The 1969 Star Trek movie

[Khan 2.0]

"Roddenberry had first proposed a Star Trek feature at the 1968 World Science Fiction Convention. The movie was to have been set before the television series, showing how the crew of the Enterprise met"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Motion_Picture

imagine how cool it wouldve been if they had done something like the 2009 film and released post TOS season 3 in late 69 or 70 - with a modest budget (about $2-3 million) and Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley etc playing younger versions (could they have got away with it..? maybe been better off doing a follow up to TOS set shortly after Turnabout Intruder. Like Generations )

obviously wouldnt have needed the time travel aspect (but maybe they still couldve done that) and while Spocks backstory probably wouldnt have been that different to how we saw it in the eventual film, Kirks would have been (taken from backstory hinted at throughout season 1 and 2) - Kodus, Sam, Finnegan, Gary Mitchell, Finney, Ruth, the Farragut, cloud killer etc (although no Carol Marcus or KM test which wasnt introduced until TWOK)

Jeff Hunter could’ve appeared in a cameo at the end to hand over the Ent to Kirk (as told in The Menagerie. Maybe JH couldve filmed it just before he died. Crazy to think he died so young). wonder who the main 'Nero' villain wouldve been back then - maybe some up and coming film actor - Gene Hackman? (was in SF tv stuff like The Invaders around 1967 but then but broke into movies in about 68 - Bonnie and Clyde)

kind of like the Batman movie they made in 1966. they couldve gotten one of TOS directors to do it or even Robert Wise back then. With Roddenberry and some TOS writers (GLC) and maybe even Rod Sterling thrashing out a script. FX wouldve been Ok (better than TOS) but not '2001' standard which had a massive budget and Kubrick innovating new techniques, Alexander Courage or even Jerry Goldsmith or John Williams couldve done the score. Title – simple 'Star Trek'

it might have been HUGE at the box office what with the Moon Landing - maybe itd have kick started the Sci Fi movie boom in 69 or 1970 instead of 1977

 

[Melakon]

2001: A Space Odyssey came out in 1968. A Star Trek film would have still been overshadowed by it. There were other science fiction films in the late 60s and early 70s (I saw most of them), but most were much smaller in scale. About the only other significant outer space film during that time was Douglas Trumbull's Silent Running, and it only went as far as Saturn.

 

[mos6507]

Interesting thought-experiment. My guess is it would have come out like the Dr. Who movie with Peter Cushing.

 

[Disco]

Why didn't 2001: A Space Odyssey inspire more sci fi films like Star Wars did ten years later? I would have thought rather than overshadowing a Star Trek film it would have encourage the studio to make the film?

 

[Christopher]

imagine how cool it wouldve been if they had done something like the 2009 film and released post TOS season 3 in late 69 or 70 - with a modest budget (about $2-3 million) and Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley etc playing younger versions (could they have got away with it..? maybe been better off doing a follow up to TOS set shortly after Turnabout Intruder. Like Generations )

Except we're not talking about making them a decade younger, just a few years. The assumption made by the TOS producers was that Kirk had been in command of the Enterprise for about two years when the series began. So in 1969, they would've only been playing about five years younger, which isn't hard to do.

and while Spocks backstory probably wouldnt have been that different to how we saw it in the eventual film, Kirks would have been (taken from backstory hinted at throughout season 1 and 2) - Kodus, Sam, Finnegan, Gary Mitchell, Finney, Ruth, the Farragut, cloud killer etc (although no Carol Marcus or KM test which wasnt introduced until TWOK)

They wouldn't necessarily have drawn on any of that. TV/movie writing at the time wasn't as continuity-driven as it is today. And this was before the show had been rerunning endlessly in syndication so that the fans could memorize every detail. The goal would be to make the film accessible to audiences that didn't remember details from the show or were completely new to it, so there probably wouldn't have been a lot of deep digging into prior continuity.

Then again, it's possible they would've used Gary Mitchell, not out of a regard for continuity but because Gary Lockwood had just been in 2001 and it would've boosted the film's profile to get him. Still, it's just as likely that they would've ignored Mitchell altogether and told a completely standalone story, which would've been more typical of the era.

wonder who the main 'Nero' villain wouldve been back then - maybe some up and coming film actor - Gene Hackman?

