"Beyond" Novelization

[JonnyQuest037]

they just didn't have Richard Arnold's permission to act on it, because he was in charge of approval and he let his personal likes and dislikes dictate what got approved.

^^ The problem with the Richard Arnold era in a nutshell, right there. Fans presenting their personal opinions as facts has become a real pet peeve of mine. And when someone in a position of power is doing it, like Arnold was, it's thoroughly unprofessional.

FYI, M'yra, the replacement version of M'Ress, was named after Peter David's then-wife Myra (who he'd met at a Star Trek convention).

 

[ATimson]

Yeah, but as I've been saying, the comics licenses have usually been piecemeal. I have the impression that Pocket's license is more all-inclusive, but if so, it's unique to Pocket.

For a while Activision had an all-inclusive license for computer games as well. (Until Nemesis tanked and they sued Paramount over it...)

 

[Greg Cox]

Note: I have never laid eyes on Pocket's licensing agreements so I cannot speak with authority there.

But I can say that, in my experience, such agreements seldom contain any language about content. They're all about boring business stuff: payment schedules, sales territories, royalty rates, translation and book club rights, approval procedures, uses of trademarked symbols and logos, etc. Not about continuity issues or "canon' or anything like that.

The content of the books is generally something you work out with the licensor after the contracts are signed, and the actual process varies. Sometimes the licensor is very hands-on, sometimes they give you plenty of free rein, but it's all about developing a good working relationship with the folks in California or wherever . . . and figuring out where the red flags are.

 

[Idran]

Continuity and canon were only vaguely the topic here, people were just under the false impression that various tie-in publishers simply didn't have the license for TAS rather than it just being Arnold's personal preference. But there has to be some discussion of content, doesn't there? I mean, you're licensing some subset of the IP of another company, so wouldn't a licensing agreement have to spell out what exactly it is you're licensing? Like, getting outside Star Trek, Fox's licensing agreement with Marvel would have to specify what exact properties they have the right to use in some form, I would have to think. There would have some kind of language somewhere laying out how exactly they determine if a given character is a part of the X-Men or Fantastic Four franchises in such a manner that Fox would be allowed to use them, and that would have to get to details of the characters in some fashion.

Is that really negotiated in a completely separate contract? That seems strange to me, since it seems to me like one of the core purposes of a license agreement should be to explain what exactly it is you're licensing; all those other business details for how you can use the IP are pointless if you don't have a clear idea what IP it is you're using in the first place. Or do you not mean identification of property when you talk about content?

 

[Christopher]

Continuity and canon were only vaguely the topic here, people were just under the false impression that various tie-in publishers simply didn't have the license for TAS rather than it just being Arnold's personal preference.

Well, maybe false. I'm not speaking from authority here, just describing how it seems to me. I'd say it's unlikely that the brief early-'90s TAS ban was a licensing issue, but I can't say that as an absolute fact.

 

[Greg Cox]

Continuity and canon were only vaguely the topic here, people were just under the false impression that various tie-in publishers simply didn't have the license for TAS rather than it just being Arnold's personal preference. But there has to be some discussion of content, doesn't there? I mean, you're licensing some subset of the IP of another company, so wouldn't a licensing agreement have to spell out what exactly it is you're licensing? Like, getting outside Star Trek, Fox's licensing agreement with Marvel would have to specify what exact properties they have the right to use in some form, I would have to think. There would have some kind of language somewhere laying out how exactly they determine if a given character is a part of the X-Men or Fantastic Four franchises in such a manner that Fox would be allowed to use them, and that would have to get to details of the characters in some fashion.

Is that really negotiated in a completely separate contract? That seems strange to me, since it seems to me like one of the core purposes of a license agreement should be to explain what exactly it is you're licensing; all those other business details for how you can use the IP are pointless if you don't have a clear idea what IP it is you're using in the first place. Or do you not mean identification of property when you talk about content?

I was basically addressing the idea that something like whether TAS counts is is more likely to be worked out at the creative end than something spelled out in the contract, but, yes, you're right that if it's something like Marvel Comics, that has plenty of "subsets," a contract to do FANTASTIC FOUR books doesn't automatically give you the rights to do X-MEN books. On other hand, it's unlikely that the FF contract will spell out in detail precisely which Marvel characters and concepts are included under the license and which are off-limits; that's something that's more likely to be worked out between the editor and Marvel's licensing department further down the road. And we're not a talking a "completely separate contract." We're just talking back-and-forth conversations during the approval process.

"Can we mention SHIELD in a FF book? How about A.I.M.?"

"Sure. Why not?"

"Can we use Wolverine--and put him on the cover?"

"Now you're pushing it . . ... "

And, of course, in most cases, you don't have "subsets" to deal with. A contract to do FARSCAPE books means you have the rights to, well, FARSCAPE. Ditto for WAREHOUSE 13 or SUPERNATURAL or THE X-FILES or THE LIBRARIANS or whatever.

