Conquer Club

Star Trek Vs Star Wars

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Star Trek Vs Star Wars

Postby ooge on Tue May 28, 2013 4:10 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:BSG was pretty good until the last season. The last season almost ruined the whole show for me.

-TG


You know, weirdly, I loved every episode and season. I think I've watched it three times.

Also I had a huge hard-on for Starbuck (the female version).

I am with you, TGD. I've watched it through all the way once, and seen portions of other episodes with friends. But I've had a hankering to watch it all the way through again this summer.

Also, for TGD and ME:

Subject: HOT + SEXY + nsfw(women only as per OP)


--Andy


I know I miss it,you see that prequel movie they did I dont know..I think 6 months to a year ago.Adama fighting in the first cylon war? it wasn't the best but it was better than nothing.
Image
User avatar
Captain ooge
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:31 am
Location: under a bridge

Re: Star Trek Vs Star Wars

Postby TA1LGUNN3R on Tue May 28, 2013 9:01 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:BSG was pretty good until the last season. The last season almost ruined the whole show for me.

-TG


You know, weirdly, I loved every episode and season. I think I've watched it three times.

Also I had a huge hard-on for Starbuck (the female version).


!!SPOILER!!

I just hated how the show started gearing towards some sort of faith and the supernatural in the last season (and maybe even a bit in the one before that). Like, the whole part after Starbuck returns from death, and they gave some halfhearted excuse at the end of the show. As if she's some sort of phantasm that was supposed to lead them to Earth or something. Maybe if they had said she was a program (able to interact with reality) written by the first Cylons or something, but no, she just "was."

I had a huge hard-on for Tory Foster (one of the final five).

-TG
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class TA1LGUNN3R
 
Posts: 2699
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:52 am
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue

Re: Star Trek Vs Star Wars

Postby thegreekdog on Tue May 28, 2013 10:03 pm

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:BSG was pretty good until the last season. The last season almost ruined the whole show for me.

-TG


You know, weirdly, I loved every episode and season. I think I've watched it three times.

Also I had a huge hard-on for Starbuck (the female version).


!!SPOILER!!

I just hated how the show started gearing towards some sort of faith and the supernatural in the last season (and maybe even a bit in the one before that). Like, the whole part after Starbuck returns from death, and they gave some halfhearted excuse at the end of the show. As if she's some sort of phantasm that was supposed to lead them to Earth or something. Maybe if they had said she was a program (able to interact with reality) written by the first Cylons or something, but no, she just "was."

I had a huge hard-on for Tory Foster (one of the final five).

-TG


I won't say I enjoyed the Starbuck comes back from the dead storyline, except that I did enjoy the Cylon search for meaning. My only other problem was that the last season seemed rushed. I really enjoyed the inter-fleet politics so I was sorry to see that go.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Star Trek Vs Star Wars

Postby Dukasaur on Sun Jun 23, 2013 12:53 pm

Star Wars has the better universe. Aliens actually look like aliens. In Star Trek, all but a few aliens look exactly like humans with heavy makeup, which is pretty much what they are. However, that's probably comparing apples to oranges. Star Wars was a movie right from the opening bell, and had a movie-level budget. Star Trek was a TV series, and had an initial budget that was low even for TV. It was unavoidable that they would cut corners in such things, and even though the series later moved to movies, it was still constrained by the look and feel of the original series.
Award the point to Star Wars, but with the caveat.

Star Trek has more of a willingness to look at tough moral issues and to explore alternate points of view. Star Wars has an incredibly cliched story line. Oh my god, the hero is a knight, and he has to rescue the princess! Oh, and he has some sidekicks that have special powers but can't seem to use them intelligently until he shows up and takes charge! The bad guy wears black, and he has no conscience whatsoever. Um, when was the first time you saw this story? Around 2500 B.C.?
Award the point to Star Trek, and no caveat required.

