What happened to "episode" books?

[Thrawn]

Unfortunately, they had to cancel the Crucible reprint because of Marco's dismissal, but I do see your point.

I still feel like, if they throw a big display of Destiny up there, people will buy it; big, important looking trilogy, good impulse purchase. That's even why it was originally commissioned - to release with the movie, which was originally set for December 08.

 

[captcalhoun]

Wolverine's going to shred Star Trek at the BO and after he gets done pissing on its corpse, John Connor and the metal'll arrive and it'll be Terminated.

and that's without even factoring in Hannah Montana...

 

[Steve Roby]

In North America, at least, the new Star Trek is getting hype and promotion like no Star Trek movie since 1979. And not just from the usual fanboy suspects. Downloads for the movie trailer are breaking records. New advertising and promotional tie-ins are being announced almost daily. The IDW prequel Countdown comics are reportedly selling exceptionally well. Mainstream entertainment news sources like Entertainment Weekly magazine are hyping it regularly.

Every indication suggests that this is going to be one of the biggest Star Trek movies ever, box office-wise. But there's little to suggest that Pocket is in a position to capitalize on it. We've heard nothing about any tie-in books other than the novelization. No making-of, no kiddie novelization, no coffee table books. Meanwhile, the Trek novel line hasn't been primarily about the ol' five year mission of Kirk and the gang in a long, long time, and there's not much reason to assume that people who get into Trek through the new movie are going to care at all about New Frontier or Voyager or DS9 or Titan, regardless of those books' quality. If they come looking at all, they'll probably be looking for kickass action novels with Pine and Quinto on the cover. All they'll find is the novelization.

As much as I love the idea that the movie will be good for the books, I don't see that Pocket's ready for it, and I don't see that it'll necessarily benefit anything other than TOS books. Of course, I'd love to be wrong....

 

[Thrawn]

In a very real sense, the Pine and Quinto characters are not the same characters as the Shatner and Nimoy characters. Again, Pocket commissioned Destiny to arrive along with the movie, intentionally leaving the TOS era alone so as to avoid conflicting with the movie.

I do see your point, but I think if that were the case, they would've done something different.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

In a very real sense, the Pine and Quinto characters are not the same characters as the Shatner and Nimoy characters. Again, Pocket commissioned Destiny to arrive along with the movie, intentionally leaving the TOS era alone so as to avoid conflicting with the movie.

Which is why I suggested reprinting specific books with movie covers. Orci and Kurtzman have said that Best Destiny and Spock's World influenced their thinking in developing the film's script. Would it not make sense to make sure those two books are in print, with a movie-like cover? I suggested Uhura's Song just because it's a damned good book (and Uhura, because she's on the main poster everyone's seen, is a little more recognizable to the not-we).

The Pike suggestion was to make a fourth book, and there are other ways Pocket coudl go. You could just as easily do a Simon Pegg Scotty cover (I'd suggest Foundations, possibly with The Future Begins in a single volume) or a Karl Urban McCoy cover (Shadows on the Sun, maybe?). I can't think of a definitive Sulu or Chekov novel.

Actually, the best idea for a fourth book, to tie the film's era back to the 24th century, would be a reprint of Federation, and recreate the original Keith Birdsong cover with Pine and Stewart.

That's what I'd do. It would give casual readers books in stores with faces they've just spent ten dollars to see. But it's probably too late to get the ball rolling for Pocket to capitalize on the film's release.

And I know you said earlier that a big display dump of Destiny could sell gangbusters in May. But I don't see why it will. I don't see the appeal for these books to the filmgoer. They don't have any characters they saw on screen. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see why the newly-minted film fan would find Destiny or Over a Torrent Sea or Full Circle of any interest.

If there's any book this spring that's going to feel a bump from the film, it's Troublesome Minds.

 

[Thrawn]

No, I mean, in a lot of ways that'd be disingenuous, because they're not the same characters. I was disagreeing with that idea.

I mean, I realize this is a bit of an exaggeration, but if they made a movie taking place entirely in the mirror universe, you wouldn't expect them to take books about the normal-universe characters, print new covers that looked like their mirror universe counterparts, and re-release them, would you? The divergence is obviously bigger in that case, but I see your suggestion as the same thing to a certain extent.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

No, I mean, in a lot of ways that'd be disingenuous, because they're not the same characters. I was disagreeing with that idea.

