Discussion in 'Trek Literature' started by Turtletrekker, May 26, 2010.
There's a reference to Dr Selar's transfer to the Excalibur in the Q Continuum trilogy.
Any references that go the other way? I guess "0" was mentioned in the Prometheus trilogy, which was itself mentioned in the Prey trilogy. Did Q & A reference it? Did Baeta Leyoro ever get mentioned in any rundowns of Enterprise-E security chiefs?
(Basically I just finished Q Are Cordially Uninvinted..., and I think Picard only knowing of Q's wife from Voyager reports is suspect continuity. But these are all books I haven't read in almost two decades!)
One of the stories in The Tales from The Dominion War features the (*) version of the Beta XIII-A entity, which I believe comes from the Q Continuum trilogy.
I'm pretty sure that KRAD referenced every Q story to date in Q&A.
Yes, I referenced every Q novel and short story in Q & A, because I'm silly like that, but some of the references were very oblique.
I've posted this over in a Star Wars thread, for obvious reasons, but the legal ramifications look likely to impact the tie-in industry as a whole.
I wonder if any of the Trek authors have any insight. I presume you guys are all aware ?
Hmm,. I'm not sure. Is Foster's experience common when it comes to one studio buying out another?
In Star Trek's case, things have largely stayed with the same family since Paramount came on the scene. Oh, we've changed hands internally a few times, Paramount to CBS, back to Paramount at some point, but it's still basically the same overall umbrella family.
I would think this would just be the old 'a contract is a contract, is a contract, is a contract'. When Disney took over Lucasfilm they took on existing contracts and Foster says his has not been honored since the takeover.
Though it'd be interesting to see does S&S have the same kind of structure for Star Trek that the tie ins for Star Wars does? Maybe this wouldn't even be an issue for Star Trek tie ins.
I doubt it, or there wouldn't be such an uproar over Disney doing it.
Despite appearances, the entity now called CBS Studios is essentially the same entity that used to be called Paramount Television. Its owner, the company formerly called Viacom, bought CBS, changed its name to CBS Corporation, and split off a new, separate company which it called Viacom so that company could take over ownership of Paramount Pictures, the movie studio -- as distinct from Paramount Television, which was merged with CBS's TV operation under the name CBS Studios. Which created the illusion that Trek had changed hands from Paramount to CBS when really it was still under the same ownership as before. In reality, only the Trek movie license changed hands. The TV license stayed exactly where it was, as did the ownership of Simon & Schuster.
Royalties are royalties. The "structure" is pretty basic and universal -- if the contract says you get royalties, the contractor is supposed to pay them.
This looks like something new. Acquiring the rights to a property without the responsibilities.
Could set a precedent, if allowed to stand ? If so, it's not hard to imagine properties being passed around by unscrupulous organisations specifically to avoid paying.
Dodgy Publishing Ltd., setting up a new company Dodgy Publishing (2022) Ltd., selling the rights to the new company...
I’ve been reading about this on Twitter. I’m going to post what I’ve gathered but I cannot guarantee it’s accuracy.
-Flat fee contracts are becoming more common in tie-in literature (suggesting that Disney are trying to apply that retrospectively)
-ADF was offered a lump sum to buy out the royalties clause but refused
-Disney wanted ADF to sign an NDA before they would even talk to him or his representatives
Are they both under the same umbrella company overall? I guess what I'm asking is Paramount Pictures and CBS TV are separate companies, but is there one big mama company that owns both of them?
I guess this supposed merger I've heard about will bring them all back together one way or another.
I find some of that legal stuff confusing, I'm glad I don't have to figure it all out.
Hmm, makes sense. Not sure what Disney is trying to pull but I guess that's probably why tie in writers might be watching this case closely. I have to think that ultimately Disney is going to have to pay up. Granted, I don't know much about legalities but from what I understand when you buy another company, usually you assume all their obligations as well, unless another agreement is made with those separate parties.
Hmm. Very interesting. I'd have to think the burden will be on Disney for this. Perhaps Foster will have to go to court to get his due but I'd be shocked if they didn't rule in Foster's favor.
Probably Disney is trying to sweat him out to get what they want, a lump sum buyout, and they're hoping he'll give up. If he can hold out and fight it I'd think he'd ultimately be successful. A creepy thing for them to do. I'm all about free markets and all--but you've got to respect your contracts.
Honestly I've become less and less impressed with Disney as time goes on. I used to enjoy going to Disney World (another, distinct arm of the company I grant) but they've become all about squeezing out every dime they can and cutting as much as possible from the experience before people bail out. I get profit margins and all, and I'm even willing to pay good money but it has to be a worthwhile experience. If you're charging me more and giving me less at the same time I'm not inclined to return, and I haven't.