One funny case: Years ago, when I did a deal to publish a line of original ZORRO novels, it was very specifically for the original "Don Diego" Zorro from the original novels, NOT for the then-new Antonio Banderas movie version. The rights to that Zorro went to another publisher.

Ran into the same issue with MORTAL KOMBAT several years back. I had the rights to do books based on the MK movies, but another publisher had the rights to do MK books based on the video game. This caused some confusion in the marketplace . . ...

 

[Christopher]

One funny case: Years ago, when I did a deal to publish a line of original ZORRO novels, it was very specifically for the original "Don Diego" Zorro from the original novels, NOT for the then-new Antonio Banderas movie version. The rights to that Zorro went to another publisher.

Odd lines do get drawn sometimes. The makers of RoboCop: The Series had the rights to the character of Alex Murphy/RoboCop and to elements like Old Detroit, Delta City, MediaBreak, and OCP, as well as the RoboCop costume design and even the original Basil Poledouris theme music, but for some reason it didn't have the rights to any of the other character names from the movie. So they were substituted with different characters or had their names changed -- Lewis to Madigan, Sgt. Reed to Sgt. Parks, Ellen Murphy to Nancy Murphy, the Old Man to the Chairman. (Though oddly they were able to keep the name of Murphy's son Jimmy unchanged.) And yet the earlier Marvel-produced animated series had the rights to all the movie characters, even giving major recurring roles to bit characters from the movie like the SWAT team leader and the inventor of ED-209.

Then there's The Tick, where the live-action series had the rights to comics characters like the Tick, Arthur, Arthur's sister, and the Terror, but didn't have the rights to the supporting characters created for the cartoon (Die Fledermaus and American Maid, parodies of Batman and Wonder Woman) and thus created their rough equivalents Bat Manuel and Captain Liberty.

 

[Idran]

I was basically addressing the idea that something like whether TAS counts is is more likely to be worked out at the creative end than something spelled out in the contract, but, yes, you're right that if it's something like Marvel Comics, that has plenty of "subsets," a contract to do FANTASTIC FOUR books doesn't automatically give you the rights to do X-MEN books. On other hand, it's unlikely that the FF contract will spell out in detail precisely which Marvel characters and concepts are included under the license and which are off-limits; that's something that's more likely to be worked out between the editor and Marvel's licensing department further down the road. And we're not a talking a "completely separate contract." We're just talking back-and-forth conversations during the approval process.

What about the whole thing with Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver? The way that resolved felt as though there was a bright line conceptual standard spelled out somewhere in the legal arrangement, like Marvel had no ability to tell Fox that they couldn't use those characters, and that the contract precluded Marvel from using the term "mutant" in their mov-

And I've literally just remembered while writing this that their thing isn't a licensing contract but a granting of movie rights which would probably have to be much more specific since it literally meant parceling up characters and concepts and all that for use in film rather than just licensing them out while still being able to use them themselves as well, so this probably isn't even relevant to the conversation I now realize.

 

[Greg Cox]

In general, a lot of these finer points are sorted during the approval process. "Such approval not to be unreasonably withheld," which is admittedly kinda vague, but assumes that reasonable people can work things out. Of course, a FANTASTIC FOUR license would cover the Richards clan and Doctor Doom, but the Inhumans or the Silver Surfer? In publishing at least, that's probably not going to be spelled out explicitly in in the contract, but subject to Marvel's approval during the brainstorming sessions.

"Can we use the Silver Surfer?"

"We'd prefer you not. What else have you got?"

"How about Annihilus?"

"Works for us."

Note: just because a license presumably covers a certain character doesn't mean you have carte blanche to do whatever you want with them. Again, the licensor maintains control via the approval process.

"Can we use Doctor Doom?"

"Nah, we don't want to overuse him. Use somebody else this time."

To be clear, nowhere in the contract would Doom have been declared off-limits, but the licensor has final say on all editorial decisions, so if they don't want you to use Doom this time around . . . well, you use the Red Ghost instead.

Ditto for the TAS characters, maybe?

 

[Christopher]

I'm still a bit puzzled by the fact that, in my Marvel novels for Pocket, I was able to mention any superhero I wanted, but when I tried to give Spider-Man a cameo in my X-Men novel, I was required to write him out. I still mentioned that he was involved in the action just "offscreen," but I had to avoid using him "onscreen" and had to reassign his dialogue and actions to other characters (which is why Rogue is unusually quippy in that scene).

 

[Greg Cox]

Most of the time, it's not about the contract. It just depends on who is charge of approvals that week. Are you dealing with a Paula Block . . . or a Richard Arnold?