Why are you using the 2009 film as a model at all? There's no reason to assume it would've been anything like a film written 40 years later. ST'09 is a product of the modern blockbuster era, an attempt to reinvent ST as a tentpole action franchise.

There's no reason to assume there would've been a comparable story about a villain bringing the crew together. It might've just been a first-mission story.

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

The story would have been completely different. Even Harve Bennett's prequel concept was way different than ST09.

 

[Armored Saint]

obviously wouldnt have needed the time travel aspect (but maybe they still couldve done that) and while Spocks backstory probably wouldnt have been that different to how we saw it in the eventual film, Kirks would have been (taken from backstory hinted at throughout season 1 and 2) - Kodus, Sam, Finnegan, Gary Mitchell, Finney, Ruth, the Farragut, cloud killer etc

Kodo's massacre was 20 years before the events of the episode, so I don't think he would have been there. I don't think Kirk's life prior Starfleet would have been covered. Probably the continuity would have been in fact quite wiped out, because it was surely not important as now it is for Trekkies. A Star Trek movie in 69 would have shown the typical setting of TOS, so no Sulu from science department, etc...

Jeff Hunter could’ve appeared in a cameo at the end to hand over the Ent to Kirk (as told in The Menagerie. Maybe JH couldve filmed it just before he died. Crazy to think he died so young).

I don't think he would have been avalaible, he was working outside the US before his death.

At this time, he was wonder who the main 'Nero' villain wouldve been back then - maybe some up and coming film actor - Gene Hackman?

Why a Nero villain? Of course, there was antagonist/villains in TOS, but there wasn't like Khan (from TWOK, not Space Seed).

kind of like the Batman movie they made in 1966

Not the best example.

 

[Christopher]

kind of like the Batman movie they made in 1966

Not the best example.

I think it's a pretty good example of what feature-film spinoffs of '60s TV series were like -- more of what we got on TV, but bigger and higher-budgeted. There were other such films at the time like Munster Go Home and the McHale's Navy movies, and a Dragnet feature too.

 

[Warped9]

This is the first I've ever heard of this. 1968? The only possibility for a feature back in the mid '60s that I'm familiar with was the possibility of utilizing "The Cage" footage if Star Trek hadn't sold as a series. After the series was canceled then I've heard of GR trying to get things going again with a feature film definitely being an idea floated.

 

[Christopher]

There were a number of shows back then that packaged their 2-parters or pilots as movies to be released theatrically overseas. The Man from U.N.C.L.E. did this several times. Its pilot was expanded for overseas release with a whole new subplot, which was later integrated into a first-season episode of the series with an agent's character name dubbed over to distinguish him from the character referenced in the pilot. A number of later films were adapted from its 2-part episodes, with new footage being produced to add more sex and violence for European audiences.

In theory, I suppose, this could've been done with "The Cage" for overseas release even if the series had sold in the US. Although the only 2-parter TOS had was the expansion of "The Cage," so that wouldn't necessarily have worked for overseas release. (Maybe they could've packaged the two Harry Mudd episodes as a feature film?)

 

[The Old Mixer]

kind of like the Batman movie they made in 1966

Not the best example.

I think it's a pretty good example of what feature-film spinoffs of '60s TV series were like -- more of what we got on TV, but bigger and higher-budgeted. There were other such films at the time like Munster Go Home and the McHale's Navy movies, and a Dragnet feature too.

"Some days you just can't get rid of a photon torpedo!"

 

[Franklin]

Not the best example.

I think it's a pretty good example of what feature-film spinoffs of '60s TV series were like -- more of what we got on TV, but bigger and higher-budgeted. There were other such films at the time like Munster Go Home and the McHale's Navy movies, and a Dragnet feature too.

"Some days you just can't get rid of a photon torpedo!"

One of the best lines/scenes in Batman, ever.

 

[Richard Baker]

If the trend in that era was to have a TV show made into a movie 'but give you more' Star Trek would have been interesting. They were pretty creative with the budget they had, I can just imagine seeing the show opened up- Bigger sets, more ships, exploring the characters past.

 

[Christopher]

^Of course, the ideal thing would've been to do the movie before the series, so that they could spend movie-level money on sets, props, costumes, and library VFX footage, and then reuse those things in the series. That was the plan with the Batman movie, but ABC moved up the series premiere so they had to do the first season before the movie (which was why we didn't see the Batcopter and Batboat until season 2).

