"Forbidden Planet" as TOS prequel?
- Thread starter TOS Purist
- Start date
Absolutely Right(TM).
There are only a few Trek episodes/movies that are nearly as ambitious and imaginative as Forbidden Planet.
That said, all of the elements you listed make clear that it's not a "more credible" prequel to TOS than Enterprise.
I'm hoping to pick up the Round 2 version of the Polar Lights model. I understand getting those saucer segments together smoothly is quite a challenge.
Never have found the novel.
I have the trade collection of the comics by Daerick Gross for Innovation, and two of the single issues...very interesting, kind of an alternate take that fills in a few things and (presumably tongue-in-cheek) sets up a sequel ("Why would the Krell build in a self-destruct...?"). I have the blueprints, which are really cool - Shane Johnson eventually did "Mister Scott's Guide To The Enterprise," of course.
On topic but not directly related to the OP's question, not too long ago Leslie Nelson was asked why he never appeared in Star Trek. His response was (and I am paraphrasing) was "They probably never asked me because Star Trek was a blatant rip off of Forbidden Planet!" 
A number of the surviving FP participants have expressed similar sentiments about Trek.
Warren Stevens, as noted above, did appear. Earl Holliman was supposedly embarrassed later by FP and usually declined to discuss it; wonder how Richard Anderson managed to miss appearing on Trek? He was doing a lot of TV guest work at the time.
Warren Stevens, as noted above, did appear. Earl Holliman was supposedly embarrassed later by FP and usually declined to discuss it; wonder how Richard Anderson managed to miss appearing on Trek? He was doing a lot of TV guest work at the time.
I owned it once. It's very different from the film; novelizations then weren't required or expected to be as accurate to the source as they are now. The author uses an epistolary format, telling the story through first-person logs and journals, broken down into a few long sections, each from a single consistent viewpoint throughout, rather than cutting between scenes and viewpoints as the film does. So it includes scenes that aren't in the film and excludes scenes that are, and it tells some parts of the story from different perspectives.
I had the first two issues of the Innovation comic, but never got the third (I think it was only three parts). I wasn't sure they'd even concluded it; I thought maybe they'd gone out of business before they finished it.
Shane Johnson's blueprint:
Set blueprint:
Trek wasn't as strongly influenced by FP in terms of visual design as it was in terms of other content - the doorways in the Krell underground are probably the most frequently-cited similarity. As aridas sofia has pointed out, there's quite some similarity between the Enterprise bridge design and the control room of the ship in First Spaceship On Venus. It looks to me as if Guzman was the one more likely influenced by that film, as his early rendering of the bridge includes most of the elements that carry over.
Set blueprint:
Trek wasn't as strongly influenced by FP in terms of visual design as it was in terms of other content - the doorways in the Krell underground are probably the most frequently-cited similarity. As aridas sofia has pointed out, there's quite some similarity between the Enterprise bridge design and the control room of the ship in First Spaceship On Venus. It looks to me as if Guzman was the one more likely influenced by that film, as his early rendering of the bridge includes most of the elements that carry over.
I had the first issue and never saw the second hit the stands. Too bad about Innovation, they were doing some good work with the Quantum Leap comics and the Lost in Space ones after Bill Mumy took more of a direct hand in the creation of the stories.
Well, yes, FP says that humankind reached the moon by the last decade of the 21st century, but they didn't say that it was the FIRST moon landing. Just a significant one.
I mean, we got to the moon more than 40 years ago, but we haven't been there in quite a while - and judging by the way the bureaucracy has things going, we might not return until 2090 or so!
And Dennis, I love you for posting those blueprints!!
I mean, we got to the moon more than 40 years ago, but we haven't been there in quite a while - and judging by the way the bureaucracy has things going, we might not return until 2090 or so!
That's basically what people have been doing for a long time to make the other incarnations of Trek consistant with the original (when they're not retconning TOS).
And Dennis, I love you for posting those blueprints!!
Crossovers make for a fun mind game, but Dennis and Christopher are right, "Forbidden Planet" is its own animal and should be viewed on its own terms.
That's true...but it's just so much fun to think about!!
Personally, I think it's more fun mixing Star Trek and Doctor Who.
Ever read "The Doctor and the Enterprise"? Fun stuff....
Ever read "The Doctor and the Enterprise"? Fun stuff....
Darmok at Baird. When the Francise fell.
Chrisisall, his arms wide.
And Dennis, I love you for posting those blueprints!!
Oh, well here:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2496/3853584794_9ef47547c4_b.jpg
Then you would have LOVED the TOS/Doctor Who photomanipulations I just posted! Not to mention the cool YouTube video.
Here's a link:http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=98322
Just scroll down!
Doug observes that Matt Jefferies had never seen First Spaceship On Venus - but it's a fact that the basic design elements of the Enterprise bridge that resemble the movie were not first introduced by Jefferies in his detailed design but in a concept painting by Pato Guzman:
http://www.ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/images/TOS/tos_32-2.png
Although his chamber is much larger, if anything it resembles the "Venus" design more closely than does the finished product.
^What's startling about that Guzman concept illustration is how much it looks like something from TNG.
Similar threads