FYI: When I wrote my X-MEN trilogy, I was told I could use any X-Men I wanted . . . as long as one of them was Wolverine.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Oh, that's right. The original-to-DC characters like Bearclaw, Bryce, Konom, and Sherwood were dropped first, and Vol. 2 initially went ahead with using M'Ress and Arex before they were told not to. So that means their license must theoretically have included TAS. After all, they had to re-up their license before they could do Vol. 2, and if that renewal process had involved explicitly losing the TAS rights, then that page Therin just reproduced would never have been written or drawn in the first place. So they must've had the license to TAS; they just didn't have Richard Arnold's permission to act on it, because he was in charge of approval and he let his personal likes and dislikes dictate what got approved. (Often quite arbitrarily, as Peter David has related on many occasions.)

Correct. The lettercol of Issue #1 (Series II) mentions that advice from RA was that "TAS does not cross over with the movies". The licensees were specifically asked not to use TAS (and it coincided with the winding down of Filmation). For a time it was not clear who owned which rights to which Filmation material in the film vaults. M'Ress was urgently redrawn as M'yra (after the original version appeared in "Amazing Heroes" magazine #170, Aug 1989, p 99), crushing my little TAS-loving heart, and I presume that Arex became gangly Ensign Fouton, since Fouton got the security-officer-has-huge-descision-to-make story arc that Arex had been promised just before the Series I comic went on hiatus.

It's not the first time M'Ress and Arex were redrawn. M'Ress appears as a bluish humanoid in the Power Records comic/record set written by Alan Dean Foster (who probably assumed no likeness difficulties at the time), and Arex's Edoan musical instrument, crucial to the plot of another ADF comic/record script, is given to an often-awkwardly posed caucasian Mr Connors.


M'Ress in "Passage to Moauv" by Ian McLean, on Flickr


Connors and his Edoan Elisiar instrument by Ian McLean, on Flickr

Notice how Connors has an awkward stance at times, indicating that an extra arm and leg have probably been erased at short notice. (His name in "The Crier in Emptiness" also overlaps the speech balloon border at times. A "paste-up" over the shorter word "Arex"?) How does Connors play an Edoan elisiar with only four limbs?

Most of the time, it's not about the contract. It just depends on who is charge of approvals that week. Are you dealing with a Paula Block . . . or a Richard Arnold?

From halfway through ST IV's novelization till Roddenberry's death in September 1991, RA was vetting tie-in proposals and final manuscripts on behalf of the Star Trek Office (ie. Roddenberry) in addition to vetting being done by the Paramount/Viacom Licensing staff.

Ditto for the TAS characters, maybe?

Sadly, the tightening of the revamped tie-in licenses in the hiatus between Seasons 1 and 2 of TNG coincided with the screenwriters' strike (shortening Season 2 by four episodes), the struggle to find a permanent showrunner for TNG, the winding down of Filmation, the Star Trek Office's annoyance with FASA, and many more hassles. Poor Arex and M'Ress got bundled out for red tape expedience (and RA's dislike of TAS... and PAD?).

 

[Avro Arrow]

How does Connors play an Edoan elisiar with only four limbs?

... poorly?

 

[Therin of Andor]

... poorly?

Sufficient enough to save the Enterprise, but Arex was probably off-panel, aghast at the inefficiency.

 

[Christopher]

Notice how Connors has an awkward stance at times, indicating that an extra arm and leg have probably been erased at short notice. (His name in "The Crier in Emptiness" also overlaps the speech balloon border at times. A "paste-up" over the shorter word "Arex"?)

Odd, that. Why not just change it to "Ames" or "Alan"?

 

[Therin of Andor]

Odd, that. Why not just change it to "Ames" or "Alan"?

I know! Strange.

Tuckerism? ADF might not have known the text was already writtten

 

[JonnyQuest037]

(and RA's dislike of TAS... and PAD?).

I think you can safely drop the question mark from the end of that sentence. PAD, fed up with Arnold's constant criticism of his Star Trek comic book scripts, decided to submit one under a pseudonym as a test. It was approved by RA without any changes. It was this that convinced PAD that nothing he submitted under his own name would be approved, and he quit the Trek comic to make his editor Robert Greenberger's life easier.

The best part of the story is the alias that PAD chose, though: Robert Bruce Banner (David was also writing the Hulk at the time).

 

[Therin of Andor]

I think you can safely drop the question mark from the end of that sentence...

Oh, I know. I highly recommend PAD's collection of comic book essays, "But I Digress...", for the whole bizarre saga.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I also liked Michael Jan Friedman's story about how he was told to remove Chekov from one of his TOS novels because the stardate was from before Chekov's debut episode. So Friedman reasonably asked, "Wait... Are you saying that instead of rewriting half my novel to remove Chekov, I could instead just change two digits in the stardate at the beginning?"

Friedman tells that story in Voyages of the Imagination, IIRC.

 

[Leto_II]

I also liked Michael Jan Friedman's story about how he was told to remove Chekov from one of his TOS novels because the stardate was from before Chekov's debut episode. So Friedman reasonably asked, "Wait... Are you saying that instead of rewriting half my novel to remove Chekov, I could instead just change two digits in the stardate at the beginning?"

Friedman tells that story in Voyages of the Imagination, IIRC.