TOS comics: 5-year mission vs. movie era

[Christopher]

^Yeah, but DC lost the license to Trek comics in early '96. It had really only just begun its new 5-year-mission focus when it was cancelled. What's interesting is that the subsequent Trek publishers -- Marvel, Wildstorm, TokyoPop, and IDW -- all independently made the same choice to focus on the 5YM (with a very few exceptions like Marvel's Untold Voyages and the two movie-era stories in Wildstorm's anthology special). That's not a question Margaret could answer, because she had nothing to do with those companies' editorial decisions. The whole thing that makes it a mystery is that it wasn't just one company's decision, it was every company's decision.

 

[Idran]

But assumedly there were factors that led Margaret to make that decision just before the license was cancelled that could also apply to the other companies you mentioned. She did still make the decision even if DC stopped publishing Trek comics shortly after, and she had to have had reasons for doing so. Perhaps knowing her reasons could help you figure out what the general industry reasons were?

 

[JonnyQuest037]

So it's not so unanswerable a question as you claim.

I've never claimed it was unanswerable, just that you haven't liked the answers provided so far. Not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination. I remain mystified by your conviction that artistic decisions made by literally dozens of different people across two decades and half a dozen different companies could ever have a single, concrete, solely factual answer.

 

[Christopher]

I've never claimed it was unanswerable, just that you haven't liked the answers provided so far.

As I've already told you, that's completely untrue. I've said repeatedly that there are a couple of explanations put forth in this thread that I find plausible. You can easily go back, reread this thread, and see where I have said that. So I don't understand why you think otherwise.

I remain mystified by your conviction that artistic decisions made by literally dozens of different people across two decades and half a dozen different companies could ever have a single, concrete, solely factual answer.

And that is a complete misrepresentation of my position. I never said there had to be a single answer, just that the particular questions under discussion here are not as unconnected to questions of fact as you have asserted. Again, you can go back and read that for yourself, so I'm not going to explain myself once again. It's there in gray and white. Or blue and white, or whatever skin you're using.

 

[Sto-Vo-Kory]

This thread prompted me to think yesterday evening about John Byrne's photocomics. I'm enjoying them, but I had the thought, "Wouldn't it be fun if Byrne did a movie-era photocomic?"

Then I thought about the practicalities of that. The television series was filmed across three years. The maroon-jacket films were filmed across nine. The actors looked in 1969 largely as they did in 1966; there are some exceptions (Shatner's third season hair), but there are many more scenes Byrne has to draw from and mix-and-match for his stories. The actors visibly age across the films; Byrne couldn't pull a McCoy still from Star Trek V and convincably put it alongside a Kirk still from Star Trek II without the disparity being obvious.

In the latest New Visions volume, Byrne takes a stab at a movie era photo-comic using Spock from TMP and he's pretty successful. This work is more impressive when you consider the limitations and challenges that you addressed above ^.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

In the latest New Visions volume, Byrne takes a stab at a movie era photo-comic using Spock from TMP and he's pretty successful. This work is more impressive when you consider the limitations and challenges that you addressed above ^.

Oh, cool.

I haven't received that issue yet. Due to the weather, I may not get it until Monday. I'll be looking forward to that.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I've never claimed it was unanswerable, just that you haven't liked the answers provided so far.

As I've already told you, that's completely untrue. I've said repeatedly that there are a couple of explanations put forth in this thread that I find plausible. You can easily go back, reread this thread, and see where I have said that. So I don't understand why you think otherwise.

I was correcting you as to what I'd said, Christopher. You were misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) my opinion. But we're obviously going around in circles here.

 

[Danlav05]

Overall there is more of a lean into the 5 Year Mission era for the Star Trek brand; I guess in America and overall it's what sells.

But saying that fan films, who are not a commercial venture, also fall towards the 5ym area in the majority.

Now I'm saying this having grown up with the TNG shows and all of the movies. There are still a load of Next Generation comics occasionally, and the novel series continues after Nemesis - but overall the key brand for Star Trek is still TOS.

Tbh I'm not interested in the Kirk vs Picard rivalry rubbish.

I admit it would be nice to have the broader 50 years of Trek covered but what sells sells. There are some interesting arguments here e.g. people prefer the guys in their prime rather than their older incarnations.


Variety is the spice of life!

 

[Leto_II]

Incidentally, the new Official Star Trek Magazine (the issue with the Leonard Nimoy tribute on the front cover) has a huge article specifically devoted to the movie-era comics, including a pretty in-depth look at the TMP-era stuff.

Was just at the bookstore picking up something unrelated when I noticed the issue sitting on the shelf.

 

[Sto-Vo-Kory]

Incidentally, the new Official Star Trek Magazine (the issue with the Leonard Nimoy tribute on the front cover) has a huge article specifically devoted to the movie-era comics, including a pretty in-depth look at the TMP-era stuff.

Was just at the bookstore picking up something unrelated when I noticed the issue sitting on the shelf.

That issue also has a really nice feature on Greg Cox's Eugenic Wars novels. If I hadn't already read them, that article would have spurred me to seek them out.

I appreciate that the magazine is making more of an effort recently to include spotlights on the tie-in material, but it still doesn't hold a candle to Simpson's tenure as editor of the title. Not only was Star Trek Magazine full of Treklit articles and side-bars then, but many regular Treklit authors contributed features and retrospectives in most issues.

The current editorial regime has made inroads back in that former direction, but they still have a long way to go.

 

[Leto_II]

Yeah, that Greg Cox article is pretty great and in-depth; I was already gonna purchase the issue based solely on the movie-era comics article alone, but when I flipped a bit further, I also got that article on top of it.

If they can keep this up and spotlight more Treklit alongside the filmed stuff, I might become a regular purchaser of this magazine.