Why are the novels less popular than the episodes/movies?

[NKemp3]

Not necessarily. We still tell stories about Hercules and King Arthur and Rama and the Monkey King and the like centuries or millennia after the original tales were told. Because they kept getting retold and reinvented for new generations and new audiences. .

Difference is that unlike those stories and/or those characters, the TOS crew were first realized through the medium of TV and thus first represented by a particular group of actors. This isn't like Batman which first appeared in a comic book to then go on to be played by various actors. This isn't Tarzan or Sherlock Holmes who first arrived to the masses through books long before actual actors would portray them. Kirk and Spock were identifiable to the masses just as much by who played them as they were by what the characters stood for. And there is nothing wrong with the concept of letting the characters pass away from the movie and TV mediums at least when the actors are no longer capable of playing them. As many issues as I have with the prequels of Star Wars I pray we don't get some reboot after Lucas passes away. A reboot with new actors playing Han, Luke, Leia, etc. That smacks of unoriginality and it smacks of the greed of companies to want to keep cashing in. What is wrong with simply allowing the characters to live on only in the written word?

If Star Trek can't keep its brand alive without going to the well again and again with Kirk and Company showing up in films then perhaps it needs to be put out to pasture for awhile in terms of TV and film. I will argue that TNG's success was in large part because Star Trek had been off the air for 20 years and the population had become hungry for new material again. But when Paramount decided to immediately followup TNG with DS9 and then VOY and then ENT, it ended up diluting its most precious franchise. Hell, even TOS needed a second chance to capture the audience's imagination which it got when its episodes were rebroadcast in syndications years after it was cancelled. Shows and franchises need time to breathe. Why give DS9 a try years after it leaves the airwaves when you have four other Trek series to choose from? The same for VOY and ENT. It's overkill.

Here's another sobering thought: despite the critical acclaim of JJ's recent Star Trek film and the overall approval rating from audiences, that film did not become the worldwide smash that you would hope it would have become. It didn't do SW business or Harry Potter business or Spiderman business. Maybe it has a chance of following the route of Chris Nolan's Batman which produced a first film that made a respectable amount of business before going big time with a second film that brought in crazy amounts of box office cash. And ask yourself if JJ's first film has created a large group of new fans who have now been turned on to sampling the TV series and the novels? Was ST's popularity at a peak after that film was released or during the height of TNG's popularity? TNG, a show that used new characters and new stories to not only preach to the converted Star Trek fanbase but to bring in a new generation of Star Trek fans in general. If the new films can't do this then the franchise ultimately still needs an infusion of new fans to regain that level of success. Otherwise all you will have perhaps is an occasional movie that can make decent money but not enough of a fanbase to sustain Trek novels or other Trek merchandise.

 

[Greg Cox]

Difference is that unlike those stories and/or those characters, the TOS crew were first realized through the medium of TV and thus first represented by a particular group of actors. This isn't like Batman which first appeared in a comic book to then go on to be played by various actors. This isn't Tarzan or Sherlock Holmes who first arrived to the masses through books long before actual actors would portray them. Kirk and Spock were identifiable to the masses just as much by who played them as they were by what the characters stood for. And there is nothing wrong with the concept of letting the characters pass away from the movie and TV mediums at least when the actors are no longer capable of playing them. .

Honestly, I think that's an arbitrary distinction. For one thing, you're assuming that everybody comes to the characters via the written word first, when that's hardly the case. It was the Douglas Fairbanks movie that made Zorro a household name, not the original magazine serial. And yet audiences have also accepted Tyrone Power, Guy Williams, and others in the role.

And I suspect that the world is full of people whose first exposure to Bond or Batman or Dracula was via the movies or TV shows. And yet they didn't get permanently imprinted on the idea that only one actor can play the part.

More importantly, why does it matter where the characters originated? And why should a good character be put out to pasture just because an actor retires from the role? Where's the advantage in that, especially to future generations?

