I understand that... but we are not speaking about ONE series here... we are speaking about one whole era, in which we have had 3 TV shows and even more book series!
While TOS and as people here call it nuTOS gets 2/3 of the year... although it is the same period, all the rest is left with just mere 1/3?
It simply feels not fair.
There's only so much room on the schedule in any given year, so fairness has to be cumulative -- what gets underexposed in one year gets it made up by more exposure in a later year. That's the way it worked for a long time. Heck, we had a run of a few years where practically every year was a different anniversary, first DS9 then VGR then TOS then TNG. So each of those years, the series having the anniversary got heavily emphasized and other series got shorter shrift. And people then complained that it was "unfair," but over time, the series that were pushed aside in the anniversary years got it made up to them later on. You just can't look at this on a year-by-year basis. There are often good marketing reasons to give one series more weight than the others in a particular year. So it would be very unwise to try for some arbitrary uniformity, to make sure every series got exactly equal treatment every single year. That would just be foolhardy, because you'd be wasting a lot of opportunities.
From the moment they announced TREK XI as a reboot of TOS, I lost interest in it, and was happy to be able to follow the adventures of the series I loved in book form (and you guys outdid pretty much everything that we have seen on the small or big screen in many books, thank you for that), but now - it just feels, like - even in this sector, JJTrek is taking over.
I wonder if one days Prime TREK will be lost forever.
Honestly, I am really angry about this schedule.
You're overreacting. It makes sense to pay more attention to it
this year, because of how big it is. But like I said, you can't assume that one year's pattern is predictive of what's going to happen in years to come. You certainly can't predict a trend from a single sample. I mean, if the average temperature in your city goes from 45 degrees Fahrenheit in March to 85 degrees in July, that doesn't mean it's going to be 125 degrees in November. Curves don't always go in a single direction. There are ups and downs. So any extrapolation based on "if the current trend continues" is pretty much worthless, especially if that "trend" is based on a one-time increase.
The point is that people will not, on the whole, go and buy books based off a film they went to see.
People
on the whole don't buy books anyway. People on the whole barely read at all. But people who
do buy books, people who enjoy reading in general, do, in fact, buy books based on films they went to see. That's the whole reason the tie-in industry
exists. The very fact that there is a Trek Literature forum for us to be having this discussion on proves that people do buy books on the basis of their visual-media interests.
My X-Men and Spider-Man novels were scheduled to coincide with the theatrical release of
X-Men: The Last Stand and the home video release of
Spider-Man 3 (or was it the other way around?). The only reason I
did an X-Men novel at all was because Marvel and Pocket wanted a book to tie in with the movie release. Why would they have bothered if nobody ever bought books based on movies they'd seen? The publishing industry has operated for a long time on the assumption that people
do buy books based on movies they've seen, and if that were untrue, then the industry would've stopped thinking that way by now, don't you think?
And no matter how many people went and saw the new Star Trek film, nearly none of them will go looking for books for more Star Trek (if they were not already pre-disposed to do so, and if they were, then they are not the people being aimed at anyway).
That's spurious logic. There's a big difference between the set of
people who are already fans of ST literature and the set of
people who enjoy reading books based on media franchises they enjoy but who have not previously been ST fans. Those are both subsets of the set
people who enjoy media tie-in literature, but they're distinct and exclusive subsets. It's that latter subset that the new books are aiming for. The number of people who read books based on movies is only 1-2% of the filmgoing audience, but that's pretty much universal, and it's because most people don't read much of
anything. But the new movie has created a whole new audience that hasn't been into Trek before, and just 1-2% of that audience would be a pretty sizeable number of new readers.
