"Beyond" Novelization

[Greg Cox]

I guess maybe they won't make one for star trek beyond because the script was subjected to too many changes and last minute additions while filming and doing reshoots.
.

I have absolutely no inside information here, but I can't imagine that's the issue. There have been last-minute reshoots and script changes on pretty much every novelization I have ever worked on. That's pretty much standard operating procedure.

"Hi, Greg. We're faxing you the new ending. Can you rewrite the last six chapters by Monday? Thanks!"

And if the book ends up being different than the movie, because of last-minute reshoots . . .. well, again, this happens all the time. I don't think I've ever written or edited a movie novelization that matched up perfectly to the final cut of the movie . . ...

And as for novelizations based on movies based on pre-existing novels or short stories, let us never forget BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA . . . by Fred Saberhagen.

(True story: I once turned down an opportunity to edit a novelization of THE ISLAND OF DOCTOR MOREAU on the grounds that there was already a perfectly good novel of that name by H. G. Wells . . ..)

 

[JonnyQuest037]

There probably aren't enough words in the movie to fill out a novelization. It's been reported that Superman/Clark has only 43 lines in the entire movie, totalling a mere 452 words.

"Clark hovered in the air, frowning. He considered rescuing the stranded flood victims, but ultimately decided to wait until they finished painting his S insignia on their roof."

Spoiler: Batman v. Superman plot point

"As Clark stood in the smoldering remains of the Capitol building, he wondered if perhaps he was responsible for the explosion that had just killed hundreds. After all, it wasn't as though he had super-hearing, telescopic vision, or x-ray vision, abilities that enabled him to detect things that normal human being could not. Or possessed super-speed, which could have come in handy in deposing of a bomb that was going off in seconds.

"Clark frowned again as he suddenly remembered that he could in fact do all of those things. Whoops.

"Clark flew away from the rubble to be consoled by Lois, not bothering to put out the fire or to check for any injured. He wondered again why so many people seemed to have a problem with him."

And that wasn't a very good Superman movie either. They've got to stop giving Superman movies to people who don't know what to do with Superman besides shoving him aside to focus on other characters. Superman shouldn't be this rarefied, detached figure hovering above us. He was created as a populist hero, a champion of the little guy against oppressive authority. For all his power, he's not a living god, he's just a farmboy from Kansas who's trying to be a good neighbor. He should be very relatable and approachable.

They keep trying to give Superman angst. At heart, he's an optimistic character. You should walk out of a Superman movie feeling good, not wanting to slash your wrists after you contemplate the meaningless of existence.

I don't need a Superman movie where Superman is indecisive and has no idea what to do. I have my life for that.

They did that in Man of Steel and people bitched.

"Maybe you should have let that school bus full of kids drown" must be some definition of "being a good neighbor" with which I was previously unfamiliar.

 

[Greg Cox]

Film novelizations aren't entirely dead: Interstellar had one, the new Independence Day flick will have one.

Nancy Holder is doing the new GHOSTBUSTERS novelization, after doing the CRIMSON PEAK novelization not too long ago. And there were also recent novelizations of NOAH, DAWN OF THE PLANET OF APES, and, ahem, GODZILLA.

 

[Christopher]

A novelization of Noah? Now, there's a classic case of a movie that already has a book version...

Although when I actually read the account of Noah in Genesis, I was surprised at how cursory it was, compared to all the folklore and children's books and whatnot. It's like the people compiling the Old Testament from surviving texts could only find a Cliff's Notes version of the Noah myth instead of something more detailed. Or maybe it's so short because it's adapted from the Utnapishtim myth in The Epic of Gilgamesh and they had to cut out all the polytheistic bits.

 

[Greg Cox]

A novelization of Noah? Now, there's a classic case of a movie that already has a book version...

Although when I actually read the account of Noah in Genesis, I was surprised at how cursory it was, compared to all the folklore and children's books and whatnot. It's like the people compiling the Old Testament from surviving texts could only find a Cliff's Notes version of the Noah myth instead of something more detailed. Or maybe it's so short because it's adapted from the Utnapishtim myth in The Epic of Gilgamesh and they had to cut out all the polytheistic bits.

Believe it or not, there was also a YA novelization told from the POV of Noah's daughter . . ...

