was tearing the ship apart and rendering it powerless. Kirk said explicitly that he felt Narada couldn’t survive.”

And how was Kirk to know if Nero had some sort of escape device? He couldn’t, and thus I say it still holds up. Nero and his crew had just committed genocide and threatened to spread death to every Federation planet. He had tricked 2 previous captains with offers of a cease fire – who’s to say the minute the Enterprise pulled in with shields down to transport the crew aboard that Nero wouldn’t simply use his remaining power to open fire?

“Nothing said on-screen suggests that this is the case, and unless you think Kirk was lying or mistaken, he felt that the Enterprise could render aid, and said so.”

Yes, and said aid was wholeheartedly rejected by the Narada’s captain. Given the crew’s willing complicity in his genocidal acts, why should Kirk expect a different answer from anyone else on board? So again, why let the crew slowly meet their fate in the black hole when you can put them out of their misery?

“As long as we’re remembering it, let’s remember that it was so dramatic precisely because it was exceptional.”

I don’t think it was all that exceptional, really. Kirk always did what he thought was necessary. Couldn’t the Enterprise & Excelsior have offered assistance to Chang & crew? They had no shields, and were obviously disabled, Instead, both captains decided to pummel the ship until it was dust. And Chang was guilty of far less than Nero.

“Spock makes it very plain that he is – on this occasion – opposed to compassion (implicitly: because Nero killed his Mommy).”

That’s a very simple interpretation, and ignores the fact that Nero had also very nearly ended his civilization (and came damn close to doing the same to Earth). Death on that scale is bound to make even the most logical Vulcan a bit compromised.

Of course, this ignores the fact that the first time we ever see Spock & Kirk together (in WNMHGB), Spock ‘logically’ recommends murdering Gary Mitchell before he’s even done anything wrong. He does so because he foresees what Mitchell has the potential to do, and I don’t think it’s a massive leap that he might conclude Nero is equally dangerous and beyond rehabilitation.

“and the destruction of Narada and crew presented as a cheer-and-smile moment, complete with Kirk’s response of “you got it” to Nero stating he’d prefer to die in agony. Yay, agony.

It’s very easy to see a “it’s okay when the White Hats do it; it’s only bad when the Black Hats do it” version of “morality” in the film’s ending action bits.”

I remember people cheering when Kirk kicked Kruge in the face as well as when he destroyed Chang & crew. I even remember cheers when Picard snapped the neck of the then helpless Borg Queen.

People like to root for the hero and boo the bad guy. Life isn’t that simple, but movies often are, which is part of why we enjoy them.

119. S. John Ross - May 23, 2009

#118: “People like to root for the hero and boo the bad guy. Life isn’t that simple, but movies often are, which is part of why we enjoy them.”

We agree that this movie is ideal for the morally … simple.

120. sean - May 23, 2009

#119

I’ll say this for you, you’re consistent. ;)

That aside, is there something inherently wrong with simplicity? I wouldn’t necessarily want every Trek story to have such a basic premise, but at the same time I don’t see an issue with this one being that way. Frankly, I welcomed the lack of complexity here, especially since this is an origin story and it would be an easy enough task to lose the audience should the story get mired down in Trek’s special brand of ‘pop philosophy’. The purpose of this film was to reignite excitement for Trek not only among a splintered fanbase but among the public at large. From what I can see, it has accomplished that task. We have plenty of time to raise complex moral questions in the sequel.

121. S. John Ross - May 23, 2009

#120: “That aside, is there something inherently wrong with simplicity?”

Not at all. I generally prefer things “lean and purposeful” when it comes to fiction.

“Frankly, I welcomed the lack of complexity here, especially since this is an origin story and it would be an easy enough task to lose the audience should the story get mired down in Trek’s special brand of ‘pop philosophy’.”

I agree; that’s why I also agree with Orci that the film needed no moralizing.

“From what I can see, it has accomplished that task.”

