Spoilers DSC: Drastic Measures by Dayton Ward Review Thread

[Christopher]

That would be very difficult given the current situation with Pocket Books and the license.

If they'd contracted the books that way before the old license expired, then it could've worked. As I keep reminding people, the expiration of the license only affects whether new books can be contracted, not whether already-contracted books can be published.

 

[David Weller]

That would be very difficult given the current situation with Pocket Books and the license.

AIUI, it’s a license to commission novels.

As long as they were contracted during the license period they can be published at a later date even if the license has expired.

That was how Bantam were able to publish new Trek novels after Pocket got the license.

 

[Dijeirusan]

That would be very difficult given the current situation with Pocket Books and the license.

How can Pocket Books lose the license, when they're owned by CBS?

 

[DimesDan]

How can Pocket Books lose the license, when they're owned by CBS?

Competition.........

 

[Christopher]

How can Pocket Books lose the license, when they're owned by CBS?

Because monopolies are illegal. Even if a studio and a licensee are owned by the same conglomerate, they still aren't allowed to forbid competing licensees from bidding for the property.

 

[Dijeirusan]

Because monopolies are illegal. Even if a studio and a licensee are owned by the same conglomerate, they still aren't allowed to forbid competing licensees from bidding for the property.

Sure they can! That's how Disney works. CBS is no different.

 

[Christopher]

Sure they can! That's how Disney works. CBS is no different.

What? If Disney worked that way, then 100% of their shows would be on ABC. Instead they also have shows on Netflix and Hulu.

Yes, studios have an incentive to sell their shows to their partner networks or license their tie-ins to their partner publishers because it saves them both money, but that doesn't mean they're required to do that or that it happens automatically. Other networks or licensors have to be allowed to make an offer, because capitalism is supposed to be based on competition. That's why there are Warner Bros-made DC Comics-based shows on FOX (Gotham, Lucifer) and Syfy (the upcoming Krypton) as well as The CW, for instance.

 

[thribs]

This is the 2nd Star Trek novel I've ever read. Heck, before Desperate Hours I never knew they made Star Trek novels. Anyways, I look forward to the next one.

CBS should have delayed these releases to between seasons, like a new one every other month or something, to tide audiences over.

What I'm not a fan of is the print quality - it doesn't look particularly well printed. I've seen random self-published novels in shops with better quality printing. Why did they cheap out? The writers deserve better.

Really? You never once looked at the sci fi section of a bookstore and saw Star Trek novels? I find that hard to believe.
Yeah, the printing quality of it is rather odd. Most of your typical books are your standard trade paperback but with these STD novels they made them somewhat larger with lighter, thinner paper. I don’t know why. Maybe with them representing a new franchise they wanted them to stick out more or something.

 

[thribs]

Sure they can! That's how Disney works. CBS is no different.

Disney maybe in the process of acquiring Fox but they’re not allowed to buy the FOX tv channel, Fox News and their sports channels because of the monopoly rule.
There’s even a small chance their acquiring of Fox Studios maybe denied as well.

 

[thribs]

How can Pocket Books lose the license, when they're owned by CBS?

If someone offers more money for the license, that’s more in the bank for CBS. Plus they wouldn’t have to spend money money of their own publishing them.

 

[Dijeirusan]

What? If Disney worked that way, then 100% of their shows would be on ABC. Instead they also have shows on Netflix and Hulu.

Of course it's not always the case, but I'm fairly certain most Disney branded books (except some Star Wars ones by DK) are released by in-house companies like Disney Books and Marvel Comics. It just ensures the parent company maximises profitability.

CBS isn't too different. Once upon a time 15 years ago the vertical integration would go as far as Paramount films having automatic placement on CBS Outdoor billboards. It's not illegal.

Actually it's rather odd CBS would even entertain a non-CBS company getting the publishing rights to anything Star Trek. Unlike say toys or clothing or other types of merchandise, book publishing and distribution is an area they have expertise in via S&S, so what incentive do they have to give it up?

 

[Dijeirusan]

Really? You never once looked at the sci fi section of a bookstore and saw Star Trek novels? I find that hard to believe.

I don't think Star Trek novels are sold everywhere in the UK, but then other than these books, The Expanse and a few Star Wars novels, I don't read much science fiction. These Discovery books are the first Star Trek books I've ever seen at Tesco.

 

[Christopher]

Of course it's not always the case, but I'm fairly certain most Disney branded books (except some Star Wars ones by DK) are released by in-house companies like Disney Books and Marvel Comics. It just ensures the parent company maximises profitability.

Yes, I acknowledged that. But you asked how it was possible for a CBS-owned publisher to (hypothetically) lose the license, and the answer is that it is legally permissible for someone else to bid for the license, even if it's preferable for CBS to stick with Pocket. Preferable and possible are two different matters.