But, yes, there's less in the Bible about Noah than people remember. I remember when the movie came out, you had folks complaining that the movie had "left out" parts of the story that weren't actually in the Biblical version, and complaining about bits, like Noah getting drunk, that were actually in the Bible. It became fairly obvious early on that most people's memories of the Noah story were a hodgepodge of details vaguely remembered from Sunday school, church pageants, and children's books.

I do admit, however, to being slightly jealous of Mark Morris, who did the NOAH novelization. Just imagine being able to accurately describe yourself as "the bestselling author of NOAH." Talk about bragging rights.

 

[tomswift2002]

I'm not sure of that. I don't know for a fact, but my impression has been that Pocket's license has traditionally been all-inclusive, that anything Trek is fair game by default -- the Abramsverse being an exception to that rule, as it belatedly turned out.

True, but based on the past, we have seen the owner's of Star Trek have separate fiction lines through different publisher's at the same time. If we look at the 1970's, Paramount had licensed the rights to TOS to Bantam, TAS was licensed to Ballantine (which, later would become owned by the same company as Bantam), and then in 1979 a separate license was given to Simon & Schuster, who also picked up the TOS &TAS license at the same time, but had to wait till Bantam had completed their contractual rights and obligations before issuing a new fiction novel in 1981. Plus then later in the 80's we saw Paramount (thanks to Richard Arnold) effectively cancel any licenses concerning TAS with all the licensees. That decision was later reversed, but at the same time it seems to show that there is a difference in Pocket's license in regard to TOS and TAS. When Paramount didn't allow any TAS thing to be used in the novels and videogames, we never saw M'Ress or Arex or other TAS-only characters/ships/places mentioned or show up. So it seems that, in terms of TOS/TAS there seems to be separate licenses for both with Simon & Schuster (and any other licensee) that allows Paramount/CBS to say whether those elements can be used or not. So it seems perfectly logical that there are separate licenses for the various movies as well as TNG, DS9, Voyager & Enterprise.

 

[F. King Daniel]

It's a shame there won't be a novelization of Star Trek Beyond

 

[Christopher]

Plus then later in the 80's we saw Paramount (thanks to Richard Arnold) effectively cancel any licenses concerning TAS with all the licensees. That decision was later reversed, but at the same time it seems to show that there is a difference in Pocket's license in regard to TOS and TAS.

I don't think that was a matter of licensing per se. A license is a business contract, a specific legal document. Licenses change when the terms come up for their re-negotiation. The no-TAS policy was more just a house preference as long as Richard Arnold was in charge of vetting the tie-ins. True, DC had to cancel its first TOS series and delay starting the second one because their license was up for renewal, and one reason for that delay was because they had to address Arnold's insistence on dropping TAS characters, but that applied just as much to DC's original characters from Vol. 1.

Honestly, I'm not sure TAS is even treated as a separate entity from TOS where licensing is concerned. I've never seen TAS listed as a separate series in creator credits; after all, both TOS and TAS were officially known as "Star Trek, Created by Gene Roddenberry." It's got the same core characters and setting and format, aside from a few supporting players, so I think it's legally considered an extension of TOS.

So it seems perfectly logical that there are separate licenses for the various movies as well as TNG, DS9, Voyager & Enterprise.

As a rule, yes. For other licensees, clearly. I'm just saying that I think Pocket's license has historically been more of a blanket thing. Again, these are contracts, and different contracts can be negotiated differently.

 

[Idran]

The more I think about this question, the odder it seems to me. Does it even make sense to describe multiple contracts for multiple parts of a given franchise with the same terms as separate licenses, even if they were contracted separately?

If some company was licensed to make works from, say, TOS and TNG (assuming the terms are the same for each), then regardless of if they're treated as separate entities or not by CBS they don't really have separate licenses for each of those, they have a single license that covers TOS and TNG. Right? Or is there an actual legal distinction between having multiple identical licenses for different properties and having one license for multiple properties?

 

[Christopher]

If some company was licensed to make works from, say, TOS and TNG (assuming the terms are the same for each), then regardless of if they're treated as separate entities or not by CBS they don't really have separate licenses for each of those, they have a single license that covers TOS and TNG. Right? Or is there an actual legal distinction between having multiple identical licenses for different properties and having one license for multiple properties?