I haven’t seen any evidence either way, yet … a summer popcorn movie selling tickets (and, presumably, popcorn) really doesn’t say anything except that the film itself is successful. Time will tell if it endures in any way in the public memory, or just evaporates like similar summer fare (and I think while the Abrams approach has proven itself commercially, there does remain that lingering risk: When Star Trek is made to be just like everything else, it stands to be just as forgettable).

“We have plenty of time to raise complex moral questions in the sequel.”

Sure, but I’m not proposing that this film should have raised moral questions, just that the characters themselves could have been presented as moral without in any way damaging the film. As I said in my longer, prior post: I have no real issue with the events, with the killing of Nero and Narada’s crew … but rather with the presentation of the events and the characters’ attitudes about them. There is a serious difference between killing a villain because it must be done, with the full drama of that choice on-screen … and killing a villain with an airy in-your-face wisecrack about causing agony and a jolly good joke between man and Vulcan about silly old compassion.

As you say, some of us go to the movies to root for the hero. Me too. Imagine my disappointment.

122. sean - May 24, 2009

#121

Matter of perspective, certainly, but I see no difference between the exchange Kirk & Spock share prior to sending Nero to his fate than Kirk joyously ordering ‘FIRE!’ to send Chang to hell (re-watch that scene in TUC and tell me Kirk isn’t relishing that moment), nor from his final, staggered declaration to Kruge – I. HAVE HAD. ENOUGH. OF. YOU. Or even Data’s ‘Resistance is FUTILE!’ before delivering the death blow to the Borg Queen.

Bottom line – Nero made his choice when he decided to slaughter billions. There’s no coming back from that, no act of redemption. The only villain that even comes close in terms of the destruction they brought about was the Borg Queen, and I didn’t see anyone considering mercy for her. Kirk offered to help and Nero spat in his face. Kirk said fine, let’s get this over with. I see nothing unheroic there.

123. Unbel1ever - May 24, 2009

#108

Bob says, that’s the reason Kirk destroys the Narada. It’s not clear from the movie. Ask anyone, who doesn’t know this, what he/she thinks the reason for the destruction of the Narada is. I’d bet, that one won’t come up.
I never said there was any peaceful exploration before, I was merely responding to #101.
What you’re saying is, that Kirk finished Nero of, so he would not have to suffer – I’d say the black hole is way faster in killing you, than any weapon we could ever built. Also I don’t buy risking your ship and crew simply to kill someone, who’s already dying. There is one word for it: stupid
This has nothing to do with morale. It’s simple reason.

124. sean - May 24, 2009

#123

He didn’t risk his ship by destroying Nero. I’m not sure where you’re getting that from. And I clearly can’t speak for everyone, but the friends I saw the movie with thought it was pretty obvious that Kirk couldn’t just leave Nero there. (“You don’t want help? Well alrighty then, let’s get out of here. Gee, sure hope that bad guy doesn’t figure out a way to get out of there!”).

As for the black hole being fast – in the movie the ship is clearly struggling within it, and there’s enough time for crew to scamper about and for Nero to have a conversation with Kirk over the viewer. Once Kirk fired, it was all over. Seems much faster to me.

125. S. John Ross - May 24, 2009

#121: “Matter of perspective, certainly, but I see no difference [...]”

We agree that you see no difference, and we further agree that it is a matter of perspective. If we agreed much more it’d be a romance.

126. Unbel1ever - May 24, 2009

#124

Well, the risk is obviously being sucked into the black hole by staying there. The Enterprise barely escapes after all.
If we assume Nero had a way out, than why does Kirk say to Nero, that he can’t survive without help. Either he doesn’t believe it and just says it to sway Nero, or he is a moron. There is no evidence either way, but that could easily have been added in the short talk with Spock.
You said it yourself, Nero is talking with Kirk – he doesn’t suffer ! As soon as the Narada finally loses the battle with the black hole his death would have been instant. I would say firing on the ship is also fast, but not as fast and certainly not mercyful.