 

[Destructor]

There were a number of shows back then that packaged their 2-parters or pilots as movies to be released theatrically overseas.

Yeah I remember the pilot to the original 'Battlestar Galactica' series was released theatrically in NZ when I was a kid.

 

[Christopher]

^BSG is one of the later examples. I think it was pretty common in the '60s.

And there was at least one case where it was done specifically to screw over the creator of the series. Roy Huggins created 77 Sunset Strip for Warner Bros., but the pilot script was written by a WB staffer; so WB released the pilot episode as a feature film for a very brief run in Puerto Rico just before the series premiered, so that they could claim that the series was based on the pre-existing film written by a WB employee, and thus they could claim the series was their property and screw Huggins out of his royalties.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

There were a number of shows back then that packaged their 2-parters or pilots as movies to be released theatrically overseas.

Yeah I remember the pilot to the original 'Battlestar Galactica' series was released theatrically in NZ when I was a kid.

USA, too. In Sensurround, no less.

 

[Khan 2.0]

this would've been the poster (esp the tagline)

 

[Khan 2.0]

imagine how cool it wouldve been if they had done something like the 2009 film and released post TOS season 3 in late 69 or 70 - with a modest budget (about $2-3 million) and Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley etc playing younger versions (could they have got away with it..? maybe been better off doing a follow up to TOS set shortly after Turnabout Intruder. Like Generations )

Except we're not talking about making them a decade younger, just a few years. The assumption made by the TOS producers was that Kirk had been in command of the Enterprise for about two years when the series began. So in 1969, they would've only been playing about five years younger, which isn't hard to do.

and while Spocks backstory probably wouldnt have been that different to how we saw it in the eventual film, Kirks would have been (taken from backstory hinted at throughout season 1 and 2) - Kodus, Sam, Finnegan, Gary Mitchell, Finney, Ruth, the Farragut, cloud killer etc (although no Carol Marcus or KM test which wasnt introduced until TWOK)

They wouldn't necessarily have drawn on any of that. TV/movie writing at the time wasn't as continuity-driven as it is today. And this was before the show had been rerunning endlessly in syndication so that the fans could memorize every detail. The goal would be to make the film accessible to audiences that didn't remember details from the show or were completely new to it, so there probably wouldn't have been a lot of deep digging into prior continuity.

Then again, it's possible they would've used Gary Mitchell, not out of a regard for continuity but because Gary Lockwood had just been in 2001 and it would've boosted the film's profile to get him. Still, it's just as likely that they would've ignored Mitchell altogether and told a completely standalone story, which would've been more typical of the era.

wonder who the main 'Nero' villain wouldve been back then - maybe some up and coming film actor - Gene Hackman?

Why are you using the 2009 film as a model at all? There's no reason to assume it would've been anything like a film written 40 years later. ST'09 is a product of the modern blockbuster era, an attempt to reinvent ST as a tentpole action franchise.

There's no reason to assume there would've been a comparable story about a villain bringing the crew together. It might've just been a first-mission story.

yes maybe they could've got away with the prequel. the film could've ended at the beginning of WNMHGB Kirk/Spock/chess and Gary Lockwood returning as Mitchell would've been awesome!

true about the 2009 film/Nero but I was just imagining a central baddie like a khan or the romulan commander from BOT etc, a foe for Kirk and Co to defeat to make the movie more exciting! (but probably wouldn't have happened had Roddenberry been in charge!)

 

[Nightowl1701]

Why didn't 2001: A Space Odyssey inspire more sci fi films like Star Wars did ten years later? I would have thought rather than overshadowing a Star Trek film it would have encourage the studio to make the film?

Because it took four years to make, cost an astronomical budget of $10 million (in 1968 dollars) and confused the hell out of everyone who wasn't already on "the ultimate trip." And in the end, it barely broke even. Anathema to any Hollywood executive worth their limo.

Every other studio at the time was either making psychedelic sex comedies (with real exposed boobies, for the first time ever!!), lavish musicals, or finishing driving the Western/World War II movie genres into the ground. And the dark 'n gritty "New Hollywood" was about to show up with Easy Rider and Midnight Cowboy leading the way. The sci-fi movies that followed in 2001's wake (except for the fairly cheap and easy to produce Planet of the Apes series) couldn't hope to compete, not with a quarter of the budget (at best).