Trek 2009 Novels

[aventinelover]

So, I was pretty excited when the four follow up novels to the 2009 "reboot" movie were announced...not just because I loved the movie, but actually primarily because of the announced authors, all of whom I think "get" Trek, and all of whom tell excellent stories. And I was equally disappointed when it was announced they were cancelled...but as I understood it, they were cancelled for various reasons, one of which was that the "powers that be" at Paramount didn't want anything out there (yet) that might contradict the storyline for the next movie. Didn't make a lot of sense to me, given the variability of continuity in past (and current) Trek incarnations, but so be it.

So I was curious to see what would happen with the storylines in the new 2009 Trek comic book, given that the storylines were said to continue on from the movie. And then when I saw that the comics were re-telling in the "new" continuity original stories, like the Galileo 7, which goes along with not wanting to contradict the next movie's story. However, I read today an interview on CBR that the comic will soon be telling original stories, which I assume all have to be approved by Paramount, along with the novels.

So, I'm curious if anyone, particularly the authors involved, has heard whether the original 4 follow up novels that were commissioned after the last movie, may soon be approved again, and actually published?

 

[David Mack]

^ There has been no discussion that happening, so far as I am aware.

 

[Greg Cox]

Ditto. As far as I know, it's a dead issue.

 

[BillJ]

Ditto. As far as I know, it's a dead issue.

Definitely a shame. While I was lukewarm to the film, I was looking forward to you guys interpretation of the new universe.

 

[DGCatAniSiri]

I have this hope that when the next movie comes out, the novels will (with maybe some editing to allow for anything that contradicts the movie) be released as tie in material.

I don't know if it's possible or even likely, but I can hope.

 

[Christopher]

^Don't hold your breath.

 

[bbailey861]

Oh well, it would have been great to read them....but as long as everyone got paid for their work...

 

[F. King Daniel]

^ There has been no discussion that happening, so far as I am aware.

Ditto. As far as I know, it's a dead issue.

^Don't hold your breath.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85IEh1vRATQ[/yt]

 

[DGCatAniSiri]

^Don't hold your breath.

Well, I didn't say I expected it, just that I hoped.

It's a shame, because I would have liked to have read all of them.

 

[aventinelover]

Ditto. As far as I know, it's a dead issue.

Crap.

Well, I very much sincerely thank all the authors involved who answered my question...and I have to say, no matter what, I truly enjoy everything you all put out there! You all are scary talented!

 

[Greg Cox]

Ditto. As far as I know, it's a dead issue.

Crap.

Well, I very much sincerely thank all the authors involved who answered my question...and I have to say, no matter what, I truly enjoy everything you all put out there! You all are scary talented!

Thanks! Sorry not to have more positive news, but I didn't want people to think that these books were going to be popping back into the schedule any day now. I suspect that most of us authors have simply moved on to other things now. (Did I mention my new Trek book coming out next month?)

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ No. What's it about?

 

[Greg Cox]

TOS: The Rings of Time. There's already a thread about it so I'm reluctant to hijack this one, but it's a time-travel story involving Captain Kirk and Col. Shaun Christopher. Feel free to check out the relevant thread. But, yeah, I'm looking ahead to new books and not worrying too much about if and when that nuTrek book ever sees print.

At this point, it's out of my hands . . . .

 

[vegaslover62]

I'm already enjoying reading about ONE two-hundred-year-plus series of events in Trek. To be reading about a separate and different version of Trek history would be really confusing.

If they did publish books in this alternate timeline, I won't read them.

And for the record, if the 2013 Trek movie features Khan as a villain, I'm not going to it either. To just RE-TELL previous Trek stories is ridiculous.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'm already enjoying reading about ONE two-hundred-year-plus series of events in Trek. To be reading about a separate and different version of Trek history would be really confusing.

If they did publish books in this alternate timeline, I won't read them.

We aready have multiple, incompatible continuities in the novels. The post-STXI books would be no different. The authors made it very clear that those four books weren't just TOS adventures with a different actors on the cover.

And for the record, if the 2013 Trek movie features Khan as a villain, I'm not going to it either. To just RE-TELL previous Trek stories is ridiculous.

Trek's been doing that for a LONG time. You do know that the first Star Trek movie was a remake of the TOS episode "The Changeling", right? That TNG's Q is a recycled Trelane from "The Squire of Gothos"?
If they bring back Khan, it'll probably be as much a remake as The Dark Knight was a remake of Batman(1989)

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm already enjoying reading about ONE two-hundred-year-plus series of events in Trek. To be reading about a separate and different version of Trek history would be really confusing.

If they did publish books in this alternate timeline, I won't read them.

We aready have multiple, incompatible continuities in the novels. The post-STXI books would be no different. The authors made it very clear that those four books weren't just TOS adventures with a different actors on the cover.

And for the record, if the 2013 Trek movie features Khan as a villain, I'm not going to it either. To just RE-TELL previous Trek stories is ridiculous.

Trek's been doing that for a LONG time. You do know that the first Star Trek movie was a remake of the TOS episode "The Changeling", right? That TNG's Q is a recycled Trelane from "The Squire of Gothos"?
If they bring back Khan, it'll probably be as much a remake as The Dark Knight was a remake of Batman(1989)

Don't forget Cesar Romero as the Joker in the 1960's movie version!

And, of course, Riker and Troi were basically remakes of Decker and Ilia . . . .

 

[David Mack]

^ And Tom Paris was just Nick Locarno version 2.0.

 

[vegaslover62]

Trek's been doing that for a LONG time. You do know that the first Star Trek movie was a remake of the TOS episode "The Changeling", right? That TNG's Q is a recycled Trelane from "The Squire of Gothos"?

I don't mean that, I mean doing another Khan directly. What's next? Doing V'Ger again? I don't want a retelling of stories already told.

We aready have multiple, incompatible continuities in the novels.

I don't mean that, either. Accidentally creating discontinuity is one thing, but creating two separate histories on purpose?

 

[Captain Robert April]

As much as I despise the movie, it was an idiotic move to cancel those books, but then the entire merchandizing of the movie has been rather dismal overall, so I can't say I'm shocked.

 

[Christopher]

Accidentally creating discontinuity is one thing, but creating two separate histories on purpose?

Why not? How many different incarnations of Batman or Spider-Man or Sherlock Holmes are out there by now? It's the nature of great stories to be retold and reinterpreted. Even thousands of years ago, there were multiple distinct mythic traditions about Herakles or Jason and the Argonauts or what-have-you, and those have only multiplied since then.