This scene is the only one, I absolutely disliked in the movie. It’s not logical and wasted potential. I would have liked to see Kirk and the E fight it out against a damaged, but still threatening Narada. Khan-style. That would have been consistent and way more exciting than the black hole escape with yet another warp core ejection. Just my opinion. You don’t have to agree.

127. S. John Ross - May 24, 2009

#124: “I would say firing on the ship is also fast, but not as fast and certainly not mercyful.”

As near as I can guess, the _real_ reason Kirk has the Enterprise open fire (doublespeak to the contrary) is that, without that, he plays basically no role in the final defeat of Nero. Spock flew the Jellyfish, the Jellyfish rammed the Narada and the resulting mess of “Red Matter” (I giggle every time I type that) is what undoes Nero’s career of feasting on the scenery.

So my impression here, is that the real-world reason, the meta-reason if you will, is simply to give Kirk something – anything – to actually do as Spock wins the fight for him.

128. sean - May 24, 2009

#124

“Well, the risk is obviously being sucked into the black hole by staying there. The Enterprise barely escapes after all.”

Isn’t the Enterprise where it is because he was offering assistance (not to mention they’d just beamed Kirk, Spock & Pike aboard)? He didn’t move in closer to fire, he simply fired from where he already was. There’s no increased risk to the ship by firing at that point.

“If we assume Nero had a way out, than why does Kirk say to Nero, that he can’t survive without help. Either he doesn’t believe it and just says it to sway Nero, or he is a moron. There is no evidence either way”

Wouldn’t it be complete foolishness on Kirk’s part to completely discount the possibility of Nero escaping? He *thinks* Nero is helpless, but he can’t *know* he is. Thus the order to fire.

“You said it yourself, Nero is talking with Kirk – he doesn’t suffer !”

The suffering I’m referring to is the anticipation of death. I’m not saying being sucked into a black hole is some kind of torturous experience in a physical sense. But slowly watching as the ship writhed and shuddered around you would probably not be great fun for his crew. And obviously Nero didn’t suffer – he was clearly at peace with what he’d done in the end, wrong or not. Again, this was about putting them out of their misery.

“I would say firing on the ship is also fast, but not as fast and certainly not mercyful”

So you’re saying if Kirk hadn’t fired, the ship would somehow have been destroyed faster? That simply doesn’t match what’s depicted on screen (nor does it make much sense). The ship was slowly circling the drain until Kirk fires and puts an end to it. Clearly, firing on the ship hastened its journey, and was more merciful that allowing it to slowly collapse.

129. sean - May 24, 2009

#125/127

That completely discounts the fact that it’s Kirk’s plan to begin with, and that he saved Pike and wasted Ayel. I don’t see any reason (even a meta reason) why he would have needed the death blow to somehow justify his place in the fight.

And it’s ‘bromance’ my friend! ;)

130. S. John Ross - May 24, 2009

#129: “That completely discounts the fact that it’s Kirk’s plan to begin with [...]”

Indeed it does, and indeed I do (and once again I’m reminded of Orci’s promise that this film wouldn’t depend on the traditional “crutches of sci-fi,” and to wonder if “the white hats win a fight they can’t really win because they have a supply of the Plot Substance” doesn’t qualify as one of the dozens of such crutches on parade in this thing) … But I also think the entire film wasted Ayel. Have you seen “Sunshine Cleaners?” That man can seriously act when given an opportunity.

“I don’t see any reason (even a meta reason) why he would have needed the death blow to somehow justify his place in the fight. ”

Nor do I. I didn’t mean to suggest that the reason was sensible or justifiable. But it remains my best guess as to what the corporate movie-think may have been.

“And it’s ‘bromance’ my friend! ;)”

Depends entirely on how far we go with it!

131. Rick James - May 25, 2009

Mr. Sternbach: Your TNG tech manual is one of my favorite Trek manuals. My copy sits next to a copy of the Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology which is filled with your illustrations.

I have the Star Trek movie novelization and I found it to be an enjoyable read. I don’t think I’m going to pickup the collectors edition.

