• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Legal situation concerning the new TV series

Well, given that I was referring to the 2013 game, it is quite possible no one involved with it watched Enterprise, but even if there was one person who had, they still could have forgotten about the Gorn being mentioned in Bound. I forgot it until it was mentioned in this thread and I did watch Enterprise. Own it all on DVD, too.
 
I know this is all Bad Robot's doing (they also refuse to allow any Abramsverse novels), I'm just wanting an explanation as to WHY they would do this.
My understanding, which may be entirely wrong, is that each incarnation of Star Trek is licensed separately (check out the "Based on..." page at the start of every Pocket Trek novel) and Pocket don't have the license, and for whatever reason can't get or don't want the one for the current movies.
 
Last edited:
My understanding, which may be entirely wrong, is that each incarnation of Star Trek is licensed separately (check out the "Based on..." page at the start of every Pocket Trek novel) and Pocket don't have the license, and for whatever reason can't get or don't want the one for the current movies.

I thought that Pocket had planned to release Abramsverse novels, but Bad Robot changed their mind and pulled their license?
 
My understanding, which may be entirely wrong, is that each incarnation of Star Trek is licensed separately (check out the "Based on..." page at the start of every Pocket Trek novel) and Pocket don't have the license, and for whatever reason can't get or don't want the one for the current movies.

I don't know the actual contractual details, but my impression is that, while the series are licensed separately for other companies like comics publishers, Pocket's deal has always been pretty much all-inclusive by default, and the Abrams thing is the exception. (See Idran's comment above.) Yes, of course each series's creators have to be credited separately, but that's about their rights (or their estates' rights) to credit and compensation for their respective work, not about Pocket's licensing deals.

Anyway, the point is that I don't think what happened with the Abramsverse license is likely to be relevant to the new series, since neither Paramount nor Bad Robot is involved with its production.
 
I thought that Pocket had planned to release Abramsverse novels, but Bad Robot changed their mind and pulled their license?

Yep. There were four Abramsverse novels all written and ready to be released, but Bad Robot ordered them cancelled, for reasons they still have yet to explain.
 
So is the destruction of Romulus off limits, as it is from Abrams film? Isn't that pretty damn inconvenient for post-Nemesis prime books or is it just ignored and Romulus is fine?
 
So is the destruction of Romulus off limits, as it is from Abrams film? Isn't that pretty damn inconvenient for post-Nemesis prime books or is it just ignored and Romulus is fine?

The novelverse hasn't gotten to 2387 yet. For some reason, it rushed forward through the early 2380s for a few years, but lately it's been slowing the pace and is only up to early 2386.
 
The novelverse hasn't gotten to 2387 yet. For some reason, it rushed forward through the early 2380s for a few years, but lately it's been slowing the pace and is only up to early 2386.
But it probably can't stay at 2386 forever. What happens then?

STO seems to include destruction of Romulus as major plot point. I don't know how they managed to get the licence to do that...
 
But it probably can't stay at 2386 forever. What happens then?

I do not know. If there are plans for that, they haven't been revealed yet. After all, why would Pocket tell you what was going to happen in books they haven't published yet?

STO seems to include destruction of Romulus as major plot point. I don't know how they managed to get the licence to do that...

Licenses are contracts between the property owner and other companies. Each licensee negotiates its own separate licensing contract, and so the terms of their licenses are often different. IDW Comics and the makers of Star Trek Online have licenses to do Abramsverse tie-ins. Pocket, for whatever reason, does not currently have such a license (although another Simon & Schuster imprint, Simon Spotlight, published four Starfleet Academy young-adult novels set in the Abramsverse). We've seen such situations before, such as when Malibu Comics got the DS9 license even though DC had the TOS and TNG licenses. Or how RoboCop: The Series was unable to use movie characters other than RoboCop/Murphy himself, and thus had to create surrogates or rename the characters, while RoboCop: The Animated Series had the full license to all the movie's characters.
 
