Hm, yes, I can see why you wouldn't want any corny lines to interfere in something as serious as a crossover between two cartoons, one of which is about giant transforming robots.
‘TREK vs. TRANSFORMERS’ Crossover Comic
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
Also, giant clones!
Eh. I hear what you're saying, but there's a difference between the writer taking a bonkers concept and playing it straight, and a writer taking a bonkers concept and playing it for the lulz. Personally, I tend to prefer the former, which can (on rare occasions) lead us to a "so bad it's good" situation. The latter approach usually leads to "so bad its bad".
However, I do recognize that I'm not the target audience for any of IDW's crossovers (PoTA, Transformers, Green Lantern, etc.) I don't get the point of crossovers in general, especially for properties that exist in universes with different laws of physics. So, "Aliens vs. Predator," which play their universes similarly, I liked (referring to the original comics from the late '80's). But stunts like "Batman vs. Donald Duck" (or whichever Looney Tunes character is facing off with Batman) hold no appeal for me whatsoever.
Donald Duck is Disney; Daffy is Looney Tunes. And the character who faced Batman was Elmer Fudd, and that story was kind of a brilliant noir tale (which you can experience here as a motion comic read by legendary Batman artist Neal Adams).
I don't mind crossovers that are clearly out-of-continuity, alternative takes, not if there's something worthwhile to be gotten out of the pairing or the contrast. All stories are equally imaginary no matter what continuity they're in, so there's nothing wrong with a story being apocryphal and impossible in the main continuity. But it's something that can be overdone. I think crossovers in comics have become a bit too routine and ordinary. I think they should be saved for occasions when there's a genuinely good reason for them.
I agree with this. Crossovers can be fun isolated diversions from the main continuity. The last crossover comic I read was Transformers and G I Joe in the eighties, so I don’t know how overdone it is, but I’m predicting that TV/Cinema audiences are ripe for them. Mark my words, once the shared universes have run out of steam, it’ll be the spectacle of the collaborative shared multistudioverse and anything is possible.
Crossovers have been around at least since radio -- George Burns or Fred Allen showing up on Jack Benny's show, Fibber McGee & Molly partnering with Edgar Bergen & Charlie McCarthy in a pair of movie spinoffs of their radio shows -- and they were common enough in classic TV -- Batman fighting the Green Hornet, Dennis the Menace showing up at Donna Reed's house, Jessica Fletcher teaming up with Thomas Magnum. Not to mention all the crossovers within shows from the same creators, like the "Hooterville Trilogy" of Petticoat Junction, The Beverly Hillbillies, and Green Acres, or all the various Andy Griffith or Mary Tyler Moore spinoffs. Heck, you could argue that crossovers go back to ancient mythology, with characters from one region's myths getting picked up and incorporated into the myths of a different region or into the shared mythos of the larger culture. Jason and the Argonauts and The Iliad were the Avengers movies of the ancient Western world, tossing in all the big-name heroes as part of the same epic story.
But they're harder to justify in science fiction, since each SF universe usually has its own version of physical laws, past and future history, galactic geography, etc. that doesn't mesh with other SF universes. So you have to either ignore the discrepancies and pretend they're in a common reality, or go the "alternate universes" route, which has its own illogic. (Realistically, any alternate universes that contain an Earth, humanity, etc. would be divergent timelines of our universe and would have the same physical and biological laws that we do, so it doesn't really work to justify crossing over two universes with radically different physics or galactic geography or ancient history.)
But they're harder to justify in science fiction, since each SF universe usually has its own version of physical laws, past and future history, galactic geography, etc. that doesn't mesh with other SF universes. So you have to either ignore the discrepancies and pretend they're in a common reality, or go the "alternate universes" route, which has its own illogic. (Realistically, any alternate universes that contain an Earth, humanity, etc. would be divergent timelines of our universe and would have the same physical and biological laws that we do, so it doesn't really work to justify crossing over two universes with radically different physics or galactic geography or ancient history.)
Different approaches for different scenarios, I guess. Crossing what is not exactly the shining moment of either the Star Trek or Transformers franchises seems an appropriate spot for some corniness. On the other hand, Star Trek: The Next Generation / Doctor Who played it completely straight, and was completely terrible anyway, lacking the sense of fun that ought to have permeated the concept. Or, really, a concept of anything. I did really enjoy the Star Trek / Legion of Super-Heroes crossover until its overly rushed wrap-up. That was two franchises I wouldn't've thought to put together that went together well.
I was disappointed in Star Trek/Planet of the Apes because it was so unambitious. There were interesting ways to do it, but retelling "A Private Little War," only set on the Planet of the Apes, wasn't one of them.
As for the first issue of the crossover at hand, it was fine. I admire the way it's done.
As for the first issue of the crossover at hand, it was fine. I admire the way it's done.
But you know that’s not the way commercial storytelling works; the concept (“Star Trek vs. Ninja Turtles!”) comes first, then the legal wrangling, then the story... which may be knock-it-out-of-the-park, or it may be weak and cliched. But at this point, the project goes forward, because money has been invested by the licensors.
The “genuinely good reason” is generally along the lines of “the fans will lap this up, and it might get some segment of the Star Trek audience into reading TMNT, and vice-versa.” There’s rarely a compelling in-universe story driving the crossover; commerce drives it.
Just finished reading. Only being familiar with Transformers through Beast Wars, the movies and Wikipedia articles, I found Spock’s line a completely believable thing to say in that moment. It would have went over my head had I not read about it in this very thread.
As a kid we mixed our toys from different themes, so crossovers are a natural thing so see and enjoy. I take them seriously in my head-continuity, so welcome to the Transformers to the Star Trek multiverse!