I have Star Trek Countdown and found it to be an enjoyable read. It certainly sheds some light on Nero’s motivations.

I have the Star Trek soundtrack and am listening to it as I type this.

132. S. John Ross - May 26, 2009

sean, I hope I wasn’t being too coy about it, but I really am curious as to how you concluded that it was Kirk’s plan …

(sometimes I really do think we saw a different print of the movie) :)

In the version I saw, Spock laid out half a plan (based on suggestions and confirmations from Chekov and Scotty), and Kirk’s one and only contribution was insisting that he come along to help. Later on, Kirk & Spock behaved as if there was more of a plan than had been previously articulated, but we never actually saw who came up with which part … There was no scene where Kirk said anything like “Spock, you ram the Narada with the Jellyfish and it’ll make a singularity out of [giggle, pause to control laughter] …”

“JJ, can we cut? I … [giggle ... giggle]”

“[serious face, deep breath]”

“the Red Matter. [holds serious face for a long time, making sure the take is good]”

[someone yells cut]

“[busts a gut laughing]”

I don’t remember that scene, or a more serious version of it.

Red Matter. Remember kids: no crutches! That’s a promise.

133. sean - May 26, 2009

#132

Honestly, I don’t know why Red Matter elicits any more giggles than dilithium crystals or Heisenberg Compensators or chronimetric particles. They’re all macguffins of one kind or another.

I think the scene where Kirk is formulating a plan with Chekov, Scotty, Sulu & McCoy on the bridge gave me that impression, as well as his assurance to Spock on the Jellyfish that the plan would work. It seems odd he’d comfort Spock that his own plan would work, but I suppose you could interpret it that way.

134. sean - May 26, 2009

#133

Just to be clear, ‘his own plan’ meaning if it was Spock’s plan it would seem strange for Kirk to reassure him it would work. Makes much more sense that it’s Kirk’s plan and he’s reassuring Spock it’ll go well.

135. S. John Ross - May 27, 2009

#133/134: “Honestly, I don’t know why Red Matter elicits any more giggles than dilithium crystals or Heisenberg Compensators or chronimetric particles.”

I don’t recall the post where we discovered that it does (certainly, just reading the phrase “chronimetric particles” sends me wheezing with laughter, and I don’t have asthma). But I do recall Orci _bragging,_ very explicitly, that this movie would not be relying on the traditional “crutches of sci-fi.” And I’ve got a couple of hours’ worth of reasons why that is freaking high-larious (especially when most of his backpedaling on the necessity of the alternate universe is couched as an appeal to insuring that Star Trek cleaves to current scientific understanding). Have cake? Eat cake. Have cake? Eat cake.

“Just to be clear, ‘his own plan’ meaning if it was Spock’s plan it would seem strange for Kirk to reassure him it would work.”

But in that conversation the plan (and we don’t even know specifically which part of the plan they were discussing) was referred to explicitly on-screen as “our” plan, not Kirk’s plan. And, again, with nothing specific offered to suggest which character contributed which part (or even, which parts may have been improvised as things proceeded).

And I’m not suggesting the film _needed_ to specify such details (I’m a big fan of Less Exposition), and I’m not even suggesting you’re wrong. I’m just pointing out that we don’t actually _know_ … and given that, your earlier remark that my observations about specific on-screen events somehow “discounts” the “fact” that it’s Kirk’s plan didn’t make any sense to me, because there is no such fact. You inferred it, and your inferences – very reasonably, I think – play no part in my observations.

The same goes for other, upthread conversations where people’s responses to what we actually see in the movie seems at odds with things you accept as fact (like the mercy-killing).

136. sean - May 27, 2009

#135

Yes, but if it is ‘our’ plan then Kirk was involved in formulating it. Your earlier argument was that Kirk had to deliver the death blow to Nero as a dramatic necessity because his character hadn’t played any role in his defeat. My point was that he had not only played an important role and saved Capt Pike, he helped come up with the plan. So the meta argument seems rather weak, to me.