Actually it's rather odd CBS would even entertain a non-CBS company getting the publishing rights to anything Star Trek. Unlike say toys or clothing or other types of merchandise, book publishing and distribution is an area they have expertise in via S&S, so what incentive do they have to give it up?

Nobody said they did! There is no reason to believe that Pocket is losing the license. That's just conjecture from fans projecting their fears onto an absence of information, as humans are prone to do. Whenever I've talked to a fellow Trek author about it (as recently as last week), they've told me they've heard rumors that the deal will soon be finalized, though it's been "soon" for months now. But not one of them has reported a rumor that the deal was on the verge of collapse or that anyone else was bidding for the license. As far as we know, we'll still be working for Pocket once this clears up, we just don't know when. After all, as I mentioned before, we had a similar months-long slowdown on our contract approvals in 2016, before the license expiration, though it didn't last as long as this. So that suggests these delays aren't necessarily related to the license negotiations specifically. Simon & Schuster and CBS are big corporations with a lot of other matters to occupy their attention, after all.

 

[Ronald Held]

Almost finished. Is there much of difference between the Lorcas in personality?

 

[The Wormhole]

what incentive do they have to give it up?

Money. Same incentive that drives all corporate decisions.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Yes, I acknowledged that. But you asked how it was possible for a CBS-owned publisher to (hypothetically) lose the license, and the answer is that it is legally permissible for someone else to bid for the license, even if it's preferable for CBS to stick with Pocket. Preferable and possible are two different matters.

I'm unclear why you think it's "preferable" for CBS to re-up with Pocket, unless you're giving what I'd argue is undue weight to history and relationships that exist because of the last forty years.

CBS's interests are served by maximizing the value they can gain from their assets. The Star Trek fiction license is one of those assets, and their lawyers and accountants would ask the questions: "Are we making as much money as we can from Star Trek fiction? Can we make more? How can we make more?" The answers to those questions place very little stock in history and sentiment.

When I suggested in another thread that Titan's 2020 reprints could indicate that CBS sold the reprint rights to Pocket's backlist to another publisher, that's because doing so would be a way for CBS to increase the return on an asset that has, essentially, lain fallow for years. It's completely plausible to me that CBS would break up the license that way -- rights to new fiction, rights to backlist fiction. Perhaps even, from their end, preferable as it can generate more money for them.

Capitalism is a cold numbers game.

 

[Christopher]

I'm unclear why you think it's "preferable" for CBS to re-up with Pocket, unless you're giving what I'd argue is undue weight to history and relationships that exist because of the last forty years.

I wasn't talking about whether I think it's preferable, I was talking about why a studio and licensee (or studio and TV network) that have the same corporate owner would generally find it preferable to deal with each other because of the reduced licensing fees and so forth, all else being equal. But my whole point is that all else isn't necessarily equal -- that in some cases, the deal offered by a competing network or licensee can be sweet enough to outweigh the advantage of going with your corporate partner. Which is what you're saying, and I agree. My whole point is that, even though it's commonplace these days for studios to sell shows and tie-in licenses to their corporate partners, that only happens because they have financial incentives for doing so, not because they're automatically obligated to do so. Those incentives can be outweighed by other factors, which is why it's entirely possible for competitor-owned licensees to bid for, and win, a contract.

And indeed, it's healthy for them to do so, because competition is healthy for the economy and for consumers. The growing trend for corporations to buy up both producers of product (studios) and distributors of product (networks or publishers) and control both ends of the process in-house is unhealthy for the economy because it undermines fair competition. Which is why it disturbs me so much when I see laypeople taking it for granted that a CBS-owned show can only be licensed to a CBS-owned publisher, or that a show based on a Disney-owned Marvel comic can only be aired on a Disney-owned network. That's the way the corporate monopolists want it to work, it's the way it's increasingly tending to work, but it's absolutely not the way any informed American consumer should expect it to work by default.

Although, again, I'm aware of no basis for suspecting that anyone else is in contention for the Trek license.

 

[JD]

There are CBS properties who's tie-ins are published by companies other than S&S, and Disney properties whose comics are published by companies other than Marvel. The NCIS:LA, and NCIS: New Orleans novels are published by Titan, and IDW publishes two different Star Wars Adventures comic series, and has an entire line of Disney Comics that they publish.

 

[Enterprise1701]

Finally read Drastic Measures yesterday.

Wow, an intense exploration of the Tarsus IV disaster! And of the real Gabriel Lorca. Georgiou shows her skill. A young Jim Kirk shows his mettle that will one day be Starfleet's. And a cameo by Robert April!

And oh wow, that teaser at the very end.

 

[Daddy Todd]

I liked it, and my apologies if I missed it, as I listened to the audiobook in the car during commutes, but I didn’t come away with a strong understanding of WHY Kodos and his henchmen felt like exterminating 4000 colonists was the only solution. I mean, there was discussion of doing it for selfish reasons, but Kodos was in power for what, a day, before the killings? How do you convince dozens of people to go along with something like that literally overnight?