Titan To Republish Original Aliens Bantam Novels

Started by Corporal Hicks, Oct 16, 2015, 08:11:11 AM

Author
Titan To Republish Original Aliens Bantam Novels (Read 73,511 times)

HuDaFuK

Fair point!

Perfect-Organism

Quote from: HuDaFuK on Apr 11, 2016, 07:42:55 AM
Quote from: 420Buddy on Apr 08, 2016, 01:17:39 PMIt shouldn't be held against the comics as for the most part that's just the nature of the medium.

I'm not holding it against the comics and saying they're rubbish. I'm just saying the shallower storytelling inherent with the format doesn't appeal to me personally. Nice art is all well and god but I need much more than pretty pictures to be fulfilled by a piece of fiction. And I find comics too rushed and devoid of depth in story terms.

Quote from: Perfect-Organism on Apr 08, 2016, 02:00:43 PMIt would be great if they took these novels and retconned them so that Wilks and Billie become Hicks and Newt again.  Only under such a circumstance would I buy a copy.

But why? It wouldn't change anything about the content of the story. The fundamentals would all be exactly the same, just with different names sprinkled throughout. So what if Hicks is in it? All that does is introduce a bunch of background from a much better developed story.

I think its wrong to think that shallow stories are an inherent product of the comic book medium, or any other medium for that matter.  It really comes down the the skill of the artist and the writer.  Traditionally speaking, yes you're right that comics have tended to be childish and unevolved, but that is always a conscious decision on the part of the creative team's decision to aim at a specific target audience.  Have you ever read Watchmen, or perhaps Sandman?  Therein lies a rich tapestry of comic book genius that would be disserved by transferring it to novel format.

In regards to the whole Billie and Wilks thing, we've discussed this ad nauseam.  I just think it is so tasteless to change the names of the characters.   It is cheesy to think that these characters went through the exact same traumatic story and then also found a Ripley-bot to hang out with.  Come on.  It's childish and self-plagiarizing.  Did Mark Verheiden even get credit in the novels?  We both know this wasn't done for any artistic merit, but to accommodate Alien 3.  Now that there is no need to do that, the comics and the novels should be restored to the original intent.  Any other attempt to republish them is just a cash grab, devoid of their artistic merits.

Wilks and Billie simply have no style.  It's poor second-hand fiction.

426Buddy

I just bought and read female war the comic for the first time... and it was pretty terrible. I started the first few pages thinking this might not be so bad, but it is. Outbreak was good, nightmare was great, and female war is just not in the same league at all.

HuDaFuK

Quote from: Perfect-Organism on Apr 11, 2016, 02:44:27 PMI think its wrong to think that shallow stories are an inherent product of the comic book medium, or any other medium for that matter.  It really comes down the the skill of the artist and the writer.  Traditionally speaking, yes you're right that comics have tended to be childish and unevolved, but that is always a conscious decision on the part of the creative team's decision to aim at a specific target audience.  Have you ever read Watchmen, or perhaps Sandman?  Therein lies a rich tapestry of comic book genius that would be disserved by transferring it to novel format.

I was referring to the few Aliens comics I've read, specifically the early ones. They're nothing like as deep or involved as the novel adaptations, which aren't exactly Shakespeare as it is.

Quote from: Perfect-Organism on Apr 11, 2016, 02:44:27 PMWilks and Billie simply have no style.  It's poor second-hand fiction.

:laugh: But it just isn't though. It's the exact same characters with different names. If you're saying they're badly developed rubbish, then you're basically saying the development of Hicks and Newt in the EU stories was rubbish, because nothing else was altered about them beyond the names printed on the paper.

Perfect-Organism

Quote from: Perfect-Organism on Apr 11, 2016, 02:44:27 PMWilks and Billie simply have no style.  It's poor second-hand fiction.

:laugh: But it just isn't though. It's the exact same characters with different names. If you're saying they're badly developed rubbish, then you're basically saying the development of Hicks and Newt in the EU stories was rubbish, because nothing else was altered about them beyond the names printed on the paper.
[/quote]

The fact that it is so glaringly transparent that they are those other characters and we have to play pretend the whole time is insulting to the reader's intelligence.  The stories cease to make sense when they are faced with a Ripley-Bot.  The development of Hicks and Newt was good because it was based on the original Aliens film, but the story of Wilks and Billie is flawed because it asks the reader to accept that the exact same story as Aliens happened elsewhere and the only survivors were a little girl and a marine.  It's a stretch, and It's trite.

It's like saying that we are going to discover derelict juggernauts on all these planets now.  It was innovative in Alien, but then we had it happen in Prometheus where the juggernaut became a derelict, and now we seem to be having it happen in the Life and Death series.  We'll see how that one goes.