One asterisked point for Star Wars, one free-and-clear point for Star Trek. Winner=Star Trek.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.”
― Voltaire
User avatar
Lieutenant Dukasaur
Community Coordinator
Community Coordinator
 
Posts: 27038
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: Star Trek Vs Star Wars

Postby Funkyterrance on Sun Jun 23, 2013 1:15 pm

Indeed, Star Wars was/is popular at least partly due to it's Epic qualities.
Image
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Star Trek Vs Star Wars

Postby Crazyirishman on Sun Jun 23, 2013 1:49 pm

Dukasaur wrote:Star Trek has more of a willingness to look at tough moral issues and to explore alternate points of view. Star Wars has an incredibly cliched story line. Oh my god, the hero is a knight, and he has to rescue the princess! Oh, and he has some sidekicks that have special powers but can't seem to use them intelligently until he shows up and takes charge! The bad guy wears black, and he has no conscience whatsoever. Um, when was the first time you saw this story? Around 2500 B.C.?
Award the point to Star Trek, and no caveat required.

One asterisked point for Star Wars, one free-and-clear point for Star Trek. Winner=Star Trek.


The cliche-ness of the star wars storyline was completely intentional. Lucas was trying to model the story after themes discussed in "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" as way to to help re-create a modern myth. Thematically, it is able to resonate with more people that way from an anthropological/ existential standpoint.
User avatar
Captain Crazyirishman
 
Posts: 1564
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 8:05 pm
Location: Dongbei China

Re: Star Trek Vs Star Wars

Postby Gillipig on Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:40 am

Nerd Fight!!

Image
AoG for President of the World!!
I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!
User avatar
Lieutenant Gillipig
 
Posts: 3565
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:24 pm

Re: Star Trek Vs Star Wars

Postby macbone on Mon Jun 24, 2013 5:03 am

Lucas pulled from a lot of different sources, "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" being one of them, but also Flash Gordon serials, The Hidden Fortress, westerns, you name it. Part of Star Wars' appeal is its ability to stitch together all those different sources like a tapestry.

And Chiro, this has probably been addressed in the 8 pages so far, but all those plot similarities to The Wrath of Khan were intentional. A bit heavy-handed, I'd have to say (particularly Zach Quinto's "KHAAAAAAAN!"), but I've enjoyed the two new Star Trek movies so far. They're not TOS, yeah, but I hope Paramount brings out a new TV series at some point that's more in line with the quality of the recent Battlestar Galactica rather than the kind of tired Enterprise series.

The first scene in Star Trek into Darkness really reminded me of something you might see in Star Wars. I'm looking forward to JJ Abrams' take on the Star Wars universe.
User avatar
Colonel macbone
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:12 pm
Location: Running from a cliff racer

Re: Star Trek Vs Star Wars

Postby grifftron on Mon Jun 24, 2013 5:17 am

There is a nerd line we all, sooner or later, faced with at some point in our lives... once you pass it... if you choose too... you can never come back.
Image
User avatar
Major grifftron
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 3280
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 6:11 am

Re: Star Trek Vs Star Wars

Postby DoomYoshi on Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:39 pm

Which is better: Ewoks or Ens. Chekhov?
░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10715
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: Star Trek Vs Star Wars

Postby Thorthoth on Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:47 pm

Please... that's like asking which is worse, Tribbles or Greedo?
THORTHOTHORTHOTHORTHOTHORTHOTHORTHOTHORTHOTHORTHOTHORTHOTHORTHOTH
Click image to enlarge.
image
User avatar
Corporal Thorthoth
 
Posts: 3273
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 1:36 pm
Location: My pyramid in Asgard, beside the glaciated Nile.

Re: Star Trek Vs Star Wars

Postby Woodruff on Fri Jul 07, 2017 5:10 pm

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Star Trek Vs Star Wars

Postby jusplay4fun on Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:33 pm

Let me take a different approach here. Why must it be one or the other? Why not enjoy both and enjoy the different angles they give to science fiction, to stories, to things to enjoy?