Yep. There were four Abramsverse novels all written and ready to be released, but Bad Robot ordered them cancelled, for reasons they still have yet to explain.
It is strange that they decided not to allow novels set in the Abramsverse continuity but were fine with comic books set in that world. I wonder what the distinction they're drawing is.
 
If I remember correctly, either Christopher or David Mack at some point mentioned that several plot points in the novels were ultimately contradicted by Into Darkness. It's possible they just read the summaries and cancelled them for that reason.
 
If I remember correctly, either Christopher or David Mack at some point mentioned that several plot points in the novels were ultimately contradicted by Into Darkness. It's possible they just read the summaries and cancelled them for that reason.
Interesting. I suppose they must have been fairly major elements of the novels, since they weren't directed to just edit them out.

That reminds me of a story about Marvel Comics' Star Wars comic. Archie Goodwin & Walter Simonson (IIRC) proposed a story about the Empire building another space station, the Tarkin, to replace the Death Star. Lucasfilm said no, you can't do that, but we can't tell you why. Goodwin & Simonson both figured, "Well, I guess we know what's happening in Return of the Jedi then!" :lol: They ended up changing the proposed space station to a gigantic space-cannon, and they did their story that way.
 
The four Abramsnovels were, IIRC, ready for release well before STID was even thought of. I think even ST09 was barely out at that point.
 
Well, even if STID hadn't been thought of yet, it's still plausible that they read the summaries and thought "that's territory we're planning to cover, we don't want to restrict our options, and we don't want to publish material that contradicts our story."
 
^ How could Abrams have read a plot summary from a movie that didn't exist?

No, Thrawn's saying they might've read plot summaries of the novels and seen that the novels were going into areas that they were planning to (or even just considering to) cover in the next movie.
 
But Khan's magical super blood
I don't get the hate for "magic blood".
Its not all different or more outrageous than the other means of resurrection in Star Trek. Some of characters more dead than Kirk.
Blood therapies are a real thing and blood is a key component in healing,
Khan's incredible re-cooperative abilities are established in "Space Seed".

As for Gorn. Why should they lay eggs? Because they look like Terran reptiles? They're aliens.They don't have to follow Terran norms..
 
If I remember correctly, either Christopher or David Mack at some point mentioned that several plot points in the novels were ultimately contradicted by Into Darkness. It's possible they just read the summaries and cancelled them for that reason.

No, that was certainly not the reason. If that had been the case, they would've just asked us to revise the novels, as happened many, many times with novels that came out while TNG/DS9/VGR/ENT were on the air. And there's no reason it would've led to a change in the status of the whole license. The cancellation was a business decision. It wasn't about anything within the books themselves.

As for the incompatibilities between my Seek a Newer World and STID, it's not so much contradiction as redundancy -- they both covered some of the same conceptual and thematic ground in terms of character arcs and the aftereffects of Nero's attack on Starfleet's attitudes. That's certainly not a reason for the cancellation, though; it just means that if my book had been published, it wouldn't have held up that well in retrospect.

As for Gorn. Why should they lay eggs? Because they look like Terran reptiles? They're aliens.They don't have to follow Terran norms..

But they're shown as egg-layers in the graphic novel The Gorn Crisis, which is included as part of the novel continuity. And apparently in Seize the Fire as well. The issue being raised is that STID seemed to contradict the novels on that point. (Although I disagree, because Seize the Fire also establishes that the Gorn have engineered themselves into various different subspecies, so it's possible that one of them could give live birth.)
 
It's not that it's technologically unlikely in Trek, it's that it comes out of nowhere. It's a deus ex machina used because they wanted to have the drama of Kirk's death scene and the Wrath of Khan reprisal without having the actual consequences of Kirk's death. It wasn't even hinted at until the tribble popped back to life just before they brought Kirk back. It's not being dismissed because it's impossible, it's being dismissed because it's narratively lazy.

And no one's saying the Gorn have to lay eggs, they're just commenting on the fact that some Trek works have said they do and others have said they don't.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top