Good question. Since I'm not in licensing, I don't actually know the answer. I'm just going by impressions and marginally-educated guesswork.

I would imagine that a licensee would have a single contract that grants them the license to one or more series. The contract would cover the property or properties whose licenses they paid to acquire. If they wanted to acquire an additional license, they would have to negotiate another contract or renegotiate their existing one.

 

[TheAlmanac]

So it seems perfectly logical that there are separate licenses for the various movies as well as TNG, DS9, Voyager & Enterprise.

In The Best of Trek #13, William Rotsler described how the licencing for Star Trek II Biographies meant that, technically, he wasn't supposed to include any material which wasn't originally from TWOK--but in practice, he didn't adhere to this standard at all (any more than the original Marvel run adhered to their rule that they could only use material from TMP).

 

[JD]

Didn't IDW originally only have the license for TOS and TNG?

 

[Christopher]

Didn't IDW originally only have the license for TOS and TNG?

Yeah, but as I've been saying, the comics licenses have usually been piecemeal. I have the impression that Pocket's license is more all-inclusive, but if so, it's unique to Pocket.

Let's see... The first Marvel ST comic only had the license to material from TMP, although the writers snuck TOS references into almost every issue. DC then got a license to all things TOS, including TAS and the movies (though Arnold then banned TAS references, which may not have been a license thing specifically). Malibu then got the DS9 license instead of DC as everyone expected. After those comics ended, Marvel ponied up extravagantly to license the whole package, everything in the Trek stable at once, but they overextended themselves and the line got cancelled quickly. Then Wildstorm got the licenses to all four series then extant but put out less content so as not to glut the market so much. IDW only had TOS and TNG, then it had DS9 for a while, then let that lapse; and of course they got the Abramsverse license. They've done a few things with individual VGR or ENT characters (The Last Generation, Hive, Flesh and Stone), but nothing published under those titles.

 

[Khan 2.0]

hopefully Paramount will release the novel of Orcis Trek 3 by accident (having hired ADF to write it before Lin took over)

 

[The Wormhole]

hopefully Paramount will release the novel of Orcis Trek 3 by accident (having hired ADF to write it before Lin took over)

A novelization wouldn't have been contracted that far out. And that would be one hell of an accident.

 

[Khan 2.0]

a happy accident

 

[Greg Cox]

A novelization wouldn't have been contracted that far out. .

I don't know. True story: I once made a preemptive, five-figure offer for the novelization rights to an upcoming movie based on the cast and preliminary poster art alone. The script wasn't even written yet, but I wanted to nail down the book rights before any other publisher could.

Alas, they asked for more money than I was comfortable ponying up without a script, which is probably just as well since the movie eventually vanished into Development Hell and never saw the light of day . . . ..

Point being, though, that you often have to sign onto these projects at very early stages. In this case, I was trying to do a deal before the movie had even started filming.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

In The Best of Trek #13, William Rotsler described how the licencing for Star Trek II Biographies meant that, technically, he wasn't supposed to include any material which wasn't originally from TWOK--but in practice, he didn't adhere to this standard at all (any more than the original Marvel run adhered to their rule that they could only use material from TMP).

Yes, I remember future DC Trek writer Mike W. Barr snuck in a reference to Kirk's service on the Republic in one issue that he wrote.

 

[Therin of Andor]

one reason for that delay was because they had to address Arnold's insistence on dropping TAS characters, but that applied just as much to DC's original characters from Vol. 1.

Sigh...


M'Ress about to be redrawn as M'yra by Ian McLean, on Flickr

 

[Christopher]

Oh, that's right. The original-to-DC characters like Bearclaw, Bryce, Konom, and Sherwood were dropped first, and Vol. 2 initially went ahead with using M'Ress and Arex before they were told not to. So that means their license must theoretically have included TAS. After all, they had to re-up their license before they could do Vol. 2, and if that renewal process had involved explicitly losing the TAS rights, then that page Therin just reproduced would never have been written or drawn in the first place. So they must've had the license to TAS; they just didn't have Richard Arnold's permission to act on it, because he was in charge of approval and he let his personal likes and dislikes dictate what got approved. (Often quite arbitrarily, as Peter David has related on many occasions.)