How long before TNG were the Wrath Of Khan uniforms phased out?

Discussion in 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' started by Lance, Jun 23, 2013.

  1. C.E. Evans

    C.E. Evans Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    Ferguson, MO, USA
    No. Like I said, those costumes would have still been in use and wouldn't have been auctioned off. Same thing for anything else that was still being used at the time.
     
  2. Lance

    Lance Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Location:
    The Enterprise's Restroom
    ^ Like the actors.

    Sometimes, I like to imagine the majority of the TNG actors were just like wardrobe in the movie years. There was probably an entire department at the studio where they just got hung up on hooks and kept until they were needed again for the next sequel.

    They brought Marina Sirtis out and dusted her off for those Voyager episodes though. ;)
     
  3. Dukhat

    Dukhat Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    Sorry, but you're wrong. Uniforms and costumes degrade over time. Paramount would have been more interested in selling them off ASAP to get even more money to produce new ones for a future film seven years down the line.
     
  4. C.E. Evans

    C.E. Evans Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    Ferguson, MO, USA
    Nope.
    There's no reason to remotely believe that at all.
     
  5. Pavonis

    Pavonis Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Wouldn't they prefer to sell off ill-fitting costumes rather than retain them for a cast that was consistently aging against their better judgment? Certainly Frakes of 2009 wouldn't fit in his uniform costume from 2002!
     
  6. Squiggy

    Squiggy FrozenToad Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Location:
    Trump Tower
    Over 50 years, a little. In a couple of years on a hanger? No.

    They wouldn't make enough to make a difference.
     
  7. Pavonis

    Pavonis Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    But why keep a garment that's not going to do anything for seven years except collect dust, and at the end of which time will not fit the actor anyway?
     
  8. C.E. Evans

    C.E. Evans Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    Ferguson, MO, USA
    That's a problem inherent with every Star Trek uniform costume. The actors just cope with it rather than design all new uniform costumes for them.
     
  9. Pavonis

    Pavonis Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    They wouldn't need to design new costumes, just sew new versions that fit the aging actors. Certainly Jimmy Doohan didn't get forced into an ill-fitting costume from the 1960s, or even the early 1980s when he needed one, did he?
     
  10. C.E. Evans

    C.E. Evans Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    Ferguson, MO, USA
    What was being discussed earlier was designing all-new costumes for everybody.
     
  11. Dukhat

    Dukhat Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    Maybe "degraded" wasn't quite the word I was looking for. "Faded," maybe. Either way, some uniform sitting on a hanger in a rack for seven years would be the last piece of clothing they'd want to show on a big screen.

    I beg to differ. Did you see the ridiculous prices all that shit went for? The returns from selling some uniforms, phasers and tricorders would have given the wardrobe department more than enough of a budget to knit some new uniforms.
     
  12. C.E. Evans

    C.E. Evans Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    Ferguson, MO, USA
    Except that money would not go into a budget for new uniforms, so they'd just keep the current ones.
     
  13. Dukhat

    Dukhat Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    Money is money. It all goes back into someone's budget at Paramount.
     
  14. C.E. Evans

    C.E. Evans Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    Ferguson, MO, USA
    Because money goes into a studio's general coffers, not into a special savings account for a particular movie. They determine a particular movie's budget based on how much they think the movie will cost to make and how much of a return they want to make. As a result, the less they have to spend on a movie, the better it is for them.

    EDIT: I see you went back and changed your response, but my points still stand.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2013