Sorry, I'm starting to rant now. But honestly, I'm not at all surprised to see what they are doing with Foster here. It's sad in a way but this doesn't shock me in the least.
Yes, they're both offshoots of the same megacorporation, though they had to split off the movie stuff into a separate company when they absorbed CBS so that they wouldn't be too huge and monopolistic for the government to tolerate. But the point is that it wasn't Star Trek or Simon & Schuster that changed hands. It's the same company after a name change. Viacom didn't sell ST to CBS, it just absorbed CBS and changed its overall name to CBS to reflect its emphasis on the TV side of things while it split off the movie side to another subsidiary.
The name Disney has always been synonymous with corporate rapacity under a facade of wholesome entertainment. Walt Disney himself stole credit for many things that were actually the creations of people who worked for him.
It's just seemed to have really gotten too much about the profit margins. I always read the "Unofficial Guide" put out by Len Testa's group before going because I'm big on planning (and when you go to WDW you better have a plan or you'll spend all day in line to go on 3 rides). And even they noted a few years back that maximizing profit has gotten to the point that it's eroding the entertainment value. You're paying more money for less of an experience. I've personally noticed that myself over the last 10 years until I stopped going.
I sometimes wonder would Walt Disney approve of just how far corporate Disney has gone. I have no romantic illusions as some Disney fans do that he was some generous idyllist who just wanted families to have fun. He was very much about making money. But I always got the impression he felt there should be some value for that dollar. That you should get the best possible experience at a Disney park. I mean, Hell, they even figured out how far apart to space trashcans to reduce littering as much as possible. Now, that's not to say Disney World doesn't do the things it does well. The ride experiences and shows are some of the best I've seen in any amusement park. But where they've lost the magic for me is the rapid increase in park prices and the ridiculous increases in food prices, and even all the nickle and diming they do. While at the same time the employees, or cast members, aren't as friendly as they were just 10 years ago. Forgive the phrasing but WDW just isn't such a magical place anymore. I feel like they are picking my pockets and are just trying to rush me along as quickly as possible. Just one example of that is I like to stay at Port Orleans-French Quarter--and we would take the boat to Downtown Disney (now Disney Springs)--and along the way the boat driver would tell you about the resorts along the way, the plant life, even how the 'river' was created. The last 2 or 3 times nothing...silence. A minor thing, yes, but just an example of what I'm talking about. The 'little' things are fast disappearing. Raising prices for a better experience is one thing, raising prices and cutting costs at the same time, not my kind of fun.
Sorry, I guess I really went on a tangent there. But between that and just the enormous crowds (at least pre-Covid) I have no real desire to go back. Not to mention Epcot was once my favorite park but that's fast becoming just one gigantic IP for the various Disney movies and losing it's character.
But I guess to connect back to Foster, sadly I can't say I'm surprised.
Christ, I came here with the consideration of dipping into some Trek Lit. But I look at that list and think - I am 35, its too late for me to start........
It isn't necessary to read everything. The individual series are mostly designed to stand on their own, with the interconnections being more of a bonus, a few side references here and there, or just a common background. It's like how Deep Space Nine or Voyager only occasionally made references to elements of TNG or each other, while mostly standing alone.
That at least gives me a shallow end to dive in. Thanks!
Where would you suggest to begin?
That depends on what series you're most interested in. That's really the point -- to allow a lot of different options for people with different preferences or approaches to reading.
But I suppose the real starting point for the modern novel continuity is the Deep Space Nine relaunch starting with Avatar. Or for the post-Nemesis continuity in particular, it might be best to start with the TNG: A Time to... miniseries (or at least its last three books by David Mack and Keith DeCandido), which depict the year leading up to Nemesis and lay groundwork for a lot of what follows. But it's the Destiny trilogy by Mack that really transforms things in the novel continuity and sets the stage for everything that follows. That's also roughly the point where it diverges from the new onscreen continuity established in Picard.
Check out my website. I’ve started doing suggested reading lists. I have them up for DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise.
What would the people of this forum suggest reading before the typhon pact series. That series was how I first learned about the Lit-Verse and I've always wanted to read it, but have been unsure of what the prerequisite reading is.
The Typhon Pact is set up by the Destiny trilogy and the stand-alone novel A Singular Destiny, which follows Destiny. I'd definitely recommend reading those.
The Typhon Pact novels are generally part of the ongoing DS9, TNG and Titan series, so you might want to read the previous entries. They aren't strictly necessary though, if you're okay with skipping one to six years in the characters' development. I'd suggest reading the DS9 relaunch though, because it's very good
Separate names with a comma.