What do you want? ONLY steaks or BBQ? only French Fries or mashed potatoes (with gravy, of course)? Why must I choose only one?

Enjoy the differences, variety and the (Dare I say it?) diversity. A person must not choose only one and defend it to the exclusion of other good options. And I can understand those who like neither. BUT I say they are really missing something worthwhile.

Very simply, I like BOTH, for slightly different reasons.


I will add that the Original Star Trek, in the late 1960's, broke lots of ground and explored social issues that gripped the nation at the time. Race is one good example. The interracial kiss between Kirk and Uhura was dramatic, set in the context of the efforts to end segregation during that time. And Star Trek made science fiction mainstream and acceptable. Sci-Fi was in its own "universe" and not appreciated by many outside the few fans of the genre. Many of the sci fi movies suggested the world ending soon or some other bleak, apocolyptic end. Star Trek gave us hope that the future offered a chance to explore the stars and to get beyond human warfare and misery. Most Sci-fi novels and movies before Star Trek were rather depressing and pessimistic.

JP4Fun
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jusplay4fun
 
Posts: 6134
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:21 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Star Trek Vs Star Wars

Postby jusplay4fun on Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:39 pm

Mac makes several good points and my reading about the origins of Star Wars agrees with what I have read and researched online in the past few days. I did the research for a class on ethics and the conversation turned to examples based on movies.

JP4Fun

macbone wrote:Lucas pulled from a lot of different sources, "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" being one of them, but also Flash Gordon serials, The Hidden Fortress, westerns, you name it. Part of Star Wars' appeal is its ability to stitch together all those different sources like a tapestry.

And Chiro, this has probably been addressed in the 8 pages so far, but all those plot similarities to The Wrath of Khan were intentional. A bit heavy-handed, I'd have to say (particularly Zach Quinto's "KHAAAAAAAN!"), but I've enjoyed the two new Star Trek movies so far. They're not TOS, yeah, but I hope Paramount brings out a new TV series at some point that's more in line with the quality of the recent Battlestar Galactica rather than the kind of tired Enterprise series.

The first scene in Star Trek into Darkness really reminded me of something you might see in Star Wars. I'm looking forward to JJ Abrams' take on the Star Wars universe.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jusplay4fun
 
Posts: 6134
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:21 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Star Trek Vs Star Wars

Postby tzor on Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:25 pm

jusplay4fun wrote:Most Sci-fi novels and movies before Star Trek were rather depressing and pessimistic.


But we need some context here. Science fiction novels and movies really developed as a genre of their own some twenty years earlier, around the late 40's. This was the era of "duck and cover" and as such the genre did begin its history in somewhat apocalyptic literature. "Science" had created the atomic bomb which could easily destroy the entire human race. The print side developed from "pulp" fiction and the movie side from the "B" movie equivalent.

The result? People asking generations later, Seriously, what was it with old sci-fi pulp covers and women in glass tubes? Seriously, science fiction of the day couldn't touch television with a ten foot pole, although there were always attempts to put science fiction in children's programming, because space was exciting.

Of course Star Trek wasn't supposed to be science fiction in as much as it was supposed to be a alternate reality to explore the issues of the days without having to argue with the television censers. This was before the great debates between Archie Bunker and "Meathead." (One could even argue that Star Trek paved the way for "All in the Family.") Even then the network considered the pilot too "cerebral."

