Pocket's 2010 Schedule Announced on TrekMovie.com

[seigezunt]

whoa. A lot of TOS books. I will have a lot of purchases to make.

Sweet!

 

[Defcon]

I know this was just announced, so the details might not be available, but I've got a quick branding question...

How is the ST09 universe going to be branded on the books? Will it strictly be under the title graphic of "Star Trek" with the character images being from the movie, or will there be some other branding/subtitle/some other indication to say "hey, this takes place in the ST09-verse, as opposed to these others that are in the Prime (or whatever) universe?"

I would assume there will some ugly, shiny graphic on the cover saying something along the lines of "Based on J.J. Abrams blockbuster movie".

 

[rafterman1701]

I'm happy to see both Trek universes represented in print. While the schedule does look a bit unbalanced, I'm not gonna complain. There are simply too many series out there and someone will always be upset. As long as the books rock, I'm cool with the schedule. I'm really looking forward to what the authors can do with the JJ books.

 

[Snaploud]

I know this was just announced, so the details might not be available, but I've got a quick branding question...

How is the ST09 universe going to be branded on the books? Will it strictly be under the title graphic of "Star Trek" with the character images being from the movie, or will there be some other branding/subtitle/some other indication to say "hey, this takes place in the ST09-verse, as opposed to these others that are in the Prime (or whatever) universe?"

I would assume there will some ugly, shiny graphic on the cover saying something along the lines of "Based on J.J. Abrams blockbuster movie".

The Star Trek09 novelization made no mention of J.J. Abrams on the front cover.

 

[Csalem]

Considering DRGIII is writing the DS9r novel, whose to say it will be a jump forward. He could write the entire five years worth of stories in one book, based on the way he writes.

 

[Thrawn]

I'm happy to see both Trek universes represented in print. While the schedule does look a bit unbalanced, I'm not gonna complain. There are simply too many series out there and someone will always be upset. As long as the books rock, I'm cool with the schedule. I'm really looking forward to what the authors can do with the JJ books.

This is pretty much my opinion (though I always seem to take 6 paragraphs to say so). The books are good, and that matters to me a lot more than which series they're from. My favorite series is the DS9 relaunch and my least is classic TOS, but I'd still take an outstanding TOS book over (for instance) Lesser Evil in a heartbeat.

 

[Defcon]

The Star Trek09 novelization made no mention of J.J. Abrams on the front cover.

But it has the "A Major Motion Picture from Paramount Pictures" line on the cover, so I assume it could also be a variation of that, like:

"Based on the major motion picture by Paramount Pictures"

 

[William Leisner]

^ Or the other books could say, "Based on the old stupid TV series."

 

[Paris]

Featuring the younger, sexy versions of the characters you know and love!

...did we mention their sexy-ness?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

^ Or the other books could say, "Based on the old stupid TV series."

I don't imagine that Paramount or Pocket will want any casual book store browser to make a hard-and-fast distinction between JJTrek and Trek 1.0 - especially not when selling the TOS Prime stuff.

"Star Trek - remember that movie you liked? This ain't that."

 

[seigezunt]

^ Or the other books could say, "Based on the old stupid TV series."

I don't imagine that Paramount or Pocket will want any casual book store browser to make a hard-and-fast distinction between JJTrek and Trek 1.0 - especially not when selling the TOS Prime stuff.

"Star Trek - remember that movie you liked? This ain't that."

I'm wondering if maybe they will just be more subtle than that, and maybe use the Nu actors faces on the nunovels, and continue to use the old on Ye Olde Trekke.

 

[ClayinCA]

So, we've had several people on here asking about it - does anyone know what happened to Mike W. barr's Captain April novel, The Millennium Bloom?

 

[Mysterion]

A bit disappointed at the lack of Vanguard in '10. However, I am very much anticipating MWB's Saavik novel. Cautiously optimistic about the "DSN Jump". Anyone know when we'll get some more hard info about the Haynes Enterprise manual?

 

[Stevil2001]

So, we've had several people on here asking about it - does anyone know what happened to Mike W. barr's Captain April novel, The Millennium Bloom?

I chatted to Mike about it briefly, and he said that as far as he knew, it was no longer on the cards.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

^ Or the other books could say, "Based on the old stupid TV series."

I don't imagine that Paramount or Pocket will want any casual book store browser to make a hard-and-fast distinction between JJTrek and Trek 1.0 - especially not when selling the TOS Prime stuff.

"Star Trek - remember that movie you liked? This ain't that."

I'm wondering if maybe they will just be more subtle than that, and maybe use the Nu actors faces on the nunovels, and continue to use the old on Ye Olde Trekke.

Over time they'll probably make very little distinction - I'm sure they'd like all of this to be seen by the consumer as a continuum that includes the movie as an integral part of it.

 

[seigezunt]

So, we've had several people on here asking about it - does anyone know what happened to Mike W. barr's Captain April novel, The Millennium Bloom?

I chatted to Mike about it briefly, and he said that as far as he knew, it was no longer on the cards.

That's really sad.

 

[JWolf]

There's only so much room on the schedule in any given year, so fairness has to be cumulative -- what gets underexposed in one year gets it made up by more exposure in a later year. That's the way it worked for a long time. Heck, we had a run of a few years where practically every year was a different anniversary, first DS9 then VGR then TOS then TNG. So each of those years, the series having the anniversary got heavily emphasized and other series got shorter shrift. And people then complained that it was "unfair," but over time, the series that were pushed aside in the anniversary years got it made up to them later on. You just can't look at this on a year-by-year basis. There are often good marketing reasons to give one series more weight than the others in a particular year. So it would be very unwise to try for some arbitrary uniformity, to make sure every series got exactly equal treatment every single year. That would just be foolhardy, because you'd be wasting a lot of opportunities.

My complaint is that we have two slots taken up by reprints that could have been used for new material. Treason and the next SCE/CoE. This is what I find unfair. If they were reprinted along side of new material, that would be fine. But to take up two months is just wrong.

 

[captcalhoun]

the SCE/COE reprints are trade and therefore don't count in the One-MMPB-a-month rule. the same as the trade version of Treason didn't.

 

[JWolf]

the SCE/COE reprints are trade and therefore don't count in the One-MMPB-a-month rule. the same as the trade version of Treason didn't.

Sorry for my error there. But we still lose a month because of Treason. I do feel that reprints should not count as a month's book. Just release the reprint alongside a new book. That would solve that problem pretty well.

 

[Thrawn]

^ Even if it hadn't been standard practice before, Margaret just took over all of Treklit herself. I think one book expanded (Sorrows of Empire) and one reprint in the first few months of her deciding the schedule herself is entirely forgivable.