This whole argument smacks of generational chauvinism. "The Kirk I grew up with is the only real Kirk. My nostalgia trumps any new approaches to the characters."

Every generation gets their own Sherlock Holmes (or two or three). Us old-timers need to sit back and let today's audiences have their own Kirk and Spock.

 

[Christopher]

Difference is that unlike those stories and/or those characters, the TOS crew were first realized through the medium of TV and thus first represented by a particular group of actors.

I don't agree that it is a difference. Remember what I said about writing coming into the process fairly late in history. The first people to tell those stories about mythic heroes were bards and oral historians. They were performers too. But nobody said it was wrong for later bards to take over the telling of those stories.

And what about characters from plays, like the works of Shakespeare? The role of Hamlet was almost certainly written for Richard Burbage, the great Elizabethan tragedian, as were other characters like Richard III, Lear, and Othello. He was the originator of those performances, the one who defined those characters for their original audiences, the one the roles were meant for in the first place. But does that mean people should've stopped performing Shakespeare's tragedies when Burbage died? Does that mean it was a crime or a betrayal for Olivier or Gielgud or Jacobi or Branagh or Tennant to play Hamlet?

And there is nothing wrong with the concept of letting the characters pass away from the movie and TV mediums at least when the actors are no longer capable of playing them.

I think there's plenty wrong with it. I don't see any reason to force a work of fiction to die when it still has the potential to live on. Yes, a certain group of actors made those characters memorable and iconic, but that means they've created a legacy that can live beyond them. I say it does them more honor to let others carry on their tradition than to insist that what they created be brought to an end.

As many issues as I have with the prequels of Star Wars I pray we don't get some reboot after Lucas passes away. A reboot with new actors playing Han, Luke, Leia, etc. That smacks of unoriginality and it smacks of the greed of companies to want to keep cashing in. What is wrong with simply allowing the characters to live on only in the written word?

Now, there you're contradicting yourself. Before, you said you didn't like the idea of the characters being portrayed by anyone other than the original actors. Well, what about when I write a Star Trek novel? In that case, I'm the one "acting out" the roles in my head, interpreting the actors' performances, following their lead. And when you read the book, you become the portrayer, the one interpreting in your own mind how the roles should be played. So if I get to take over "playing" the role, and you get to take it over, why shouldn't another actor get the same opportunity?

Besides, you're missing the obvious -- if the characters lived only in the written word, then the actors wouldn't be involved in the first place. The written word is the script that the actors perform. The characters are abstract inventions that they offer an interpretation of. You're right that the written word is the purest form of the characters, but that leads to an irreconcilable contradiction with your position that each character is a function of merely a single actor and nobody else. Every character is a joint creation of writer, actor, director, etc. In an ongoing series, a character is a creation of multiple writers and directors; so is it really so wrong to be a creation of multiple actors as well? Or do you have a problem with the continued existence of Saavik or Alexander Rozhenko or Tora Ziyal after the original performer was replaced?

Here's another sobering thought: despite the critical acclaim of JJ's recent Star Trek film and the overall approval rating from audiences, that film did not become the worldwide smash that you would hope it would have become. It didn't do SW business or Harry Potter business or Spiderman business.

Why would you expect it to? Even at its peak, Star Trek was never in that league. And what does it matter? What do popularity contests have to do with the validity of reinterpreting a character?

Was ST's popularity at a peak after that film was released or during the height of TNG's popularity? TNG, a show that used new characters and new stories to not only preach to the converted Star Trek fanbase but to bring in a new generation of Star Trek fans in general.

That's a spurious comparison when we've only had one movie so far. It's also ridiculous because the 2009 film was blatantly designed to bring in a new generation of fans -- absolutely not to "preach to the converted." I mean, obviously, if the latter had been their intent, it wouldn't have been a new timeline, a new attitude, all those things that the purists have been whining about for three years now.