I'm thinking in terms of marketing. Was it disingenuous of Houghton Mifflin to do photo covers when they reprinted the Lord of the Rings novels in 2001 through 2003 that showed the cast of the film? Because Elijah Wood's Frodo wasn't exactly J.R.R. Tolkien's Frodo. Mirando Otto's Eowyn wasn't exactly J.R.R. Tolkien's Eowyn. David Wenham's Faramir was definitely not J.R.R. Tolkien's Faramir. But by putting the actors that audiences had just gone to see on the covers of the books got people to pick up the books and discover the original, unvarnished story. It's marketing. It's about getting someone to pick up the book and making the sale. The fact that the character on the cover and the character inside the book aren't exactly the same is, all things considered, a minor detail.

 

[JD]

I've gotta agree with Allyn here. I'm just as shocked that Pocket hasn't done more to promote the movie, I especially like his idea about repringting the books like Spock's World or Best Destiny. And with those two especially you could probably even promote them as being books that helped to inspire the movie's story.


As for the general promotion of the movie, here in the US they also showed the first full trailer during an episode of JJ's new show Fringe (to attract the JJ Abrams fans), and then they showed the new trailer during Heroes (to attract the Zachary Quinto fans).

 

[Thrawn]

No, I mean, in a lot of ways that'd be disingenuous, because they're not the same characters. I was disagreeing with that idea.

I'm thinking in terms of marketing. Was it disingenuous of Houghton Mifflin to do photo covers when they reprinted the Lord of the Rings novels in 2001 through 2003 that showed the cast of the film? Because Elijah Wood's Frodo wasn't exactly J.R.R. Tolkien's Frodo. Mirando Otto's Eowyn wasn't exactly J.R.R. Tolkien's Frodo. David Wenham's Faramir was definitely not J.R.R. Tolkien's Frodo. But by putting the actors that audiences had just gone to see on the covers of the books got people to pick up the books and discover the original, unvarnished story. It's marketing. It's about getting someone to pick up the book and making the sale. The fact that the character on the cover and the character inside the book aren't exactly the same is, all things considered, a minor detail.

But at least in that case, the story was effectively the same. Here, the backstories for the characters are sharply different, at least once you get past the events of the movie. It's an alternate timeline, it's a different story.

It'd be like selling copies of the original Adam West Batman show with Christian Bale on the cover.


EDIT: Which is not to say they shouldn't be reprinting books; I think there should be a bunch of TOS stuff re-sent to bookstores, including Crucible and many of the books you mentioned. I just think changing the covers is a bad idea.

 

[JD]

Yeah, but from a marketing standpoint, it really would make sense to take advantage of the appeal of the new movie wether it matches the actual characters or not.
In fact this is why I was shocked when they released to cover of Troublesome Minds and it had Leonard Nimoy Spock instead of Zachary Quinto Spock.

 

[Trent Roman]

Was it disingenuous of Houghton Mifflin to do photo covers when they reprinted the Lord of the Rings novels in 2001 through 2003 that showed the cast of the film?

I'd say so, yes. Not as much as reprinting Trek books with new covers, but it should definately say something along the lines of "The book(s) that inspired the film!" or "Now a major motion picture!" to make it clear that these are distinct stories, however similar.

Mirando Otto's Eowyn wasn't exactly J.R.R. Tolkien's Frodo. David Wenham's Faramir was definitely not J.R.R. Tolkien's Frodo.

I would certainly hope not... "Frodo--when did you grow those golden tresses? And, er, why are you wearing a leather wonder-bra?"

The fact that the character on the cover and the character inside the book aren't exactly the same is, all things considered, a minor detail.

Sounds like false advertising to me. Different characters, different ship, different sensibility, different universe altogether.

EDIT: That's a good example, Thrawn. Another might be putting the cast of the modern BSG on a book based off the original series or BSG: 1980 (although I don't know if any such books were actually made); it's certainly an underhanded marketing tactic, and I would hope we've learned our lesson about promoting things as if they are things they are not. The new Trek isn't an adaptation, the way the LOTR films were; it's a (backdoor) reboot, and as such an entirely different creature.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Thrawn]

Yeah, but from a marketing standpoint, it really would make sense to take advantage of the appeal of the new movie wether it matches the actual characters or not.
In fact this is why I was shocked when they released to cover of Troublesome Minds and it had Leonard Nimoy Spock instead of Zachary Quinto Spock.

