Discovery to get tie-ins!

[jaime]

I was as surprised by the news of Dave's new gig as anyone else. At the moment, I know nothing more about it than the general public does. Honestly, if I had any inside information, I'd probably be keeping my mouth shut about the whole thing for fear of letting something slip. Indeed, maybe I should shut up about it anyway because I don't have anything to offer but guesswork.




Oh, I see what you mean. Probably it would've been more like the fate of any early tie-ins to a new series that end up looking weird in retrospect, like Ghost Ship or The Children of Hamlin, say. After all, the comics were telling a serialized narrative and had to try to fit the movies into it, whereas tie-ins to a series in progress tend to be standalone and easily set aside if later canon conflicts with them. (There was a subtle continuity among the early DS9 novels -- surprisingly apt, given how that series and its tie-ins later developed -- but it didn't last long.) Had our books come out, they would've just ended up being more standalones that later canon rendered obsolete.

Ironically, you picked the first Trek novels I ever read, and ones that to this day contain some of my favourite and most memorable bits in Trek novels. They fit well enough as post Farpoint stories, but the things go in a radically different direction. The other best bits are in Metamorphosis and Imzadi.

 

[F. King Daniel]

My favourite weird early abnormality is when Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens snuck an Enterprise reference into Captain's Peril, based on the early casting sheet bios. There's a passing mention of the famous "Jack" Archer!

 

[Jinn]

My favourite weird early abnormality is when Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens snuck an Enterprise reference into Captain's Peril, based on the early casting sheet bios. There's a passing mention of the famous "Jack" Archer!

There are two options for TrekLit concerning this "issue":
1. Establish that Jack is actually John's second name. Or third. It's somewhere between "Jonathan" and "Archer"
2. make a complete novel about the adventures of Captain Jack Archer, the famous captain of a ship called Enterprise that was forgotten for canon reasons... And Section 31 is somehow involved.

 

[Idran]

There are two options for TrekLit concerning this "issue":
1. Establish that Jack is actually John's second name. Or third. It's somewhere between "Jonathan" and "Archer"
2. make a complete novel about the adventures of Captain Jack Archer, the famous captain of a ship called Enterprise that was forgotten for canon reasons... And Section 31 is somehow involved.

(For what it's worth, in English "Jack" is actually a nickname for John, which is probably where that came from. )

 

[F. King Daniel]

Now I wish they referenced "Spike" Tucker just to see fans try to explain that

 

[Christopher]

(For what it's worth, in English "Jack" is actually a nickname for John, which is probably where that came from. )

No, Archer's first name was originally going to be Jackson. IIRC, they changed it because it turned out there was only one real person with that name, and fiction tries to avoid using character names that are uniquely associated with a specific person (e.g. if only one person has it, or if there's someone with the same name and profession).

 

[Jinn]

(For what it's worth, in English "Jack" is actually a nickname for John, which is probably where that came from. )

I don't get English nicknames. How do you go from William to Bill or Richard to Dick?

EDIT:

How Dick became a nickname for Richard is known and is one of those “knee bone connected to the thigh bone” type progressions, somewhat similar to how the word ‘soccer’ came about. Due to people having to write everything by hand, shortened versions of Richard were common, such as ‘Ric’ or ‘Rich’. This in turn gave rise to nicknames like ‘Richie’, ‘Rick’, and ‘Ricket’, among others. People also used to like to use rhyming names; thus, someone who was nicknamed Rich might further be nicknamed Hitch. Thus, Richard -> Ric -> Rick gave rise to nicknames like Dick and Hick around the early 13th century.

That's actually quite interesting.

 

[Christopher]

More nickname origins:

http://mentalfloss.com/article/24761/origins-10-nicknames

 

[Enterprise1701]

Novel tie-ins to an active series? Yes!

I don't get English nicknames. How do you go from William to Bill or Richard to Dick?

I only slightly get how "Margaret" is shortened to "Peggy".

 

[JD]

I have to wonder how the novels and comics will relate to the show? They said it'll be one arc, so there's a chance there won't be a lot of time between episodes to fit books and comics. Maybe they'll be prequels or something.

 

[Christopher]

I suppose the greater serialization of the show is why they need close coordination to make the tie-ins feasible. Consider how few novels are set during DS9's last two seasons -- and most of the ones that are were written after the series ended.

 

[ronny]

We heard from three of the four authors of the shelved post-2009 "Kelvin Timeline" novels that their stories would have been overwrittten by the events of "Into Darkness". So it was a no-win scenario.