 

[Greg Cox]

Here's another sobering thought: despite the critical acclaim of JJ's recent Star Trek film and the overall approval rating from audiences, that film did not become the worldwide smash that you would hope it would have become. It didn't do SW business or Harry Potter business or Spiderman business.

Why would you expect it to? Even at its peak, Star Trek was never in that league.

You took the words out of my mouth. Last time I checked, not even The Wrath of Khan was one of the Top Grossing Movies of All Time. It would be great if the new movies someday achieve Harry Potter or Star Wars numbers, but that's never been the case in the past, so I'm not sure it's fair to expect STAR TREK to start hitting those peaks all of a sudden.

(Plus, of course, the new movie had to win back a general audience that had lost interest in STAR TREK a movie or two earlier . . . .)

 

[Christopher]

When Paramount gave Star Trek to Abrams, it was because they were hoping he could replicate the success he'd had with Mission: Impossible III. Abrams's Star Trek ended up doing more than one and a half times better financially on its opening weekend than M:I III and nearly twice as well over its entire release period, going by IMDb's box office figures. So that would mean it performed above Paramount's expectations for it.

And it was the 6th-most successful movie of 2009 by box-office gross, earning 85% of what Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince earned. So actually, yeah, it did come pretty close to doing Harry Potter business. And it was far more financially successful than any prior Trek movie. So yeah, I'd say it was pretty effective at winning a new audience.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Of course Trek can be recast. In fact, it was. And I loved it to bits.
Besides, the different novelists have different ideas about the characters, just as Chris Pine and William Shatner approached the role of James T. Kirk differently. So why would novels based on the "TV" characters be okay?

My reading of books, any books has declined by at least 90% since the advent of the internet. Pretty much the only books I read now are connected to fan interests. The Passing of the Technomages was one of the greatest things I've ever read (have you read those yet KingDaniel??)

I'm afraid not, the prices at Amazon.co.uk are insane.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

And it was the 6th-most successful movie of 2009 by box-office gross, earning 85% of what Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince earned. So actually, yeah, it did come pretty close to doing Harry Potter business. And it was far more financially successful than any prior Trek movie. So yeah, I'd say it was pretty effective at winning a new audience.

Domestically, not internationally, though. Star Trek has never performed well internationally, and the 2009 movie didn't change that. I'm not really sure why that is.

ETA: Just to make clear, I'm not disagreeing with Christopher. Abrams' film did what it needed to do -- re-engage audiences with the Star Trek brand. In that it succeeded. It's just a puzzle to me that Star Trek isn't an international brand. Failure of marketing? Lack of interest? Too American? It's a puzzle.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Have Jim Parsons read a Trek novel on an episode of the Big Bang Theory, and watch the Trek book sales skyrocket

The burning question: have sales for Green Lantern tee-shirts gone through the roof yet?

You know, those things have been very popular in my neighborhood for at least a year or so before that movie was released - and they come in quite a variety, it's not just one shirt. Also shirts representing the other Corps - I can't tell offhand which of those is the most popular. Almost entirely young guys of varying descriptions.

I have the suspicion that there's some fad at work other than a particular interest in the GL comics or even in comics, period - I have no idea what it would be.

It's just a puzzle to me that Star Trek isn't an international brand. Failure of marketing? Lack of interest? Too American? It's a puzzle.

Even in the Abrams version the characters talk entirely too much.

 

[Greg Cox]

Have Jim Parsons read a Trek novel on an episode of the Big Bang Theory, and watch the Trek book sales skyrocket

The burning question: have sales for Green Lantern tee-shirts gone through the roof yet?

You know, those things have been very popular in my neighborhood for at least a year or so before that movie was released - and they come in quite a variety, it's not just one shirt. Also shirts representing the other Corps - I can't tell offhand which of those is the most popular. Almost entirely young guys of varying descriptions.

I have the suspicion that there's some fad at work other than a particular interest in the GL comics or even in comics, period - I have no idea what it would be.