As for the sci-fi crutch issue, I don’t really have an issue with it. Red Matter is just another Genesis Device. I don’t remember what Orci said about it, but you may have caught him on that one. Though I don’t think this movie relied on that particular cruth in quite the same way as the last few TNG movies or series did. For instance, they didn’t spend 10 minutes talking about how the Red Matter would expand, or how fast Spock had to ram the Narada, or if the Jellyfish had to collide with the primary fusion manifold on deck 67 because that would cause a plasma feedback in the secondary impulse reactor. I swear, VOY scripts were 3/4 technobabble and 1/4 story.

137. S. John Ross - May 27, 2009

“Yes, but if it is ‘our’ plan then Kirk was involved in formulating it.”

To an extent unknown to us. The specific point I referred to (creating the singularity with the Red Matter) may have had nothing to do with Kirk. We simply have no way of knowing.

“Your earlier argument was that Kirk had to deliver the death blow to Nero as a dramatic necessity because his character hadn’t played any role in his defeat.”

No, my earlier argument was that the filmmakers may have been thinking along those lines. I’m fine with “Kirk” being ineffectual and had grown used to it by that point in the film.

“My point was that he had not only played an important role and saved Capt Pike, he helped come up with the plan.”

Then you had a rather dramatic typo when you claimed earlier that it _was_ his plan, absolutely _Kirk’s_ plan (your words), when in fact, according to what we see on screen, we don’t even know if he played any part at all in that specific stage of it.

Furthermore, Kirk saving Pike was _contrary_ to the plan (the plan had been for Spock to do so – this was explicit on-screen), which again raises the question of how much of the “plan” was improvisation.

“So the meta argument seems rather weak, to me.”

That was part of _my_ point. Don’t get us confused; I know we’re awfully similar :)

“As for the sci-fi crutch issue, I don’t really have an issue with it.”

I apologize for all those times I suggested that you had an issue with it.

“Red Matter is just another Genesis Device.”

An excellent comparison. But I don’t recall the makers of Star Treks II and III bragging to the contrary.

“I don’t remember what Orci said about it, but you may have caught him on that one.”

Not just one. The entire film is a series of cut-and-paste conveniences lifted from the shoddiest vaults of the worst examples of Star Trek plotting past. In story terms, it’s like a grand tour of the lowest common Trek denominators. The film succeeds through its too-fast-to-think pacing, flash-bang nature of its visuals (blinding lense flares and all) and the strength of much of the acting … none of which can help the paucity of heroism, humanism, and character agency.

“Though I don’t think this movie relied on that particular cruth in quite the same way as the last few TNG movies or series did.”

I wouldn’t know. Despite the cliches, some of us simply don’t go to the movies if the trailers look sucky enough; I’ve never seen the last two TNG films, not even on video. But again, even when I was forced to pay attention to some of the latter-day spinoff material for professional reasons, I don’t recall the makers of that drek _bragging about how they weren’t going to do that._

“For instance, they didn’t spend 10 minutes talking about how the Red Matter would expand, or how fast Spock had to ram the Narada, or if the Jellyfish had to collide with the primary fusion manifold on deck 67 because that would cause a plasma feedback in the secondary impulse reactor. I swear, VOY scripts were 3/4 technobabble and 1/4 story.”

I think you may be getting generous, there :) A generic Voyager episode (from my limited experience with the show, at least) seems to consist of a technobabble teaser followed by a technobabble threat, escalated in the middle act by a technobabble complication and then saved at the last minute by a sudden inspired burst of technobabble. In the moments in-between, people look sour or mopey, or spout hollow truisms.

138. sean - May 27, 2009

#137

“No, my earlier argument was that the filmmakers may have been thinking along those lines. I’m fine with “Kirk” being ineffectual and had grown used to it by that point in the film.”

Right. What I’m saying is your speculation that the filmmakers may have thought that and used the ‘You got it’ scene to rectify it doesn’t work for me, based on Kirk’s involvement with Nero’s downfall on screen.