Then there is also the River of Pain novel where yet again we see a marine with a little girl escape LV-426.  Are we really doomed to keep repeating this story?  Either continue the actual original tale with the characters who survived, or let it go I say.

felix

There are 3 more Omnibus Collections slated for 2017.

I knew Aliens: Original Sins and Steel Egg have yet to be re-released. Anything else?

Corporal Hicks

None of the DH Press stuff has been republished. I'll be curious to see if they are included in these new omnibus.

Xenomrph

I hope so, more people need to read Predator: South China Sea.

On that topic, has Titan said anything about reprinting the old Predator Bantam novels?

Ultramorph

They haven't said anything, but with next year being the 30th anniversary of Predator, I would be surprised if they didn't reprint the old books.

Perfect-Organism

I was just looking at the first volume at the book store and I did not see Mark Verheiden's name mentioned anywhere on the book.  I just don't understand that.  These books are clearly a novelization of the graphic novels, yet not even so much as a thank you to Mark Verheiden, (not even to mention the artists who illustrated the original graphic novels).  I don't understand how that is even legal.  I mean, I know Fox owns the rights, but doesn't this cross over into plagiarism to not credit the original author?

Corporal Hicks, since you plan on interviewing Mark Verheiden in the near future, perhaps it is worth asking him how he feels about this subject.

HuDaFuK

Quote from: Perfect-Organism on May 10, 2016, 03:15:29 AMI was just looking at the first volume at the book store and I did not see Mark Verheiden's name mentioned anywhere on the book.

Why should they? The Perrys wrote the novels, not Verheiden. None of the old editions from the 90s credit the people behind the original comics. In many cases, the books were quite significantly altered or expanded by the authors anyway.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure if the original novels even mention that they're adaptations of comics books.

426Buddy

Maybe i'm crazy but isn't it normal to give credit to the person who created the original published story? The Perry's may have written it, but they are just adapting someone else's original story.



Perfect-Organism

Quote from: HuDaFuK on May 10, 2016, 10:08:38 AM
Quote from: Perfect-Organism on May 10, 2016, 03:15:29 AMI was just looking at the first volume at the book store and I did not see Mark Verheiden's name mentioned anywhere on the book.

Why should they? The Perrys wrote the novels, not Verheiden. None of the old editions from the 90s credit the people behind the original comics. In many cases, the books were quite significantly altered or expanded by the authors anyway.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure if the original novels even mention that they're adaptations of comics books.

You have got to be kidding me on 2 levels.  Firstly, you really don't think you would need to credit someone for their work if you make a few alterations in an adaptation?  You really think that would fly if you were doing something like this in an academic setting?  Secondly, are you serious about the original Perry books?  Did they really not give credit where it was due?

Does anyone have the original three books on hand that the Perry's did in adapting the Verheiden trilogy?  Can you check?  I am really curious.  I had these books when they came out and I was in high school, but I didn't care to notice back then..


Quote from: 420Buddy on May 10, 2016, 02:55:23 PM
Maybe i'm crazy but isn't it normal to give credit to the person who created the original published story? The Perry's may have written it, but they are just adapting someone else's original story.

You're not crazy.  This is just wrong.

HuDaFuK

Quote from: Perfect-Organism on May 10, 2016, 03:52:13 PMSecondly, are you serious about the original Perry books?  Did they really not give credit where it was due?

I've just checked Earth Hive. It does actually say "Based on the Twentieth Century Fox motion pictures, the designs of H. R Giger, and the graphic novel by Mark Verheiden and Mark A. Nelson" in the small print inside the cover. Not sure about the later books.

Quote from: Perfect-Organism on May 10, 2016, 03:52:13 PMYou're not crazy.  This is just wrong.

The fact it is exactly what has happened would seem to indicate otherwise.

Perfect-Organism

Quote from: HuDaFuK on May 10, 2016, 04:05:07 PM
Quote from: Perfect-Organism on May 10, 2016, 03:52:13 PMSecondly, are you serious about the original Perry books?  Did they really not give credit where it was due?

I've just checked Earth Hive. It does actually say "Based on the Twentieth Century Fox motion pictures, the designs of H. R Giger, and the graphic novel by Mark Verheiden and Mark A. Nelson" in the small print inside the cover. Not sure about the later books.

Quote from: Perfect-Organism on May 10, 2016, 03:52:13 PMYou're not crazy.  This is just wrong.

The fact it is exactly what has happened would seem to indicate otherwise.

Well, with regards to the original "Earth Hive" I would say it was done entirely appropriately.  Small print is still credit, and that's the most important thing.  I looked through the new printing and I could not see anything along those lines.

I don't think it is fair to say that just because something happened, that it is not wrong.  I would suspect that rather than some nefarious conspiracy to discredit the original author, the new publishers simply overlooked the original source material or may have not been aware of it.  Oversights do happen, and while it is wrong, it is not necessarily malicious.  I will contact Titan, and point out the error.

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News