Again - they're different people. They had different lives. If it had Quinto on the cover, people would pick it up expecting it to take place after the Star Trek movie. But it doesn't. It takes place during the 5-year mission, which never happened (or at least didn't happen the same way) in the movie timeline.

It shouldn't have Quinto's Spock on the cover because the book isn't about him.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

But at least in that case, the story was effectively the same. Here, the backstories for the characters are sharply different, at least once you get past the events of the movie. It's an alternate timeline, it's a different story.

That's fair. I do understand where you're coming from. Obviously, I don't see it that way, but that's fair.

 

[Greg Cox]

Honestly, this strikes me as overly pedantic, especially where marketing is concerned. In general, Kirk is Kirk, Spock is Spock, and a couple of minor changes to the continuity and casting don't matter. You put Sean Connery on the cover of GOLDFINGER in the sixties and Daniel Craig on any new editions. Sure, you're fudging things, but this is entertainment, not a medical journal. And the books aren't canon anyway, so who's to say which Kirk it is.

In the novel version of I AM LEGEND, Richard Neville is a suburban white guy living in the seventies. That didn't stop me for putting Will Smith on the cover when the new movie came out. And nobody complained about false advertising, not even the author!

 

[Thrawn]

I dunno, I still see a difference here. Perhaps I am being overly pedantic, it wouldn't be the first time, but I bet the reaction upon someone purchasing I AM LEGEND and reading it would be something like "wow, the movie was really different from the book it was based on." But someone picking up Troublesome Minds with Quinto on the cover would think "what the hell? This isn't about the movie people? If I'd wanted a book about the TV show people, I would've bought one!"

 

[Stevil2001]

Indeed, and I, Robot was also reissued with Smith on the cover, and he plays a character not even in the book!

I think a good novel to reprint would be Kobayashi Maru, since it highlights four of the main crew-- and in their early days, to boot.

ETA: Obviously no one can say because we've not seen the movie, but I wonder if a low-continuity five-year mission story would fit into the reboot continuity just fine.

 

[Brendan Moody]

Well, we seem to have switched from talking about reprints to about new novels. I think any reprint would probably identify itself as a reprint- sticking the phrase "the classic novel from 1983!" on the back cover or whatever. Once you've done that, I think you've removed any reasonable expectation that the characters will be identical to those in the new stories, and most readers will understand that it's a not-quite-relevant product brought back into print for marketing purposes.

New novels are indeed a grayer area, although I think most people who would pick up a Star Trek book are going to be at least vaguely aware that there are multiple versions of the characters, just as Casino Royale viewers probably knew going in that there were other Bonds. I doubt anyone who looks at Troublesome Minds in a bookstore won't be able tell that it isn't a direct tie-in to the movie.

 

[Trent Roman]

Indeed, and I, Robot was also reissued with Smith on the cover, and he plays a character not even in the book!

Seriously?

I don't like it. It seems like selling one product under the guise of another. The cover forms part of what will create the readers' expectations towards the text (unless there's an obvious disclaimer, like those I mentioned above); why start by lying to the reader? I may certainly find myself entranced by the text despite the differences, but that doesn't change the fact that one was lured to the book under false premises. I think, for instance, of the cover to Double Helix Book Six, with Beverly Crusher on the cover despite the fact that she doesn't participate in the book. I finish the book and think to myself, "Well, where the hell was Bev in all this? This is not what was advertized."

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Thrawn]

Well, we seem to have switched from talking about reprints to about new novels. I think any reprint would probably identify itself as a reprint- sticking the phrase "the classic novel from 1983!" on the back cover or whatever. Once you've done that, I think you've removed any reasonable expectation that the characters will be identical to those in the new stories, and most readers will understand that it's a not-quite-relevant product brought back into print for marketing purposes.

That's a good point, I hadn't thought of that. I still think it'd bug me, but not as much.

New novels are indeed a grayer area, although I think most people who would pick up a Star Trek book are going to be at least vaguely aware that there are multiple versions of the characters, just as Casino Royale viewers probably knew going in that there were other Bonds. I doubt anyone who looks at Troublesome Minds in a bookstore won't be able tell that it isn't a direct tie-in to the movie.

In this case, though, I'd definitely say pick one version of the character to have in the book and keep the same one on the cover.

 

[Sci]

I'd just like to pop in and say that I find all the armchair quarterbacking of Pocket's business decisions and sales prospects with regards to the film to be kinda amusing.