1968 TREK movie?

[RobertScorpio]

I was reading around the web, and came upon something about GR wanting to do a movie as far back as 1968 that would have explained how the characters all met? Anyone know anymore about this 'ancient' idea for a TREK movie???

Rob

 

[CoveTom]

That's the first I've heard of the idea. It wouldn't surprise me, though. Roddenberry was certainly known for trying to capitalize on Trek in every way possible, and rightly so.

However, I can't see there having actually been any real chance of that happening back then. Television shows making the leap to the big screen was almost unheard of back then, and in 1968 Trek was being viewed by those in charge as somewhere between "modestly successful" and "unsuccessful" as a TV show. I can't see them greenlighting something as unique as a TV-based feature film for a series they thought mediocre at best.

 

[RobertScorpio]

That's the first I've heard of the idea. It wouldn't surprise me, though. Roddenberry was certainly known for trying to capitalize on Trek in every way possible, and rightly so.

However, I can't see there having actually been any real chance of that happening back then. Television shows making the leap to the big screen was almost unheard of back then, and in 1968 Trek was being viewed by those in charge as somewhere between "modestly successful" and "unsuccessful" as a TV show. I can't see them greenlighting something as unique as a TV-based feature film for a series they thought mediocre at best.

I totally agree. But I didn't know that talks of a movie version went that far back. I could almost see the logic, had the sets not been smashed. I can only imagine what kind of movie would have come out in 1968...considering season three.

Rob

 

[Christopher]

However, I can't see there having actually been any real chance of that happening back then. Television shows making the leap to the big screen was almost unheard of back then...

Not really. A number of '50s and '60s TV series went to the big screen with their original casts while they were still on television, or just after. There was a Dragnet feature film in 1954 with Jack Webb. There was the 1966 Batman feature film released between the first and second seasons of the Adam West TV series. There was Munster, Go Home! in the same year. There were two theatrical features for McHale's Navy, a film of that title in '64 and McHale's Navy Joins the Air Force in '65. There was Hey There, It's Yogi Bear! in '64 and The Man Called Flintstone in '66.

Of course, all the 1960s examples are comedies. I'm not aware of any instances of a '60s drama being taken to the big screen during or just after its original run, unless you count 2-part episodes being re-edited into features for overseas release.

 

[The Wormhole]

I've heard about this before, a couple of years ago around the time the Trek XI rumours started. Though I thought it was early 70s this idea originated.

 

[RobertScorpio]

I wonder if GR had any early story ideas for it? I wonder if his son has any info. Not really a big deal, but I had never heard of it until recently.

Rob

 

[Too Much Fun]

There was the 1966 Batman feature film released between the first and second seasons of the Adam West TV series.

That was the first thing I thought of when I saw the title of this thread. I bet a "Star Trek" movie made between seasons (or right after the third season) would have turned out like that movie, and this would have been a good thing. It was a movie that nicely captured the spirit of the show to show what made it so endearing, while at the same feeling bigger and more special than the average episode (it always feels special when you get a bunch of supervillains together, especially on cartoons ).

The movies that came out ten years after the "Star Trek" ended were neat in a different way than a 1968 feature would have been. I think they got a lot of their appeal and success from nostalgia (especially the first one), but I imagine a movie made while the cast was still under 50 might feel like a blown up episode, which would be really cool. I imagine it turning out like the great "X-Files" movie that came out between that show's 5th and 6th seasons.

As has been said before about the TNG movies, there were plenty of episodes that would have made much better movies than some of the ones we got if they'd just been extended a little bit. I think "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" and "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" in particular were vastly inferior to some of the finest episodes of the series.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

This was covered in an old issue of Enterprise Incidents featuring a transcript of Gene Roddenberry's appearance at the 1968 Science Fiction Convention. It is also discussed briefly in The Art of Star Trek, and is quoted in this Trekmovie article.

As early as The Original Series’ third season, Gene Roddenberry had spoken of making a Star Trek motion picture. At the 1968 World Science Fiction Convention held over Labor Day weekend in Oakland, California he drew enthusiastic applause when he told a rapt audience his plans for filming a prequel to the series telling the story of how Kirk and his crew had met at Starfleet Academy.

