Are you apprehensive about the new series?

[Greg Cox]

"Most multimedia franchises"? What else are we comparing ST to? Yes, comic-book-based stuff is a tangled mess, but what else?

Tarzan, Dracula, Zorro, Godzilla, Planet of the Apes, etc.: any numbers of characters and concepts that appeared in multiple movies, TV shows, animated cartoons, novels, comic books, remakes, etc.

As I've written (many times) before, even as a kid, I understood that the original Tarzan novels, the old black-and-white movies, the new color movies, the TV show with Ron Ely, the various Saturday cartoons, the Gold Key comics, and so on did not exist in one seamless continuity--and I never expected them to. Nobody cared about "canon" back then.

Nor was I puzzled that the Hammer FRANKENSTEIN movies were set in a different continuity than the old Universal films--or I WAS A TEENAGE FRANKENSTEIN, for that matter.

And, honestly, the DARK SHADOWS movies and novels and comic books bore little or no connection to the continuity of the original TV soap opera. The first feature film, HOUSE OF DARK SHADOWS, was essentially a remake of the TV show (with a lot more blood), and the second one, NIGHT OF DARK SHADOWS, pretty much ignored the TV show entirely, aside from giving the characters the same names.

The idea that everything needs to fit into some sort of consistent "canon" is very much a modern obsession. Trust me, we didn't worry about this stuff when I was a kid.

Anybody else remember the FANTASTIC VOYAGE cartoon? Or the various different KING KONG movies and cartoon?

EDIT: And as for THE ADDAMS FAMILY, don't forget the Broadway musical!

 

[Christopher]

^Indeed -- how often do children's daydreams and play scenarios have a consistent continuity? They tend to get reinvented at a whim. Going "Wait, forget that, I have a better idea" is basic to how human imagination works. So I doubt most children would have trouble with the idea of a mutable fictional continuity. It's only grownups who have trouble with that.

 

[Idran]

The idea that everything needs to fit into some sort of consistent "canon" is very much a modern obsession. Trust me, we didn't worry about this stuff when I was a kid.

Tell that to the Baker Street Irregulars.

Edit: And also, honestly, my play scenarios did have as consistent a continuity as I could manage when I was a kid, but I freely admit I was a very weird kid in that regard. (I had an entire "LEGO Universe" set up with my various creations. )

 

[BillJ]

Are you apprehensive about the new series?

Not even a little bit.

So whose writing the novelization of the pilot?!?

 

[Greg Cox]

The idea that everything needs to fit into some sort of consistent "canon" is very much a modern obsession. Trust me, we didn't worry about this stuff when I was a kid.

Tell that to the Baker Street Irregulars.

Good point. But that didn't stop Basil Rathbone from fighting the Nazis in the 1940s.

And I've read at least three different versions of Holmes versus Dracula, or Holmes versus the Phantom of the Opera.

More childhood memories: In retrospect, I was always into mash-ups, even as a kid, penning such epic tales as "Good Grief, Monsters!" (the Peanuts gang versus the Universal Monsters) and "Frankenstein Meets the Golem." (Sadly, the manuscripts are lost to history.)

Heck, my first professional sales, back in the day, included a "Tempest/Peter Pan" mash-up (for AMAZING STORIES) and a story where Jack the Ripper met Sweeney Todd (for MIKE SHAYNE MYSTERY MAGAZINE).

So I guess I've never been much of a stickler when it comes to "canon."

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Tarzan, Dracula, Zorro, Godzilla, Planet of the Apes, etc.: any numbers of characters and concepts that appeared in multiple movies, TV shows, animated cartoons, novels, comic books, remakes, etc.

Well, just to deal with Dracula, you've got Murnau's Nosferatu, the 1931 Bela Lugosi film, the Hammer Films versions with Christopher Lee, the 1979 Frank Langella film, (also from 1979) Love at First Bite, with George Hamilton, and of course, Dracula: Dead and Loving It, with Leslie Nielsen, Harvey Korman, Peter MacNicol, and Mel Brooks. None of them share a common continuity because none of them had any reason to do so: they were different takes, by different people, with different goals, on a classic literary work that eventually fell into the Public Domain. Likewise with Frankenstein, you've got everything from Edison's 1910 silent, to the 1931 Boris Karloff, to (you guessed it) more Hammer films, to Young Frankenstein, to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

But you've also got Star Trek, Star Wars, and a whole lot of what were originally purely literary franchises (from Holmes to Oz, to ADF's Humanx Commonwealth, along with the Stratemeyer Syndicate's myriad children's novel series). And with the exceptions of the Barry Nelson and Niven/Sellers versions of Casino Royale, and Connery's lamentable Never Say Never Again (which I saw once, and promptly said, "never again"), every official Bond film from Connery's Dr. No to Brosnan's Die Another Day was considered to be in a single continuity, and then the reboot for the Daniel Craig Casino was considered by many (myself included, although I'd lost interest after The Living Daylights) to be an aberration.

