If you're trying to suggest that Richard Arnold's treatment of authors was identical to the way it works today and the only difference is that we don't air the dirty laundry today
what I meant at all
. Where do I suggest it's "identical"?
I knew I shoulda just shut up.
There is no input
from the Roddenberry Estate, nor the long-defunct Star Trek Office - not since September 1991. That assistance/interference died with Roddenberry. What has not
changed is the overseeing of the manuscripts by Paramount/Viacom/CBS Consumer Products, and the impression fans get is that that communication is usually quite cordial.
I didn't think I was ever suggesting that Richard Arnold's treatment of authors was anything like Paramount/Viacom/CBS Consumer Products' treatment of the authors.
But you're getting dangerously close to claiming that he did nothing wrong at all
No one can read PAD's "But I Digress..." without realising there was plenty rotten in Denmark. Do I have to make a list of my personal complaints about RA's decisions every time I mention his name?
I receive plenty of PM hate mail for daring to say in public I knew him as a friend as it is.
like taking books away from authors and having them pseudonymously rewritten by other
did that? Or was that the Pocket editor-of-the-day's solution to resolving a stalemate with the Star Trek Office?
Allyn Gibson wrote:
This is a gross mischaracterization of what happened in 1989 with the Animated Series.
Filmation wasn't "winding down." Filmation was in bankruptcy.
I wasn't about to declare it was "bankruptcy" unless I knew for sure. I'd always
heard it phrased as "winding down".
It was my understanding that Filmation was divided into chunks and sold off. Some of it was sold off to Hallmark at some point, IIRC. Andy Mangels' recent book on Filmation goes into other details.
And the Animated Series was, due to the way bankruptcy law is written, held as one of Filmation's assets. Paramount held the copyright, but they couldn't touch it because it was tied up in the bankruptcy. Putting the Animated Series and its concepts off-limits was the easiest way of keeping the licensees away from the Filmation bankruptcy.
Yes, but my point was that this bankruptcy was not
explained to Trek fans at the time. Bob Greenberger briefly discussed the Star Trek Office's request to remove Arex and M'ress in DC Comics' lettercol of TOS Series II, issue #1. Richard Arnold used to tell conventions, re the 1989 memo, that "TAS does not crossover with the film series", and I believe he also used that quote in his column of "The Communicator" (magazine of the Official Fan Club). They could have said, "the use and rights of TAS are constrained by Filmation's bankruptcy"
, but nobody did.
Fans of DC Comics' use of Filmation elements wanted answers, but we were simply told it was no longer to be. (Some of us would have understood "bankruptcy", but it wasn't being said.)
Yes, TAS belonged to Paramount, and it was clarified as such after the Filmation dust settled. But TAS was originally a co-production of Filmation, Norway Corp (Roddenberry's company) and NBC Children's Television, and I don't think it was entirely sure, in 1989, exactly where the rights would rest.
I recall the other sticking point re TAS in the lead up to the 1989 memo was Larry Niven's period of regret in lending the kzinti to TAS, because "Star Fleet Battles" had used them in their war game, and the associated metal miniatures company, Heritage, had produced semi-licensed figures of kzinti aliens and ships. He was trying to negotiate a licensed "Ringworld" RPG.
There was also the Pocket novel, "TNG: The Captains' Honor". When first advertised, it was to have featured the kzinti
, not the M'doc. I recall reading the blurb on UseNet and GEnie, and was surprised Pocket was doing such a story, then not surprised when the book featured the M'doc. Both were described as a felinoid race that had once ruled a large portion of what is now Federation space.
But I knew
I shoulda just shut up.
I'm going to speculate here, but I'd imagine the cancelation of the trilogy stemmed from two factors. One, the trilogy was several years' overdue. Two, Ordover had departed Pocket earlier and Marco was cleaning up his outstanding projects. Put those together -- very late, and a project that Marco didn't originate -- and you get a reason to pull the plug.
That was my speculation also, but I wasn't game to even attempt
to speculate about the situation in public. It always gets me into trouble.
I have the trilogy outline and the first book (and the only one of the three she finished so far as I know). The trilogy had potential. The first book didn't grip me.
We are in agreement.