“Then you had a rather dramatic typo when you claimed earlier that it _was_ his plan, absolutely _Kirk’s_ plan (your words), when in fact, according to what we see on screen, we don’t even know if he played any part at all in that specific stage of it.”

Actually, what I said was “That completely discounts the fact that it’s Kirk’s plan to begin with, and that he saved Pike and wasted Ayel.” Then I said “I think the scene where Kirk is formulating a plan with Chekov, Scotty, Sulu & McCoy on the bridge gave me that impression, as well as his assurance to Spock on the Jellyfish that the plan would work.”

The clear implication on screen was that Kirk was involved in the plan. He’s the impetus for everything that takes place, as everyone else was content to regroup with the fleet at the Laurentian System until Kirk wrestles command from Spock and informs everyone that they’re going to stop Nero at all costs. Even if Kirk only comes up with 20% of the actual logistics of the plan, it seems to me it’s still *his* plan, as he is the driving force for the entire confrontation. There is no plan without Kirk.

“Furthermore, Kirk saving Pike was _contrary_ to the plan (the plan had been for Spock to do so – this was explicit on-screen), which again raises the question of how much of the “plan” was improvisation.”

Or they simply changed the specifics of the plan at some point off screen. Kirk always seemed more skilled at improvisation than Spock, so if they did improvise that particular point, it seems likely it was Kirk that came up with it.

“I apologize for all those times I suggested that you had an issue with it.”

I was simply contrasting our viewpoints, not implying any suggestions on your part :)

“Not just one. The entire film is a series of cut-and-paste conveniences lifted from the shoddiest vaults of the worst examples of Star Trek plotting past. In story terms, it’s like a grand tour of the lowest common Trek denominators. The film succeeds through its too-fast-to-think pacing, flash-bang nature of its visuals (blinding lense flares and all) and the strength of much of the acting … none of which can help the paucity of heroism, humanism, and character agency.”

Obviously I disagree, but there’s not much sense in going through all that again. I’ve never understood all this talk about the lens flares, and barely noticed any even after being made aware of how awful they were on this very site.

“I don’t recall the makers of that drek _bragging about how they weren’t going to do that.”

Actually, Rick Berman went on his traditional publicity tour prior to every film declaring it the greatest thing they’d ever done and that they were getting back to the heart of Star Trek and how they were going to avoid this pitfall or that pitfall. Sadly, I grew pretty numb to anything he said after a while, as experience told me he clearly did not have a perspective I could agree with.

“In the moments in-between, people look sour or mopey, or spout hollow truisms.”

Preach on, brother! I’ve often said nearly every Vulcan post-Spock was portrayed as being in a constant state of annoyance, and Tuvok is a perfect example. Everyone else on VOY was nearly as grim, and by the end even Tom Paris had turned into a grouch. Only Robert Picardo & Jeri Ryan made that show watchable.

139. S. John Ross - May 27, 2009

#138:

“Right. What I’m saying is your speculation that the filmmakers may have thought that and used the ‘You got it’ scene to rectify it doesn’t work for me, based on Kirk’s involvement with Nero’s downfall on screen.”

Fair enough. Also, in fairness I should point out that by that time I thought we had pretty much exhausted the possibilities of our actual discussion (about the relative morality of the ending) and I was just taking cheap pot-shots at the writers, complete with requisite Internet-style straw men, just because I think they earned it. And also because this thread is _maybe_ the fourth reasonable and reasoned conversation I’ve ever had on this forum so I’m loathe to let it go … sigh :( I love a civil disagreement when it has substance, and this one has.

“The clear implication on screen was that Kirk was involved in the plan.”

I agree, absolutely.

“He’s the impetus for everything that takes place”

I disagree with that.

“as everyone else was content to regroup with the fleet at the Laurentian System until Kirk wrestles command from Spock and informs everyone that they’re going to stop Nero at all costs. Even if Kirk only comes up with 20% of the actual logistics of the plan, it seems to me it’s still *his* plan, as he is the driving force for the entire confrontation. There is no plan without Kirk.”