As a kid we mixed our toys from different themes, so crossovers are a natural thing so see and enjoy. I take them seriously in my head-continuity, so welcome to the Transformers to the Star Trek multiverse!
I thought it was okay, if derivative (but then, what are nostalgic crossovers like this if not doubly derivative by their very nature?). But it got confusing with the chronology at the end, as if something had been skipped over. And it missed an opportunity to use the Enterprise's presence to fix the huge plot hole of how Cornelius, Zira, and Milo managed to launch Brent's capsule back into space without the technological infrastructure to build, fuel, and launch a Saturn booster.
Really, though, I think that of all the universes IDW has crossed over with Trek, Planet of the Apes is one of the easiest to buy as a valid alternate history. It doesn't have weird superpowers like DC or Marvel, it doesn't have ghosts or zombies, and unlike Doctor Who (or DC or Marvel), it isn't a universe where Star Trek exists as a work of fiction. It has its share of implausibilities, like the apes speaking English and Taylor somehow not realizing they were on Earth, or like the improbable evolution of the apes; but Trek has comparable credibility issues with linguistics and evolution. And both franchise do have a common bent toward allegory and social commentary, although PotA is far more pessimistic about humanity's future.
I felt the easiest way to have Star Trek interact with Planet of the Apes was to have the Planet simply be another duplicate (or near-duplicate) Earth, like Miri's Planet or Magna Roma. I think, when I brought this up before, that you, Christopher, said that the duplicate Earths were silly and not at all scientific, and they are, but the concept that there are duplicate or near-duplicate Earths in the Star Trek universe, for good or ill, exists. For something like PotA, you don't have to posit alternate timelines and universes; you can simply drop that world in Star Trek whole cloth by making use of something already inherent to Star Trek lore, and doing so doesn't alter anything about PotA. Heck, you could have Kirk, Spock, and McCoy at the end musing, on the bridge, about the possibility that PotA-Earth is the original Earth and the Federation-Earth merely the duplicate... but does the answer to that really make a difference?
Anyway, to bring this back to Transformers, I like that the first issue of the crossover appears to treat the two universes as coexistig. There have been no spatial anomalies, no time travel, just the Enterprise finding a planet while they boldly go where the Decepticons are making mischief. Simple.
Anyway, to bring this back to Transformers, I like that the first issue of the crossover appears to treat the two universes as coexistig. There have been no spatial anomalies, no time travel, just the Enterprise finding a planet while they boldly go where the Decepticons are making mischief. Simple.
Hmm, I think that making the PotA Earth a duplicate somewhere out in space pretty much undermines the whole point of the series and the impact of the first film's ending. I mean, even if it's the actual future of Taylor's and Brent's Earth, it's still not "our" Earth, and that renders the whole allegory toothless. I don't think a crossover should undermine either of its components. Sure, you could argue that an alternate timeline isn't "our" Earth either (or rather, the Trek characters' Earth), but it would've been once, before its history diverged, and that means that its history is something that could have been "our" history, a "there but for the grace of time" scenario, and that hits closer to home than "Oh, there's a totally other planet that coincidentally happened to recapitulate our development."
Besides, in Forgotten History I explained that Miri's Planet was from an alternate timeline all along. As for Planet 892-IV, the claim of The Captain's Honor that it was an exact duplicate of Earth is erroneous and uncanonical -- it's obvious from the name that it's the fourth planet of its sun, and its continents as seen in "Bread and Circuses" were clearly different from Earth's (though identical to every other TOS planet that had continents). "Miri" aside, none of the TOS Earth parallels were portrayed as 100% duplicates of every aspect of Earth. And "Miri" was a stupid episode and a terrible model to emulate.
Besides, in Forgotten History I explained that Miri's Planet was from an alternate timeline all along. As for Planet 892-IV, the claim of The Captain's Honor that it was an exact duplicate of Earth is erroneous and uncanonical -- it's obvious from the name that it's the fourth planet of its sun, and its continents as seen in "Bread and Circuses" were clearly different from Earth's (though identical to every other TOS planet that had continents). "Miri" aside, none of the TOS Earth parallels were portrayed as 100% duplicates of every aspect of Earth. And "Miri" was a stupid episode and a terrible model to emulate.
Still. Waiting.
Last edited:
I felt the easiest way to have Star Trek interact with Planet of the Apes was to have the Planet simply be another duplicate (or near-duplicate) Earth, like Miri's Planet or Magna Roma. I think, when I brought this up before, that you, Christopher, said that the duplicate Earths were silly and not at all scientific, and they are, but the concept that there are duplicate or near-duplicate Earths in the Star Trek universe, for good or ill, exists. For something like PotA, you don't have to posit alternate timelines and universes; you can simply drop that world in Star Trek whole cloth by making use of something already inherent to Star Trek lore, and doing so doesn't alter anything about PotA. Heck, you could have Kirk, Spock, and McCoy at the end musing, on the bridge, about the possibility that PotA-Earth is the original Earth and the Federation-Earth merely the duplicate... but does the answer to that really make a difference?
Anyway, to bring this back to Transformers, I like that the first issue of the crossover appears to treat the two universes as coexistig. There have been no spatial anomalies, no time travel, just the Enterprise finding a planet while they boldly go where the Decepticons are making mischief. Simple.
Being a duplicate Earth in another part of the galaxy would definitely explain the lack of familiar star patterns in Planet of the Apes, instead of assuming it had been millenia and the stars had changed.
Still. Waiting.
Ultimate crossover: “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle Hatchlings in The Terratin Terrapin Incident." by Ian McLean, on Flickr
I have to confess, I would totally read that.Still. Waiting.
wasn't it Taylors ship they fished out of the lake? Brents had been badly damaged in the crash
