Has the Trek EU Ever Directly Contradicted Canon? (Outside of Countdown)

[Greg Cox]

The novel, You Only Live Twice, involves Blofeld and has Bond going undercover in Japan, but that and some character names is pretty much where the resemblance ends. The whole business with the secret volcano lair capturing spaceships to set off World War III? Nowhere in the book.

 

[mb22]

Even in the 70s and 80s, none of the adult Trek novelizations had photo inserts. That's not counting actual photonovels, of course.

 

[Christopher]

Even in the 70s and 80s, none of the adult Trek novelizations had photo inserts. That's not counting actual photonovels, of course.

Not in America, but Therin of Andor once gave me an Australian edition of the ST:TMP novelization that includes a photo insert.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Even in the 70s and 80s, none of the adult Trek novelizations had photo inserts. That's not counting actual photonovels, of course.

Odd that as visually strong and familiar TOS/TOS-movies were, Bantam (aside from photo covers for two of the Blish novels) or Pocket never considered photo inserts. They used to be quite popular, with novelizations such as House of Dark Shadows, Westworld, and Logan's Run (just repackaging the original novel) all having photo insert sections.

 

[Greg Cox]

Odd that as visually strong and familiar TOS/TOS-movies were, Bantam (aside from photo covers for two of the Blish novels) or Pocket never considered photo inserts. They used to be quite popular, with novelizations such as House of Dark Shadows, Westworld, and Logan's Run (just repackaging the original novel) all having photo insert sections.

Yep. Likewise The Golden Voyage of Sinbad, among others I enjoyed back in the day.

Which is why I originally felt obliged to include them when I first start editing novelizations for Tor, without really asking myself why. It was just expected, I thought, until the costs starting outweighing the benefits.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Some novelizations used black and white paper images, rather than color magazine page pictures, IIRC.

 

[Silvercrest]

I always wanted a novelisation of a film based on a book.

I, Robot is not an example of that. The book and movie have almost nothing in common, and they simply re-released the original book with a cover image of Will Smith in a shot from the movie.

However, they also rewrote the descriptive text on the back cover to be ... less descriptive. It was written so broadly that it could be applied to book or movie equally. Possibly so the buyer wouldn't realize the book wasn't an adaptation.

 

[Greg Cox]

Speaking of novelizations based on movies based on novels, I was once pitched a novelization of THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU, based on the Marlon Brando movie version.

My response? "Isn't there already a perfectly good novel by H. G. Wells we can just slap the movie poster on?"

Granted, that are some movies SO different from the original book that putting the movie poster on the book borders on false advertising. Anyone picking up the recent movie-tie edition of THE INVISIBLE MAN, expecting something resembling the Elizabeth Moss movie, is in for a big shock!

 

[Silvercrest]

Speaking of novelizations based on movies based on novels, I was once pitched a novelization of THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU, based on the Marlon Brando movie version.

My response? "Isn't there already a perfectly good novel by H. G. Wells we can just slap the movie poster on?"

I imagine the reply went something like, "Nobody cares about some hack that lived 200 years ago. But this is Brando! BRANDO!"

 

[Greg Cox]

True story: sometimes not everyone at the movie studio even knows their big new movie is a based on a book.

At least three times in my career I've had to explain that, yes, there's a book:

"So, Greg, is Tor interested in doing a novelization of our new movie?"
"A novelization? Why not just do a new tie-edition of the original novel?"
"The what?"

I swear to God, I've had this conversation more than once.

 

[Sci]

I imagine the reply went something like, "Nobody cares about some hack that lived 200 years ago. But this is Brando! BRANDO!"

Hot take: By the 1990s, Marlon Brando was essentially a hack and the height of his career in the 1950s might as well have been 200 years ago. *dodges tomatoes*

True story: sometimes not everyone at the movie studio even knows their big new movie is a based on a book.

At least three times in my career I've had to explain that, yes, there's a book:

"So, Greg, is Tor interested in doing a novelization of our new movie?"
"A novelization? Why not just do a new tie-edition of the original novel?"
"The what?"

I swear to God, I've had this conversation more than once.

Now I really want to know which movies those were...!

 

[Greg Cox]

Probably no harm in revealing, at this late date, that one of them was the remake of PSYCHO. And another was the aborted Ridley Scott/Arnold Schwarzenegger version of I AM LEGEND.

"Oh, you must be mistaken. Our movie isn't based on a book. It's a remake of THE OMEGA MAN."

 

[Silvercrest]

Hot take: By the 1990s, Marlon Brando was essentially a hack and the height of his career in the 1950s might as well have been 200 years ago. *dodges tomatoes*

That's true. But my post was intentionally exaggerated.
*
*
*
*
I hope.

 

[Sci]

Probably no harm in revealing, at this late date, that one of them was the remake of PSYCHO. And another was the aborted Ridley Scott/Arnold Schwarzenegger version of I AM LEGEND.

"Oh, you must be mistaken. Our movie isn't based on a book. It's a remake of THE OMEGA MAN."

Gotcha. Yeah, in fairness with Psycho, the Alfred Hitchcock film has almost completely overshadowed the original novel. I almost don't blame them for that one.

 

[Greg Cox]

Gotcha. Yeah, in fairness with Psycho, the Alfred Hitchcock film has almost completely overshadowed the original novel. I almost don't blame them for that one.

Tell me about it. I remember when the movie's big someteenth anniversary came around, I got kinda indignant on Bloch's behalf by the way he was largely treated as a footnote in most of the press coverage . . . if he got mentioned all. And, boy, did you have to squint to find his name buried in small type in the closing credits of BATES MOTEL.

As I recall, I actually Fedexed a copy of Bloch's novel to my contact at the studio just to prove there was a book, and we ended up getting the tie-in art for the remake.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

In all fairness, remembering whether so-and-so was given a name, or figuring out whether this character and that one are supposed to be the same person (if they even have to be), whether someone claimed to have done/not done something is a tall order sometimes.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I don't know if that's entirely true. D.C. Fontana slyly put in a reference in her TOS novel Vulcan's Glory that referred to Spock as "the only child of Sarek of Vulcan," which intentionally contradicted the plan in the then-upcoming Star Trek V to have Sybok be Spock's heretofore unmentioned half-brother. Fontana confirmed this to @Therin of Andor when he asked her about it.

But... she was contracted to write "Vulcan's Glory" before ST V premiered. "Vulcan's Glory" was published in February 1989 and ST V didn't premiere until 9th November, 1989. (EDIT: ST V on June 9 in the USA.)

 

[Christopher]

But... she was contracted to write "Vulcan's Glory" before ST V premiered. "Vulcan's Glory" was published in February 1989 and ST V didn't premiere until 9th November, 1989.

Which is why Jonny said "the then-upcoming Star Trek V." I suppose Sybok being Spock's brother was known well in advance of the premiere?

 

[Therin of Andor]

I suppose Sybok being Spock's brother was known well in advance of the premiere?

Yes. DC and GR had engaged in lively public debate as soon as Sybok was announced in the media. DC even republished her old memo warning off writers (during TOS) from giving Spock any siblings.

 

[mb22]

But... she was contracted to write "Vulcan's Glory" before ST V premiered. "Vulcan's Glory" was published in February 1989 and ST V didn't premiere until 9th November, 1989.

STV premiered on June 9 in the US. But your point is still correct.