yeah but don't pretend he doesn't have a vested interest in its success.
David Mack is GUSHING about it...this should settle it
- Thread starter Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai
- Start date
Listen, the novelists have jobs whether or not individual shows succeed. Did you not read the linked description of how Diane Carey basically was assigned to write the novelization for "Broken Bow" but hated the script and filled her novelization with mockery of it? David Mack isn't a producer. He's not one of the staff writers of DSC. The show could be cancelled before airing and Mack will still be a Trek novelist just as he was before. In fact, several writers in the past have talked about how various jobs were harder than others because they didn't like the material they were given to work with or guidelines they were forced to work within. They are not involved with the TV series and they have no vested interest in making sure each new series succeeds. As long as the existing series are there to keep writing the novelverse for, they don't need DSC. But Mack knows more than you or I and loves what he's seen. He's not about to pull a Carey.
i think it's a little delusional to imagine mack wouldn't profit from discovery being a success. but setting that aside, he could also simply have blinders on about the thing, being that he has had a relationship with the series for a while and is close to its development (though, no, not involved).
my argument though, is less about mack as a reliable or unreliable source than it is about the worrying nature of the embargo. CBS seems proud of discovery and scared at the same time -- rightfully so, it's a risky venture. but they should welcome outside opinions, even if those opinions aren't that it's the greatest first season of star trek evah.
Why? Either way he gets paid. If DSC is cancelled, why there's five other series to write about and multiple novel-only series as well.
This just means he loves what he sees. It's no different than GOT readers being excited about the HBO show.
This would be a valid point if they weren't allowing critics to see anything at all.
if people like the show, they'll be more inclined to buy the book he has already written about it. if the show stays on the air, he has more likelihood of continuing to write novels about it. if the show fails, there's less of a market for his product.
anyway, i look forward to the day when someone in the know comes out and says something not totally glowing about the show. or like, you know, seeing it for ourselves in a week and a half and debating the merits and flaws we experienced firsthand.
i want it to be good and i want it to succeed. but i think it's healthy to be skeptical of the word on street so far.
I'm sure they do fear negative reviews. It's only natural.
However, what I'm disagreeing with the people who say "The embargo is a bad sign for the show" as if they are postulating that CBS all access knows the show has issues and they know it will get overall bad reviews, so that's the reason they are setting this embargo.
Last edited:
Mack will have lots of product whatever happens to Desperate Hours. He's been writing Trek novels for decades, plus he writes other series as well. It's not like one book he wrote is for a show that nobody likes so his brand value goes down. That doesn't happen.
You "look forward" to that? So you're rooting for the show to fail?
Until you have, why leap to believe the negative and refuse to believe the positive? Especially since those being negative don't know any more than you do and those being positive know quite a bit more?
Says the guy who's really hoping that soon a person in the know comes forward and admits it sucks.
i'll assume you aren't among the folks who criticized abrams and bad robot for keeping so needlessly tight lipped about into darkness.
they are dripping out more and more information, which is great (see the new tour of the discovery bridge). but the excuse that they don't want reviews of the series out before its premiere because of spoilers is highly suspect.
fair nuff, i'm just telling you it's a fairly well established behavior.
i didn't say i want someone to come out and savage the show and then i'll believe them over those who love it. i just look forward to some nuance about it.
yeah i'm skeptical as hell about the show, no a lot of what i hear doesn't jibe with my personal taste for the franchise. but i'd be an idiot to root for the show to fail or to hope it sucks to satisfy some bizarre schadenfreude. i want it to be good because i love star trek and want a new star trek series to love and to buy the ships and set them on my desk and be a total geek about with my friends. i also want it to succeed even if it turns out not to be my cup of tea because it'll only help the franchise thrive and maybe down the road give me something i do like.
I understand the idea of coming in with low expectations so that you can be pleasantly surprised. But it's very possible, even likely, that many who think like you do will automatically be looking for "reasons they were right" rather than just opening their minds and watching the show. I'm positive there was a lot of that with ENT. Larry Nemecek, who I'm quoting way too often, talks about an attitude among fans that you're "supposed to hate" certain things. When TNG was at its peak and DS9 was announced, it became "cool" to hate DS9 sight unseen, and when it aired, each episode got dog-piled on as the worst thing ever, that is, until ENT became a thing. VGR was probably the only one that didn't get the hate-fest right out of the gate, and I think that was due to people assuming it would be the next TNG (which it certainly tried to be). It didn't get hated on until it had well earned it, and then ENT got residual hate from Braga being involved with both shows.
I prefer to come in with excitement and let it blow me away...or not. And trust me, if it sucks, you'll hear it from me. But I won't declare it a failure until it's earned it.
hey trust me too, i'm excited.
Last edited:
That's not really accurate on a few counts. For one thing, Mack has recently gotten a fairly high-profile deal for an original novel series (it's a historical/military/urban fantasy thing, if you're curious), so he's less wedded to Star Trek for making his living than he's ever been. Additionally, the performance of this particular novel is monetarily irrelevant to him; long-term, he has a proven track record of hits, so one dud wouldn't sink him, especially if it could be blamed on the parent show taking a dive rather than the quality of the book itself.
In the short term, authors are paid in advance to write books. The reason it's called an "advance" is because the money is considered to be paid out of the royalties that will be made off the book once it's released. Authors don't make any money based on sales until the book has sold enough that the author's share of the revenue exceeds the amount they were paid in advance. At that point they've "earned out," and only then start receiving royalties. The thing is, with a licensed novel, there are more hands getting a slice of the book-revenue pie; in addition to paying the publisher, and the bookstore, and the author, they also have to pay the people who own Star Trek, so the author's slice is thinner, but advance they're paid isn't correspondingly smaller (because it's still the same amount of work to write a Star Trek novel as it would be to write a Technically Original Space Adventure). Since each book sold doesn't go as far as paying off the author's advance, it's unlikely the advance will ever be paid off in full for any given licensed novel, and even when they do, the royalties are typically on the level of a few bucks every few months. Not the kind of money that'd make someone stick their neck out and risk their reputation by going ham for an unreleased show when the can just keep quiet and wait out the FUD.
I'm sure David Mack would be personally disappointed if nobody bought "Desperate Hours," but in terms of the crass monetary motivation you suspect, the sales don't really matter. He's already been paid for it.
How is that any different from Netflix or Hulu original series, or HBO or Showtime series? It's not some unique aberration, it's an increasingly normal paradigm for television.
Besides, we've always had to pay to see Star Trek movies. Or to own the series on home video. And since Star Trek aired on the BBC in the UK, that means British viewers have always had to pay a license fee in order to see it. So it's not that new.
Nah, I doubt it has to do with that.Of course he is, he has a book to sell. Which I can't wait to read.
I don't think he would gush that much if he didn't like the show.
Of course he is, he has a book to sell. Which I can't wait to read.
Guys, I addressed this in the FIRST POST.