Source: The Art of Star Trek

 

[Penhall99]

This was covered in an old issue of Enterprise Incidents featuring a transcript of Gene Roddenberry's appearance at the 1968 Science Fiction Convention. It is also discussed briefly in The Art of Star Trek, and is quoted in this Trekmovie article.

As early as The Original Series’ third season, Gene Roddenberry had spoken of making a Star Trek motion picture. At the 1968 World Science Fiction Convention held over Labor Day weekend in Oakland, California he drew enthusiastic applause when he told a rapt audience his plans for filming a prequel to the series telling the story of how Kirk and his crew had met at Starfleet Academy.

Source: The Art of Star Trek

I'd give my left testicle to be able to see that movie!

 

[Christopher]

There was the 1966 Batman feature film released between the first and second seasons of the Adam West TV series.

That was the first thing I thought of when I saw the title of this thread. I bet a "Star Trek" movie made between seasons (or right after the third season) would have turned out like that movie, and this would have been a good thing. It was a movie that nicely captured the spirit of the show to show what made it so endearing, while at the same feeling bigger and more special than the average episode (it always feels special when you get a bunch of supervillains together, especially on cartoons ).

The Batman movie was actually supposed to be made before the series (which is why Batman didn't recognize Catwoman/Kitka in the movie). The idea was that the movie would have a bigger budget for props, sets, and action/effects footage that they could then reuse in the show. But the film got delayed and they had to wait until after the first season to play with a feature budget. That's why the Batboat and Batcopter didn't appear on the show until season 2 -- they weren't built until the movie.

The movies that came out ten years after the "Star Trek" ended were neat in a different way than a 1968 feature would have been. I think they got a lot of their appeal and success from nostalgia (especially the first one), but I imagine a movie made while the cast was still under 50 might feel like a blown up episode, which would be really cool.

Aside from Kelley and Doohan, everyone in the cast was still under 50 in TMP.

 

[Navigator_NCC2120]

However, I can't see there having actually been any real chance of that happening back then. Television shows making the leap to the big screen was almost unheard of back then...

Not really. A number of '50s and '60s TV series went to the big screen with their original casts while they were still on television, or just after. There was a Dragnet feature film in 1954 with Jack Webb. There was the 1966 Batman feature film released between the first and second seasons of the Adam West TV series. There was Munster, Go Home! in the same year. There were two theatrical features for McHale's Navy, a film of that title in '64 and McHale's Navy Joins the Air Force in '65. There was Hey There, It's Yogi Bear! in '64 and The Man Called Flintstone in '66.

Of course, all the 1960s examples are comedies. I'm not aware of any instances of a '60s drama being taken to the big screen during or just after its original run, unless you count 2-part episodes being re-edited into features for overseas release.

Also, there was "The Monkees" film "Head" released in November 1968 after "The Monkees" television series ended in March 1968.

As far as a 1968 Star Trek film of how the Enterprise crew met, I have mixed feelings about this idea. I enjoyed the look of the first 2 pilot episodes ("The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before") so I would have looked forward to seeing the sets, props, wardrobe from the 2 pilot episodes again in the supposed 1968 Star Trek film. However, would the story of how the crew met be worth seeing? Would Gary Lockwood reprise his role of Gary Mitchell? I think Gary Lockwood would be interested in doing it as he did perform in the television science fiction film "Earth II" in 1971 (after he did the science ficiton film "2001: A Space Odyssey" released in 1968 [principle photography filmed in 1966]). I would have also enjoyed seeing Jeffrey Hunter as Captain Pike in this supposed 1968 film giving command of the Enterprise to Kirk.


Navigator NCC-2120 USS Entente
/\

 

[Christopher]

^I doubt that Gene Roddenberry in 1968 would've been any more concerned with staying consistent with pilot continuity than J.J. Abrams was in 2008-9. Continuity wasn't a huge deal back then, since reruns were scarce and home video was nonexistent. If they had made an origin movie, it probably would've made the same choice Abrams did (and that Vonda McIntyre did in 1986's Enterprise: the First Adventure) and focused on the crew the audience knew and cared about rather than on little-remembered characters like Mitchell and Piper. It would've been Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Scotty, though maybe Uhura, Sulu, and Chekov wouldn't have been included, since they were seen at the time as merely recurring guest stars rather than essential players.