You know, it's only a matter of time (if it hasn't already happened), that somebody wearing a Green Lantern tee-shirt is going to be greeted with:

"Hey, cool BIG BANG THEORY shirt! I love Sheldon, too!"

 

[Stevil2001]

Writing things off as "not canon" is an easy way to say that you just don't want to spend money on them,

Yes. And?

"but it's an excuse, not a reason." Sorry you couldn't read the second half of the sentence; I don't know what happened there.

 

[JWolf]

For me mainly, I hate jumping in in the middle of a story, and I wouldn't know where to start. Also it's nigh on impossible to find a trek book for sale in the UK. I see maybe 5 books in waterstones, but they've all been there for months and months. I do like to read, I just struggle to find the motivation to start a book. But when I do actually start, I enjoy it.

the solution to the problem of not being able to find Star Trek books...

EBOOKS!

 

[Defcon]

Unless you search for Greg Cox's Assignment: Eternity

 

[Greg Cox]

Unless you search for Greg Cox's Assignment: Eternity

Sigh.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

My reading of books, any books has declined by at least 90% since the advent of the internet. Pretty much the only books I read now are connected to fan interests. The Passing of the Technomages was one of the greatest things I've ever read (have you read those yet KingDaniel??)

I'm afraid not, the prices at Amazon.co.uk are insane.

I got lucky on ebay but I did end up paying about 30.00 for one of the Bab 5 books.

 

[trekmom]

Yeah. Honestly, I think most grade school and high school English classes probably do more harm then good when it comes to trying to get kids interested in reading. By forcing kids to read stuff that they have no interest in all they are doing is making reading an unpleasant experience that they aren't going to want to continue having without being forced to.
I love reading because in my free time I read stuff I wanted to read. If all I read was the stuff I was forced to read in school, I would probably hate it.

As for why Trek books aren't more popular, I think it's the lack of interest in reading on the part of the majority of people, and a lack of knowledge about the books.

ITA! My daughter is only 10, and I fought against the schools and the terrible "reading" program they had for her in 1st grade. She's in a GT school now, and they don't have to all read the same book. It's a miracle!

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I was one of those nerds that loved every assigned book.

 

[Enterprise is Great]

I had to read The Last of the Mohicans in high school and it was so deadly dull that I tossed it in my bottom dresser drawer after slogging through several dozen pages. I never finished it and never did the assignment on it so I got a big fat F on it. Good thing I was an avid book reader by then otherwise I probably would've never read another on in my life.

 

[Therin of Andor]

My daughter is only 10, and I fought against the schools and the terrible "reading" program they had for her in 1st grade. She's in a GT school now, and they don't have to all read the same book. It's a miracle!

Mmmm. Have you heard of the concept of the "balanced reading program"?

When teaching students to read, teachers are supposed to do several things at the same time:

* provide a piece of text that is slightly above their reading age, to teach skills at point of need. Students might be grouped and use a common text so they can hear others attempt the reading aloud while they follow on, and vice versa.

* model reading by the teacher and other adults, either for enjoyment, enrichment or to explicitly point out decoding strategies.

* provide another piece of text that is slightly below their reading age, to improve confidence, expression and fluency. Such texts might also be used in written or oral comprehension activities.

* permit free choice of texts on topics of the child's interests, for recreational reading (ie. selecting from the school library). Even a book that is seemingly "too hard" will be easier to access if the student already knows the vocabulary of a known topic, or can interpret unknown blocks of text from accompanying photographs, captions, diagrams, labels, etc. For example, a dinosaur book can be equally popular with good and poor readers.

There are very valid reasons for students to "have to all read the same book".

 

[Tiberius]

Sadly, I think the reason is just that you don't need to be literate to watch a movie.

 

[Patrick O'Brien]

Have Jim Parsons read a Trek novel on an episode of the Big Bang Theory, and watch the Trek book sales skyrocket

The burning question: have sales for Green Lantern tee-shirts gone through the roof yet?

Good point