The difference is that where you've got multiple unrelated continuities in a non-comic-book franchise, it isn't really a "franchise," per se; it's just a bunch of independent adaptations of the same (licensed, infringed, in the case of Nosferatu, or PD) property. Whereas with Holmes, Oz, The Bobbsey Twins, the Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, Bond, ST, SW, and Humanx, you've got a continuity of authorship producing a continuity of stories.

FWIW: My favorite Bond is a toss-up between Moore and Dalton, and I have a friend who claims his favorite Bond was Lazenby.

 

[Greg Cox]

Dare I admit that I like NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN better than THUNDERBALL? And let's be honest here: up until recently, the Bond films maintained only a loose continuity at best--which may be why the movie series was able to keep reinventing itself over the decades. It's not like FOR YOUR EYES ONLY has a lot of callbacks to DR. NO. And who is playing Felix Leiter this week?


And literary roots or not, history suggests that audiences are perfectly capable of enjoying multiple versions of the same character or series, sometimes simultaneously, without losing sleep over it. "Canon" is a peculiarly fannish obsession. I'm not convinced the rest of the world worries about it overmuch.

 

[Idran]

The difference is that where you've got multiple unrelated continuities in a non-comic-book franchise, it isn't really a "franchise," per se; it's just a bunch of independent adaptations of the same (licensed, infringed, in the case of Nosferatu, or PD) property.

Tell that to Universal; I'm not sure if it's still on the docket, but they were absolutely planning to MCU-ize the Universal monsters for a time. That's what "Dracula Untold" was about, it was an attempt at a first step in that direction.

 

[Christopher]

Good point. But that didn't stop Basil Rathbone from fighting the Nazis in the 1940s.

Nor did it stop William Gillette's Holmes from falling in love in his play (or the recently rediscovered silent film version thereof), despite the canonical Holmes having no use for women.

Likewise with Frankenstein, you've got everything from Edison's 1910 silent, to the 1931 Boris Karloff, to (you guessed it) more Hammer films, to Young Frankenstein, to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

In fact, Young Frankenstein was effectively a loose sequel to the first three Universal films, or at least a pastiche of them -- even going so far as to reuse Kenneth Strickfaden's electrical props from the original film. Some Frankenstein buffs even consider it a legitimate continuation of those films.

But you've also got Star Trek, Star Wars, and a whole lot of what were originally purely literary franchises (from Holmes to Oz, to ADF's Humanx Commonwealth, along with the Stratemeyer Syndicate's myriad children's novel series).

And how many separate, incompatible film and TV adaptations of the Oz books have there been?

And with the exceptions of the Barry Nelson and Niven/Sellers versions of Casino Royale, and Connery's lamentable Never Say Never Again (which I saw once, and promptly said, "never again"), every official Bond film from Connery's Dr. No to Brosnan's Die Another Day was considered to be in a single continuity, and then the reboot for the Daniel Craig Casino was considered by many (myself included, although I'd lost interest after The Living Daylights) to be an aberration.

Yes, but the "official" films are all one series. As you say, they aren't in continuity with the films and TV adaptations from other sources. They aren't in continuity with the books. They aren't in continuity with the James Bond Jr. cartoon series. This is what I'm talking about. Obviously any single series in a single medium is going to have continuity. What's unusual is for a multimedia series to have continuity across formats -- for a live-action TV series, its animated adaptation, its feature film revivals, and its decades-later TV revivals from different creators to share a single common continuity instead of four or more separate ones.

The difference is that where you've got multiple unrelated continuities in a non-comic-book franchise, it isn't really a "franchise," per se; it's just a bunch of independent adaptations of the same (licensed, infringed, in the case of Nosferatu, or PD) property.

You're getting that exactly backward. To quote Wikipedia, "A media franchise is a collection of media in which several derivative works have been produced from an original work of media (usually a work of fiction)." The fact that something has multiple adaptations is what makes it a franchise. They don't have to be in continuity, because "franchise" is a business term, not a storytelling term. More generally, franchising is the process of licensing a business to other people, entering into partnerships in which you grant others a license to operate your brand or sell your product, in exchange for a cut of the profits.

So when I talk about a multimedia franchise, I am not talking about any single series. I'm talking about the series and its various adaptations or spinoffs taken together.

 

[Greg Cox]

The difference is that where you've got multiple unrelated continuities in a non-comic-book franchise, it isn't really a "franchise," per se; it's just a bunch of independent adaptations of the same (licensed, infringed, in the case of Nosferatu, or PD) property.

Tell that to Universal; I'm not sure if it's still on the docket, but they were absolutely planning to MCU-ize the Universal monsters for a time. That's what "Dracula Untold" was about, it was an attempt at a first step in that direction.

