Star Trek: Section 31: Disavowed - Dec. 2014?
- Thread starter Kertrats47
- Start date
Mission Impossible 2 was nice enough to point out that it is possible.
Hi David, I understand. Very much looking forward!
Agreed. This is why I skipped those movies.
If the next instalment remedies that situation, I may reconsider.
But we digress (for fun)...
Actually I think that the original M:I represented many parallel universes. That's the only way the IMF team could show their faces on national or global TV one week and yet be anonymous enough to go undercover against next week. It's the only way there could be such a huge number of anonymous countries and assorted People's Republics within the finite area of Eastern Europe. And it would explain how, in later seasons when the focus shifted to stateside mob-busting, "the Syndicate" was always just as strong a threat every week no matter how many times they struck a decisive blow against its leaders. Plus there were the '88 revival episodes that were remakes of original episodes.
I'm excited for this already...and whatever cover we do end up with 
Really? How did it do that?
All I know is: PLEASE, Mr. Mack, let it be a tale without a straw-man twist of the kind that so deeply tarnished the old miniseries for me--where 31 was so often ridiculously simplified into bumbling villains with no proposed validity whatsoever. Straw men do not make for dark, soul-searching angst of the kind that made the original DS9 arcs with the Bureau so much more compelling....
(To be fair, I'd say they were handled pretty well in A Time To Kill/Heal.)
BTW...on the subject of the M:I movies--who's stupid idea WAS it, anyway, to make the hero of the series turn out to be a card-carrying villain-traitor? I can't believe the usually-superb Brian De Palma was responsible for that....
That placeholder cover still looks a lot better than some of the more recent Photoshop covers.
Looks like it's Bashir.
Great news I've been hoping there would be another Section 31 novel someday.I definitely will be getting this book.
Precisely. … And yes, I have been watching a lot of classic Mission: Impossible on Netflix lately…."Disavowed", eh? As in..."If any of your team is caught or killed..."?
Well, that's a guaranteed sale here...
Also, colour me amazed that the Mission Impossible movie series didn't spawn a tie-in book series for the franchise in some form. I'd have thought it was a no-brainer for Pocket...
Start pitching it to them
Cool news. I wonder if Section 31 being in Star Trek Into Darkness is a reason or if the novel has always been on the slate.
^ I doubt that STID has anything to do with this, because 1) it's a prime-timeline novel, and 2) due to Bad Robot dictates, Abramsverse novels are not allowed. So this can't have much of anything to do with STID.
Link?
I think he maybe meant that because it had been a plot point in STID, it was being used as something that is recognizable to people who had seen the film... current popularity and all that jazz. But I may be wrong.
Although I would not presume to speak for David Mack, I do get the impression that he pitched a Section 31 story because it's a story he wanted to tell and their presence in STID in no way influenced the decision. But I do not presume to speak for David Mack.
Similar threads