 

[RobertScorpio]

^I doubt that Gene Roddenberry in 1968 would've been any more concerned with staying consistent with pilot continuity than J.J. Abrams was in 2008-9. Continuity wasn't a huge deal back then, since reruns were scarce and home video was nonexistent. If they had made an origin movie, it probably would've made the same choice Abrams did (and that Vonda McIntyre did in 1986's Enterprise: the First Adventure) and focused on the crew the audience knew and cared about rather than on little-remembered characters like Mitchell and Piper. It would've been Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Scotty, though maybe Uhura, Sulu, and Chekov wouldn't have been included, since they were seen at the time as merely recurring guest stars rather than essential players.

Agreed...do you think he would have recast any of them since at that time none of them were big stars...

Rob

 

[Piper]

Agreed...do you think he would have recast any of them since at that time none of them were big stars...

Rob

Probably not - not only because they would have been cheaper than "proper" movie stars but also all the other small-to-big screen spin-offs Christopher has cited all featured their original cast.

Personally I think it's a fascinating idea, and I would loved to have seen it happen. Almost certainly, though, the result would have been closer in quality to S3/Munsters Go Home! than The Motion Picture and subsequent Trek movies. Still would have been great to see.

 

[Christopher]

It would've been particularly cool if they'd gone the Batman route -- made the film between seasons, used the bigger budget to make fancier sets, props, vehicles, and FX footage, and then reused those things in the series' later seasons, giving them a more expensive look. The FX of TOS were revolutionary by the standards of '60s television; just imagine how much more impressive they would've been on even a moderate feature budget. And they could've improved on the sets -- a bigger, more elaborate engine room, a sickbay that could hold more than three patients, maybe a real rec deck. They might've been able to introduce a new class of Starfleet vessel or two, like TWOK later did with the Reliant.

Not to mention that if they could've used the movie budget to provide those things, it would've saved them money producing the later seasons, so maybe they could've afforded more guest stars, location work, etc. in the third season -- or maybe they even could've saved enough money to avoid cancellation, especially if the movie had boosted viewership. Though on the other hand, a movie didn't help Batman get more than three seasons.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Agreed...do you think he would have recast any of them since at that time none of them were big stars...

Not unless he was planning to show the characters at much younger ages. I think the whole point was, if the show wasn't going to have a lengthy enough life on TV, Roddenberry still wanted to make use of the world-building he'd already done. Casting wasn't a consideration at that embryonic stage. As people have said, it was more of a throwaway statement at public speaking engagements, something to gauge audience support.

By about 1977, though, recasting everyone was in his mind, as he played with ideas for a movie (that became, at various points, a telemovie, "ST Phase II" and ST:TMP), because he surprised Walter Koenig by asking him if he'd be interested in playing Checkov's father. Paul Newman and Robert Redford's public success in "The Sting" (1973) was fresh in everyone's minds and they were put forward as a possible Spock & Kirk team for a blockbuster ST film.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Agreed...do you think he would have recast any of them since at that time none of them were big stars...

Not unless he was planning to show the characters at much younger ages. I think the whole point was, if the show wasn't going to have a lengthy enough life on TV, Roddenberry still wanted to make use of the world-building he'd already done. Casting wasn't a consideration at that embryonic stage. As people have said, it was more of a throwaway statement at public speaking engagements, something to gauge audience support.

By about 1977, though, recasting everyone was in his mind, as he played with ideas for a movie (that became, at various points, a telemovie, "ST Phase II" and ST:TMP), because he surprised Walter Koenig by asking him if he'd be interested in playing Checkov's father. Paul Newman and Robert Redford's public success in "The Sting" (1973) was fresh in everyone's minds and they were put forward as a possible Spock & Kirk team for a blockbuster ST film.

Wow..i have never heard that...Redford/Newman as Kirk/Spock. Interesting casting but it might have worked!!!

Rob

 

[trevanian]

Facetious casting, like GR suggesting Clint Walker for Kirk since a movie is bigger than tv.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Facetious casting, like GR suggesting Clint Walker for Kirk since a movie is bigger than tv.

Clint Walker? Is that Asa Buchanon?

Rob

 

[Christopher]

Clint Walker? Is that Asa Buchanon?

Apparently not:

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0907636/