Shatner says no Trek books in 2008

[23skidoo]

I know this is incorrect, but since the Pocket Books folks visit this board frequently, they should know that rival board TrekWeb is quoting Bill Shatner as saying that due to the new movie there will be no Star Trek books published in 08.

It's pretty clear in context that he's referring to his Academy series (which I predict will probably go the way of Starfleet Year One which was rendered moot by Enterprise) but a quote is a quote and that's how rumors get started:

TrekWeb news item

Cheers!

Alex

PS. I couldn't find another thread on this; if there is one, could a mod please close this? Thanks!

 

[Christopher]

What he presumably means is that there aren't going to be any books based on the show simply entitled Star Trek, i.e. TOS, as opposed to the ST-universe shows with subtitles in their names. As Margaret Clark has said in interviews, Pocket is "leaving the 23rd century to JJ" in 2008.

 

[OmahaStar]

He probably means the "shatnerverse" books written by Gar and Judy, with his name attached for marketing.

Of course there are going to be Star Trek books published. He's talking nonsense, and once again trying to get his name connected with the new Trek movie.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Two funny threads currently on Psi Phi:

Here

And here

 

[William Leisner]

All I can say is, I hope the writer's strike ends soon, so Bill can go back to filming Boston Legal and won't have so much free time on his hands.

 

[Trent Roman]

I just read this over at TrekToday, Shatner commenting on the recently release Collision Course:

[The] Reeves-Stevens and I had planned an arc for young Kirk and young Spock. We think of them as troubled adolescents who are saved from bad times by being sent to the military academy in this case the naval academy. And The Federation has plans for them.

I don't generally read hardcovers and wait for paperbacks, but in this case, I just have to ask: is the book as bad as this idiotic premise makes it out to be, or does execution save the story from its own triteness?

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[JAG]

I only read about 65-70 pages and put it down.

 

[Ronald Held]

Why wouldn't he put out the second part next year. I would not think that he is waiting to see exactly what is done in the movie.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Ronald Held said:
Why wouldn't he put out the second part next year.

Because editor Margaret Clark has mentioned that Pocket is letting JJ Abrams have the TOS limelight in 2008, so any future Shatner books (ie. the sequel, "Academy: Trial Run") won't be here till 2009. If "Academy: Collision Course" sells well enough.

 

[ClayinCA]

I thought the following comments were particularly interesting:

We've never gotten any notes on our rewrites, on stuff that we've done. We have had no cooperation from the publishing company at all on this book.

That sure doesn't sound like the Marco or Margaret we know and love, does it?

 

[Dayton Ward]

The comment makes no sense. The publisher was so uncooperative that they went and spent all that money to actually publish the book? Those bastards.

 

[23skidoo]

Therin of Andor said:

Ronald Held said:
Why wouldn't he put out the second part next year.

Because editor Margaret Clark has mentioned that Pocket is letting JJ Abrams have the TOS limelight in 2008

That's rather odd, though, since the movie isn't due out till December. You'd think 2009 would be the more logical year to devote to the Abramsverse. (Hey, did I just coin a phrase? Naaah.)

Cheers!

Alex

 

[Ronald Held]

That is what I would have thought. A book in 2008, and then the next one after the movie.

 

[Christopher]

23skidoo said:
That's rather odd, though, since the movie isn't due out till December. You'd think 2009 would be the more logical year to devote to the Abramsverse. (Hey, did I just coin a phrase? Naaah.)

I figure it's largely a matter of holding off on new 23rd-century fiction until we know what the movie is going to establish about that time period.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Christopher said:

23skidoo said:
That's rather odd, though, since the movie isn't due out till December. You'd think 2009 would be the more logical year to devote to the Abramsverse. (Hey, did I just coin a phrase? Naaah.)

I figure it's largely a matter of holding off on new 23rd-century fiction until we know what the movie is going to establish about that time period.

Yeah, that's how I read Margaret's comments.

 

[ClayinCA]

Dayton Ward said:
The comment makes no sense. The publisher was so uncooperative that they went and spent all that money to actually publish the book? Those bastards.

Well, yeah, but "logic is the other guy's schtick."

 

[Dayton Ward]

^