One of the reasons why Star Trek was not depressing was you never saw the earth. Kirk encountered a problem and worked a solution and flew off to the next adventure. It's hard to see the non happy parts because they passed by so quickly. How many worlds were completely destroyed by the planet killer, for instance? What about the very sad and depressing live of the Dilithium miner, an element which apparently the Enterprise used to require a lot of. The only example of a civilian human in space was portrayed in a negative manner. It is worth noting that the really dark elements entered into Star Trek (mostly after the death of Roddenberry) was when the persistent evil could not be avoided or when the series got fixed to a location (as happened in Deep Space 9) and one had to live with neighbors on a long term basis.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Star Trek Vs Star Wars

Postby DoomYoshi on Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:58 pm

░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10715
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: Star Trek Vs Star Wars

Postby jusplay4fun on Mon Jul 10, 2017 10:00 pm

Tzor makes some interesting points; they deserve consideration and show thought.

I can cite two adventures that were in the original TV series that were on the earth. One is called "The City on the Edge of Forever" and featured a young Joan Collins (later of the TV show Dynasty) who starred as a peace activist, Edith Keelor, who pacifist activities kept the USA out of WWII and Nazi Germany won the war. Talk about ALTERNATE history.

And there was the adventure where the Enterprise goes back into time to the 1960s and rescues a jet fighter pilot sent to check out the UFO. I do not recall the name of that episode. One of the movies featured Kirk and the cast going back in time to save the whales; wat it #5? I cannot recall all detalis of that either.

So the earth was featured in some of the Original series, for good or bad.

JP4Fun

tzor wrote:
jusplay4fun wrote:Most Sci-fi novels and movies before Star Trek were rather depressing and pessimistic.


But we need some context here. Science fiction novels and movies really developed as a genre of their own some twenty years earlier, around the late 40's. This was the era of "duck and cover" and as such the genre did begin its history in somewhat apocalyptic literature. "Science" had created the atomic bomb which could easily destroy the entire human race. The print side developed from "pulp" fiction and the movie side from the "B" movie equivalent.

The result? People asking generations later, Seriously, what was it with old sci-fi pulp covers and women in glass tubes? Seriously, science fiction of the day couldn't touch television with a ten foot pole, although there were always attempts to put science fiction in children's programming, because space was exciting.

Of course Star Trek wasn't supposed to be science fiction in as much as it was supposed to be a alternate reality to explore the issues of the days without having to argue with the television censers. This was before the great debates between Archie Bunker and "Meathead." (One could even argue that Star Trek paved the way for "All in the Family.") Even then the network considered the pilot too "cerebral."

One of the reasons why Star Trek was not depressing was you never saw the earth. Kirk encountered a problem and worked a solution and flew off to the next adventure. It's hard to see the non happy parts because they passed by so quickly. How many worlds were completely destroyed by the planet killer, for instance? What about the very sad and depressing live of the Dilithium miner, an element which apparently the Enterprise used to require a lot of. The only example of a civilian human in space was portrayed in a negative manner. It is worth noting that the really dark elements entered into Star Trek (mostly after the death of Roddenberry) was when the persistent evil could not be avoided or when the series got fixed to a location (as happened in Deep Space 9) and one had to live with neighbors on a long term basis.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jusplay4fun
 
Posts: 6134
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:21 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Star Trek Vs Star Wars

Postby Dukasaur on Mon Jul 10, 2017 10:11 pm

jusplay4fun wrote:Let me take a different approach here. Why must it be one or the other? Why not enjoy both and enjoy the different angles they give to science fiction, to stories, to things to enjoy?

What do you want? ONLY steaks or BBQ? only French Fries or mashed potatoes (with gravy, of course)? Why must I choose only one?

Enjoy the differences, variety and the (Dare I say it?) diversity. A person must not choose only one and defend it to the exclusion of other good options. And I can understand those who like neither. BUT I say they are really missing something worthwhile.

Very simply, I like BOTH, for slightly different reasons.

Agreed.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.”
― Voltaire
User avatar
Lieutenant Dukasaur
Community Coordinator
Community Coordinator
 
Posts: 27038
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: Star Trek Vs Star Wars

Postby AndyDufresne on Tue Jul 11, 2017 10:19 am

I'm fine with both existing, since they are trying to do different things. I just prefer Star Trek over Star Wars.


