• 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!

Michael Jan Friedman novels

But, someone had to create Renee Montoya rather than using an existing cop.

It's not so much that you'd be wring a Batman comic. It's more akin to writing a new DC character set in the same universe. Sure, batman can show up for an issue but it's more fun to see the character stand on their own, get a rouges gallery of their own.
 
But, someone had to create Renee Montoya rather than using an existing cop.

It's not so much that you'd be wring a Batman comic. It's more akin to writing a new DC character set in the same universe. Sure, batman can show up for an issue but it's more fun to see the character stand on their own, get a rouges gallery of their own.

But then you're talking a whole new series which is meant to stand alone on its own merits--which is not the same thing as a tv tie-in novel.

You seem to be equating tie-in books with new, independent tv shows and comic books, which is not really the point. STAR TREK novels were never meant to go their own way, independent of the tv shows and movies. We're derivative, ancilliary products that are not meant to "stand on their own" or create their own franchises. That's what original sf novels are for.

When I write a Trek novel, I'm not out to change things or invent new characters. That's Paramount's job, to do in the actual shows and movies. I want to give readers what they expect to find in a Trek novel, and I want to take advantage of the opportunity to play with all the toys. The way I see it, I may never have a chance to write Klingons or Hortas again, so why would I waste that opportunity by inventing somebody new. I can do that anytime, but I can only write Q (or Gary Seven or Khan) when I'm doing a licensed tie-in book.
 
But, someone had to create Renee Montoya rather than using an existing cop.

Renee Montoya was created as a supporting character in Batman: The Animated Series, to help add some gender and ethnic diversity to the cast, and was popular enough that the Batman comics began including and using her as a supporting character, and then she gradually became a more central character and took over the pre-existing superhero identity of the Question. So that's hardly a case of one incarnation of a story divorcing itself from other incarnations. It's a really, really bad example for what you're advocating. Comic books in general are even more tightly interconnected than the Trek novels you're complaining about. (It's next to impossible to pick up a Marvel team book that doesn't have Wolverine in it. How does he find the time?)
 
The cartoons are licenced tie-ins at least until recently. DC has just strted producing their own animation. So, Montoya was created in a licenced series and later passed into the main comic continuity. Same thing for Harley Quinn.

I wouldn't have used Batman as an example. I was just responding to Greg's comment about using the existing characters. Nothing is going to be an exact analogy.
 
The cartoons are licenced tie-ins at least until recently. DC has just strted producing their own animation.

It's still Warner Bros. Animation producing it, and of course DC is owned by Warner Bros. It's just that DC has established a new division to supervise its mass-media adaptations more closely. DC Entertainment and Warner Bros. Animation are producing partners on the animated shows and videos now, rather than one replacing the other.

So, Montoya was created in a licenced series and later passed into the main comic continuity. Same thing for Harley Quinn.

And both characters were created to interact closely with other, pre-existing characters -- Montoya was Bullock's partner, Harley was the Joker's moll. As is the nature of tie-ins, their original characters and concepts coexisted with the characters and concepts of the original. In the same way that Vanguard's original characters (who are many) coexist with pre-established Star Trek characters (who are few).
 
Sometimes it's overdone a bit (Peter David and season four of Enterprise fanwanked themeselves blind), but when the right balance is achieved, all is good.

Exaggeration. Some of Treklit's most memorable original characters are PAD creations:

Quinton Stone, Rhianna Bonaventure, Cray the Andorian, Mackenzie Calhoun...

True, but I wasn't just thinking of characters, but all the other stuff that makes up Small Universe Syndrome. According to Peter David, Q was the energy barrier at the edge of the galaxy that possesed Garry Mitchell - IMO there doesn't need to be a connection there at all. Also, was Spock really needed in either House of Cards or Before Dishonor? Those cameos seemed really forced and somewhat pointless to me.
 
According to Peter David, Q was the energy barrier at the edge of the galaxy that possesed Garry Mitchell

And Greg Cox used the idea that the Q Continuum was keeping an entity called 0 out of the galaxy with that barrier.

We saw Q effortlessly erect huge, canonical Glo-mesh barriers in "Encounter at Farpoint" and "Hide and Q", so it seems a logical extrapolation to me.
 
I know! Bolians and Andorians are both blue. There MUST be a connection between them!

Just how easy is it for Spock to cross the Neutral zone? It seems like it's an annual trip for him.
 
I know! Bolians and Andorians are both blue. There MUST be a connection between them!

There is a connection. Tracy Tormé wanted an Andorian to be in "Conspiracy", Rick Berman said, "We'd don't do antennae on this show" and so the makeup guys created the Bolians, naming them after Cliff Bole. And Captain Rixx was born.
 
I meant an in universe connection. If Q and the galactic barrier are one and the same Then Bolians must be Andorians that lost their hair and antennae. Why hasn't this story been told? It's Star Trek, there MUST be a connection between everything!
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top