I'm not talking about those novels. That's ancient history. I'm talking about the fact that the novels can't reference anything in the movies including the fact that Romulus is destroyed in the prime universe. I can get they don't want novels about the new crew, I don't agree or like it but I get it, but I don't get the business where they can't reference events that happen in the prime universe. Are they really planning on having some cross over even or some crap like that.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Indeed, maybe I should shut up about it anyway because I don't have anything to offer but guesswork.

That never stops the rest of us!

Captain Jack Archer, the famous captain of a ship called Enterprise that was forgotten

Shhhh! Daniels "fixed" that one...

(For what it's worth, in English "Jack" is actually a nickname for John, which is probably where that came from. )

Now someone just needs to explain to me why a four-letter name needs a four-letter "abbreviation".

I don't get English nicknames. How do you go from William to Bill or Richard to Dick?

Don't worry, I'm an English speaker, and I don't get half of them either.

 

[Therin of Andor]

including the fact that Romulus is destroyed in the prime universe.

It just hasn't happened yet. You really think the forthcoming novels will never pass that event, or will ignore it when they do?

 

[Christopher]

but I don't get the business where they can't reference events that happen in the prime universe.

Because it's not a question of in-universe continuity, it's a question of what real-world entities own the licensing rights to a particular fictional concept. Portions of the 2009 movie's events may have been meant to take place in the Prime Universe, but they were still in a movie made by Paramount and Bad Robot, and so the right to use ideas original to that movie is for Paramount and Bad Robot to grant, while everything else is controlled by CBS.

You see that sort of thing happen a lot in fiction. Marvel's post-TMP Trek comic was forbidden to use characters or storylines from TOS, only from TMP (although it managed to sneak in three TOS characters and a bunch of continuity nods). RoboCop: The Series was treated as a direct sequel to the original movie (though ignoring the second and third movies), but oddly, though it had the rights to the RoboCop/Murphy character and the overall premise and setting, it didn't have the rights to any of the other movie characters and thus had to rename them or substitute equivalent characters.

Now someone just needs to explain to me why a four-letter name needs a four-letter "abbreviation".

Nicknames aren't always shorter -- cf. John and Johnny.

 

[The Wormhole]

but I don't get the business where they can't reference events that happen in the prime universe. Are they really planning on having some cross over even or some crap like that.

Just the nature of licensing talk. After all, the contracts just say the novels can't reference anything from the Bad Robot movies, not "do not make reference to anything from Bad Robot movies unless it is from the continuity labeled 'Prime Universe.'"

It just hasn't happened yet. You really think the forthcoming novels will never pass that event, or will ignore it when they do?

As it currently stands, we know the Pocket novels aren't allowed to reference the destruction of Romulus. Indeed, the progression through the years is even being slowed down so they can hold off the issue long enough until hopefully the legal hurdles can be overcome. This has been confirmed many times on this very forum by authors from Pocket.

 

[Jinn]

Fortunately Avro Arrow was able to identify the sole man responsible for the licensing problem:

Spoiler

A man who goes by the alias of "FL"

I will never let this joke die.

 

[ronny]

It just hasn't happened yet. You really think the forthcoming novels will never pass that event, or will ignore it when they do?

Yeah, I do think that at this point. We've been told the books can't mention anything from the Kelvin movies. So yeah, it seem's like the books will either not pass the point where that happens or they ignore it. What do you think is going to happen?

Although I was looking forward to seeing how the destruction of Romulus would affect the Typhon Pact storyline I'm not especially worried about how it's going to be handled. Maybe they have already come up with a third alternative. I'm assuming the creative people will come up with something plausible and interesting, more plausible and interesting than anything I would have come up with. They always do.

Because it's not a question of in-universe continuity, it's a question of what real-world entities own the licensing rights to a particular fictional concept. Portions of the 2009 movie's events may have been meant to take place in the Prime Universe, but they were still in a movie made by Paramount and Bad Robot, and so the right to use ideas original to that movie is for Paramount and Bad Robot to grant, while everything else is controlled by CBS.

I never said otherwise. You're basically backing up my original post where I said I was happy the TV people are working with the novel people and disappointed the movie people are not. That's indisputable that that is happening. Obviously it's not an in-universe continuity issue, it's a decision by the movie/licensing/lawyers/real world or whomever people that don't want novels in their sandbox. And obviously that's within their rights.

I'm sorry, all I wanted to say was I'm happy the TV people are interested in the novels and continue to be bummed the movie people are not. I didn't meant to derail this thread by triggering a debate about why there are no movie novels when it's pretty obvious why there are none.

 

[shapeshifter]

Now someone just needs to explain to me why a four-letter name needs a four-letter "abbreviation".

Would you like to be called John? lol

As for the topic, I guess this explains why Ongoing got the ax.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Would you like to be called John? lol

The Lectroids do...