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24919
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Star Trek Vs Star Wars

Postby tzor on Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:34 am

jusplay4fun wrote:Tzor makes some interesting points; they deserve consideration and show thought.

I can cite two adventures that were in the original TV series that were on the earth. One is called "The City on the Edge of Forever" and featured a young Joan Collins (later of the TV show Dynasty) who starred as a peace activist, Edith Keelor, who pacifist activities kept the USA out of WWII and Nazi Germany won the war. Talk about ALTERNATE history.

And there was the adventure where the Enterprise goes back into time to the 1960s and rescues a jet fighter pilot sent to check out the UFO. I do not recall the name of that episode. One of the movies featured Kirk and the cast going back in time to save the whales; wat it #5? I cannot recall all detalis of that either.

So the earth was featured in some of the Original series, for good or bad.


The first example was a case of going back into the past in order to create a time paradox episode. The second, which is really strange in the timeline of Star Trek (but was common as episodes could be played in any sequence and as a result had no consequence on other episodes) if I recall what I had heard about it was supposed to be the seed for a potential spin off which never took place.

In either case it was an example of a "past" earth (and technically the present is the past in any show about the future). It's also a case where the past is traumatic (and thus merely highlights how wonder the future is which you never see). There is no example in the Old Series where the "present" earth of the "present" of the original series. In fact there is so little information on the earth and the federation that I would say over half of the information in the famous Star Fleet Technical Manual was written by Franz Joseph Schnaubelt in 1975.

There are some examples in the post Roddenberry next generation, (where his brother owned a vineyard,) but you never saw how the average person lived on the earth in the original series. The "Utopian" vision of Roddenberry was never shown.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Star Trek Vs Star Wars

Postby jusplay4fun on Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:14 pm

"The "Utopian" vision of Roddenberry" are shown on the Star Ships, not on earth, especially on the Enterprise. That is the focus and there was not an attempt to translate that vision to what was happening on earth, specifically. That is my assumption, based on watching nearly all of the TV series episodes.

I still enjoy that whole series, movies included, and Star Wars movies. The very first Star Trek movie was VERY disappointing to most fans. Hence the common belief that the odd # movies were not as good as the even numbered ones.

JP4F


tzor wrote:
jusplay4fun wrote:Tzor makes some interesting points; they deserve consideration and show thought.

I can cite two adventures that were in the original TV series that were on the earth. One is called "The City on the Edge of Forever" and featured a young Joan Collins (later of the TV show Dynasty) who starred as a peace activist, Edith Keelor, who pacifist activities kept the USA out of WWII and Nazi Germany won the war. Talk about ALTERNATE history.

And there was the adventure where the Enterprise goes back into time to the 1960s and rescues a jet fighter pilot sent to check out the UFO. I do not recall the name of that episode. One of the movies featured Kirk and the cast going back in time to save the whales; wat it #5? I cannot recall all detalis of that either.

So the earth was featured in some of the Original series, for good or bad.


The first example was a case of going back into the past in order to create a time paradox episode. The second, which is really strange in the timeline of Star Trek (but was common as episodes could be played in any sequence and as a result had no consequence on other episodes) if I recall what I had heard about it was supposed to be the seed for a potential spin off which never took place.

In either case it was an example of a "past" earth (and technically the present is the past in any show about the future). It's also a case where the past is traumatic (and thus merely highlights how wonder the future is which you never see). There is no example in the Old Series where the "present" earth of the "present" of the original series. In fact there is so little information on the earth and the federation that I would say over half of the information in the famous Star Fleet Technical Manual was written by Franz Joseph Schnaubelt in 1975.

There are some examples in the post Roddenberry next generation, (where his brother owned a vineyard,) but you never saw how the average person lived on the earth in the original series. The "Utopian" vision of Roddenberry was never shown.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jusplay4fun
 
Posts: 6134
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:21 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Star Trek Vs Star Wars

Postby tzor on Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:18 pm

jusplay4fun wrote:The very first Star Trek movie was VERY disappointing to most fans. Hence the common belief that the odd # movies were not as good as the even numbered ones.