I don’t disagree with any particular point in this line of reasoning, but I disagree with the conclusion. If we use that kind of logic, we can just as well say it’s Pike’s plan (we even have a line on-screen for that, when Kirk assures Pike he’s there because he’s just following orders). More to the point, we can say it’s Nero’s plan, since there would be no plan without Nero, either. Nearly every character does something that moves the plot along in a crucial way, but someone, offscreen, actually had the plan to ram the ship and create a singularity, and we don’t know who that is.

We do know that the actual, final defeat of the Narada is achieved by Spock. We see that happening, step-by-step (and, mercifully, without much technobabble).

“Or they simply changed the specifics of the plan at some point off screen.”

Indeed, that’s what I assume as well, but since we can’t know for sure I’m hesitant to base any conclusions on that assumption. I’m no canonista (I’d do away with “canon” and replace it with “dramatized history” if someone handed _me_ the keys to the franchise), but I do find it useful to stick to on-screen stuff when hashing out what “really” goes on.

“Kirk always seemed more skilled at improvisation than Spock,”

Well, we have less than two hours’ worth of “always” to work with at this point in the film :)

“… so if they did improvise that particular point, it seems likely it was Kirk that came up with it.”

I see no particularly likelihood either way. Both are motivated, both are self-starters, both are smart (indeed, both appear to be geniuses) and aware of the situation, one is presented as a gifted student and the other as a respected teacher. The only way to cast odds is to draw on inferences. Heck, they’re even both making out with cadets who were rooming together, both lost a parent to the threat of the week, etc. I think this version of Kirk & Spock are a lot more _similar_ to each other, really. I think that’s one of the key changes (intended or not); they’re less “complementary” and more “the same guy refracted through different cultural filters.”

“Actually, Rick Berman went on his traditional publicity tour prior to every film declaring it the greatest thing they’d ever done and that they were getting back to the heart of Star Trek and how they were going to avoid this pitfall or that pitfall. Sadly, I grew pretty numb to anything he said after a while, as experience told me he clearly did not have a perspective I could agree with.”

Well, if that’s the case then Orci & Kurtzman sound like the natural successors to the Berman run, with all the fanfare and joy that might deserve.

“Preach on, brother! I’ve often said nearly every Vulcan post-Spock was portrayed as being in a constant state of annoyance, and Tuvok is a perfect example.”

Yes, he did seem constantly peevish. It’s a darned shame, though, because I think the actor portraying him could be a damn fine Vulcan given good scripts. And he had the voice – that awesome voice. I like Quinto, I do, and I think he gave a fine performance … but if he’s Spock he’s Spock after sucking on some helium balloons (not his fault, of course … you can’t fake that kind of vocal gravitas).

“Only Robert Picardo & Jeri Ryan made that show watchable.”

I know basically nothing about Jeri Ryan apart from her obvious hottitude; I never saw enough Voyager to get a sense of her (I have, literally, ONLY watched Voyager when I was being paid to). Robert Picardo, though … I love the guy. I’ve never been a regular viewer of any of his programs, but everything I’ve seen of him (including an excellent panel he gave at a con here, recently) has been thoroughly enjoyable. I keep hoping he’ll some day wind up on a show I can love.

140. Gebruikend Online Hulpmiddelen helpen Seksuele opvoeding onderwijzen | Adult Education Now - July 8, 2009

[...] “Star Trek” Adaptation Makes New York Times Bestseller List … [...]

141. Trevor - October 22, 2009

I noticed that there is one error in this article…Star Trek books have been hitting bestsellers lists as recently as 2006. Infact, in September 2003 Marco Palmieri posted on a forum that the Star Trek books were hitting the presses more often then (in 2003) than they had been since Simon & Schuster acquired the license in 1979. Palmieri even pointed out at that time that David R. George’s “Serpents Amongst The Ruins” had indeed hit the New York Times Bestsellers lists between September 8 and September 15, 2003.

Plus the “Star Trek: Titan” series has been proclaimed a “USA Today Bestselling Series”.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.