It was among the ships in he space junkyard in "Unification". The aft end was seen as a dark shape looming in spacedock in STIII.
Not what you want, I know, but... Trivia!
Future of Trek at Pocket Books
- Thread starter Jarrod
- Start date
Not what you want, I know, but... Trivia!
Actually that conjectural version of the Enterprise was co-designed by Ken Adam and Ralph McQuarrie, and it was for the abandoned Planet of the Titans movie, not the Phase II series.
And it's nonsense to suggest "greed" as a motive behind not using a design. Movie and TV productions go through countless proposed and rejected designs, and the designers are paid for their work on the production whether the designs end up being used or not.
And it's nonsense to suggest "greed" as a motive behind not using a design. Movie and TV productions go through countless proposed and rejected designs, and the designers are paid for their work on the production whether the designs end up being used or not.
Yea, but they don't use old stuff. New people, new designs, no matter how good it was. It's not because they can't, is it, legally? as like you said the design belongs to those two gentleman and was created for 'Planet of the Titans'. If there was ever a time to be lazy.. or more inclusive and yes, less greedy - artistically, that is..
Actually, if it were a matter of greed, they would have used the designs from Phase II and other prior revival projects, because they wouldn't have had to pay for new designs.
They didn't use the failed revival designs because their sense of aesthetics differed from designs, so they had new designs made. That's all.
Why would they? If the design was rejected as not good enough the first time, why would you expect it to be un-rejected?
This is a completely bizarre argument. First of all, greed still has absolutely nothing to do with it. Just the opposite, because they're paying more for their new designers' time and effort than they would if they just lazily dredged up some old reject.
Second, as Sci says, it makes no sense to think that a new production would simply reuse stuff conceived for an earlier production. Different creators have different visions, different aesthetics. When a new team comes together for a new project, combining their imaginations, it produces new and different results, and that's just how it should work.
To your sense of aesthetics. Obviously the producers of Star Trek: The Motion Picture disagreed.
Uh, if it was re-designed, it was rejected. If it weren't rejected, it would have been used. It was rejected, and a new design commissioned.
What has any of this got to do with Pocket Books?
And I, for one, am very glad they went that route for ST:TMP. I absolutely love the movie Enterprise design. Adam & McQuarrie's design, while a nice design for a different Starfleet ship, just isn't the Enterprise.
Just to bring this back on topic, this rumor was addressed on The Star Trek Books Community page on Facebook, where they state that there is nothing to fear.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/The-Star-Trek-Books-Community/56764725440
Pocket was sub-licensing the calendars to Andrews McMeel Publishing for the last few years anyway.
I don't even understand what you're trying to say here.
If I'm not totally mistaken that page isn't official at all. And if the guy running it has really been hired by them in the interim I now really fear for their future.
Actually more often than not his "news" are just some (often already outdated) things he picked up here. Just look at this post:
a) 2/3 of David Mack's trilogy will be released in 2012, and the whole trilogy falls into the 2012 publishing year.
b) James Swallow's story is a novella and released in 2012
c) Mentioning the Typhon Pact is an educated guess at best and at worst he just stumbled with the years again and is referring to Una's novel.
Which has what to do with anything we've been talking about in this thread?
Oh. Well, that's a bit of a disappointment. I didn't think it was official per se, but I did think it had an inside track or something. I guess that doesn't corroborate anything then. Never mind.
Still makes no sense. These people get jobs based on what they've produced. Their reputations and relationships have already been established.
Similar threads