That's because the first movie wasn't a movie. :twisted: The script was a pilot for a reboot of the series. They had to add a ton of filler to get it to movie length and it's all that filler that tends to make the movie disappointing (unless you happen to like to see lots of minutes of a remodeled model enterprise).

As an episodic pilot it's not bad, actually. A lot of the original series episodes are far worse in plot lines.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Star Trek Vs Star Wars

Postby jusplay4fun on Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:50 pm

That is the first time I heard that idea, A while back someone blamed the chief writer, Alan Dean Foster, who wrote sci-fi novels and such and who was (supposedly) good at writing for the cartoon version of Star Trek, but had trouble with a longer script and plot for a long(er) movie.

Live Long and Prosper. :twisted:

JP4Fun

tzor wrote:
jusplay4fun wrote:The very first Star Trek movie was VERY disappointing to most fans. Hence the common belief that the odd # movies were not as good as the even numbered ones.


That's because the first movie wasn't a movie. :twisted: The script was a pilot for a reboot of the series. They had to add a ton of filler to get it to movie length and it's all that filler that tends to make the movie disappointing (unless you happen to like to see lots of minutes of a remodeled model enterprise).

As an episodic pilot it's not bad, actually. A lot of the original series episodes are far worse in plot lines.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jusplay4fun
 
Posts: 6134
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:21 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Star Trek Vs Star Wars

Postby jusplay4fun on Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:56 am

Based on what I read in Wikipedia, I think the idea of "an elogated pilot" extended into movie length seems plausible.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek ... on_Picture

When the original television series was cancelled in 1969, Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry lobbied Paramount Pictures to continue the franchise through a feature film. The success of the series in syndication convinced the studio to begin work on the film beginning in 1975. A series of writers attempted to craft a "suitably epic" script, but the attempts did not satisfy Paramount, so the studio scrapped the project in 1977. Paramount instead planned on returning the franchise to its roots, with a new television series titled Star Trek: Phase II. The box office success of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, however, convinced Paramount that science fiction films other than Star Wars could do well at the box office, so the studio cancelled production of Phase II and resumed its attempts at making a Star Trek film. In 1978, Paramount assembled the largest press conference held at the studio since the 1950s, to announce that two-time Academy Award–winning director Robert Wise would direct a $15 million budget film adaptation of the original television series. With the cancellation of Phase II, writers rushed to adapt its planned pilot episode, "In Thy Image", into a film script. Constant revisions to the story and the shooting script continued to the extent of hourly script updates on shooting dates. The Enterprise was modified inside and out; costume designer Robert Fletcher provided new uniforms, and production designer Harold Michelson fabricated new sets. Jerry Goldsmith composed the film's score, beginning an association with Star Trek that would continue until 2002. When the original contractors for the optical effects proved unable to complete their tasks in time, effects supervisor Douglas Trumbull was given carte blanche to meet the film's December 1979 release date. The film came together only days before the premiere; Wise took the just-completed film to its Washington, D.C., opening, but always felt that the final theatrical version was a rough cut of the film that he had wanted to make.

Released in North America on December 7, 1979, Star Trek: The Motion Picture received mixed reviews from critics, many of whom faulted the film for its lack of action scenes and over-reliance on special effects. Its final production cost ballooned to approximately $46 million, and earned $139 million at the worldwide box office, falling short of studio expectations, but enough for Paramount to propose a cheaper costing sequel. Roddenberry was forced out of creative control for production of the film's 1982 sequel, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. In 2001, Wise oversaw a director's cut for a special DVD release of the film, with remastered audio, tightened and added scenes, and new computer-generated effects.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class jusplay4fun
 
Posts: 6134
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:21 pm
Location: Virginia

Previous

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users