As someone who dearly loves the Universal Monsters, I am praying they pull that off. And, yes, I'm perfectly fine with them making the Mummy a woman this time around . . . as it's rumored they are considering.

Plus, I so want to write the novelization of one of those movies. The Universal Monsters that has eluded me . . . so far.

(Although I did get to write a fight between Wonder Woman and Frankenstein in one of my DC Comics novelizations. My inner twelve-year-old is still thrilled by that.)

 

[Christopher]

Tell that to Universal; I'm not sure if it's still on the docket, but they were absolutely planning to MCU-ize the Universal monsters for a time. That's what "Dracula Untold" was about, it was an attempt at a first step in that direction.

Actually Dracula Untold was originally going to be a standalone movie, but it had some hasty reshoots done to fit it into the shared-universe plan.

 

[Greg Cox]

Tell that to Universal; I'm not sure if it's still on the docket, but they were absolutely planning to MCU-ize the Universal monsters for a time. That's what "Dracula Untold" was about, it was an attempt at a first step in that direction.

Actually Dracula Untold was originally going to be a standalone movie, but it had some hasty reshoots done to fit it into the shared-universe plan.

That was my understanding as well.

And now I hear that Syfy is planning a series about a Vanessa Van Helsing . . ..

 

[Christopher]

And now I hear that Syfy is planning a series about a Vanessa Van Helsing . . ..

I heard it as "Vanessa Helsing" -- the "Van" being short for "Vanessa." Which is silly, if true. The distaff equivalent of "Abraham Van Helsing" would be something like Avra Van Helsing. Or maybe Abra, which would be fitting in a magic-oriented character...

 

[Greg Cox]

Not to be confused with Rachel Van Helsing in the old Marvel comics, or Jessica Van Helsing in one of the Hammer movies . . . . .

Ultimately, none of this stuff is set in stone. It's all grist for the mill.

 

[Christopher]

^Yeah, but anyone who thinks that "Van Helsing" can be turned into "Vanessa Helsing" doesn't understand how surnames work. I mean, it suggests they actually thought "Van" was his first name.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Now that would be interesting to see, yet another alternate take. Something like a DC-esque approach, where the TV, movies, and print media end up telling unconnected stories in the same foundational concepts?

I have been considering the possibility that the new television series could be a complete reboot, rather than the partial reset the 2009 movie was. They could take a look at the last fifty years, pick the elements that they want to play with, and chuck anything that doesn't interest them or is outdated to create a new Star Trek for the 21st-century. The possibilities if they went that route are, for me anyway, exciting.

 

[BillJ]

I have been considering the possibility that the new television series could be a complete reboot, rather than the partial reset the 2009 movie was. They could take a look at the last fifty years, pick the elements that they want to play with, and chuck anything that doesn't interest them or is outdated to create a new Star Trek for the 21st-century. The possibilities if they went that route are, for me anyway, exciting.

This is exactly what I'm hoping they do.

 

[Christopher]

I have been considering the possibility that the new television series could be a complete reboot, rather than the partial reset the 2009 movie was. They could take a look at the last fifty years, pick the elements that they want to play with, and chuck anything that doesn't interest them or is outdated to create a new Star Trek for the 21st-century. The possibilities if they went that route are, for me anyway, exciting.

That's what I've thought they should do for a long time. The original series is rooted in ideas from 1960s science fiction and earlier. What made it distinctive for its day was that it drew on ideas from the SF literature of the era that hadn't really been used on TV before. But the literature has advanced far since then, and I'd like to see an ST series that starts from scratch and builds on contemporary SF ideas -- the sort of thing that Robert Hewitt Wolfe, Zack Stentz, and Ashley Edward Miller tried to do with Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda but were hampered in achieving by microbudgets and executive micromanaging.

The reason Bad Robot made their new series a temporal branch off the old one, as I understand it, was because they didn't want to alienate fans by doing something unconnected to the old continuity. But it kinda backfired, because it just bred complaints about how they'd gotten things "wrong." They might've been better off just doing something completely independent.

 

[BillJ]

The reason Bad Robot made their new series a temporal branch off the old one, as I understand it, was because they didn't want to alienate fans by doing something unconnected to the old continuity. But it kinda backfired, because it just bred complaints about how they'd gotten things "wrong." They might've been better off just doing something completely independent.

I imagine those same folks would've still complained. It's just in some people's DNA.

 

[The Wormhole]

The reason Bad Robot made their new series a temporal branch off the old one, as I understand it, was because they didn't want to alienate fans by doing something unconnected to the old continuity. But it kinda backfired, because it just bred complaints about how they'd gotten things "wrong." They might've been better off just doing something completely independent.

I imagine those same folks would've still complained. It's just in some people's DNA.

Well, yes there would have been complaints regardless, but an honest reboot that severed all ties would have been better than this timeline split from the original universe just so we can have Leonard Nimoy back.