"It Belongs in A Museum!"

[David Strickhouser]

"40 Years of Star Trek: The Collection was the official title of an auction facilitated by Christie's, New York. Held from 5–7 October 2006, a vast number of items ranging from minor background props to detailed models of the various USS Enterprise starships, all taken from 40 years of Star Trek production, were auctioned."

Revisiting this story via the documentary hosted by Leonard Nimoy, my blood started boiling ... again ... because I felt that Paramount/CBS Studios did a great disservice to fans by selling off warehouses full of Star Trek props, models, set pieces, costumes, etc. instead of investing in building a proper Star Trek Museum of the Future to house these items so that all could see, not just a few private collectors.
The fact that MIke and Denise Okuda (from TNG, DS9 and VOY) were willing participants in this auction also angered me as well.

Am I alone in this frustration?

 

[Finn]

You are overreacting. There are too manyprops. Nobody would visit a museum dedicated to Trek. Same goes for star wars really. At least as consistently as our museums in dc or the Lovure in Paris

 

[feek61]

To me it's better to sell it to fans then to throw it in a dumpster.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Museums require tremendous funding - including building construction and maintenance, staff, and other costs. I don't see a corporation funding such a building, not when it can make a one-time cash bonus off of plastic and cardboard.

 

[scotpens]

You are overreacting. There are too many props. Nobody would visit a museum dedicated to Trek.

Well, nobody but nerds.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Well, nobody but nerds.

Of which there are many, but not enough apparently to tempt TPTB to open a museum.

 

[Finn]

Bingo

 

[The Old Mixer]

Other TV shows do it, too...and ultimately, the Trek shows are just TV shows.

 

[drew]

all I care about is whether or not they made enough money with this stuff to release ds9/voy on blu. so yeah you're still alone in the frustration so far. a star trek museum would lose money.

_______________________________________________________________________
#DS9onBLUpls! #VOYonBLUpls!

 

[David Strickhouser]

a star trek museum would lose money.

Yes, it appears succeeding generations would rather "tour" a virtual museum than a physical one. Very sad.
Maybe if they combined museum with an amusement park (after all, Paramount is owned by National Amusements, Sumner Redstone's business), that would bring the bodies.
Disney seems to have it down pretty good. There's a template to follow.

 

[2takesfrakes]

You mustn't forget that those who've purchased these props can still put them on display, somehow, whether on tour in a travelling show, or even donate them to some appropriate brick & mortar museum, eventually. The only reason to have an actual STAR TREK prop in one's private collection is to make money off of it, later on by, basically, treating it as you would any other antique. You're not going to use it, or play with it, or whatever ... that's insane! Also, there's the simple fact that owning a prop like that and holding it in your hand does not bring with it the flavour of the moment. The History, the context, all of that belongs to yesteryear. You're just holding an object, in the present day. So, there really isn't any reason to be overtly attached to any of this ... and I'm sure it'll all make itself available for viewing again, one way, or another.

 

[David Strickhouser]

The only reason to have an actual STAR TREK prop in one's private collection is to make money off of it, later on by, basically, treating it as you would any other antique.

In an ideal world that would be true. But some collectors "hoard" their acquisitions, never to be seen in the outside world again.
The three-foot filming model of the U.S.S. Enterprise for TOS allegedly met the same fate; Roddenberry acquired it after the series was over, only to "loan" it out to some individual(s) and have it disappear, ... never to be seen again.
That's why I have a problem with auctions and faceless collectors.
Never to be seen again.

 

[locutus101]

"40 Years of Star Trek: The Collection was the official title of an auction facilitated by Christie's, New York. Held from 5–7 October 2006, a vast number of items ranging from minor background props to detailed models of the various USS Enterprise starships, all taken from 40 years of Star Trek production, were auctioned."

Revisiting this story via the documentary hosted by Leonard Nimoy, my blood started boiling ... again ... because I felt that Paramount/CBS Studios did a great disservice to fans by selling off warehouses full of Star Trek props, models, set pieces, costumes, etc. instead of investing in building a proper Star Trek Museum of the Future to house these items so that all could see, not just a few private collectors.
The fact that MIke and Denise Okuda (from TNG, DS9 and VOY) were willing participants in this auction also angered me as well.

Am I alone in this frustration?

I am sure in the long run a Museum would have earned them more money than selling these items, given the number of fans who would spend days even weeks roaming the corridors. Examining every piece with devotion.

These people are just greedy and shortsighted.

 

[Finn]

^Not as many as you might think.

It is far easier to dissect the episodes and movies at home, buy replicas and manuals, than flying to a city where a hypothetical museum would be only to see how fake many of those props may turn out up close, like being able to tell the prop were plywood. Many would not have the means, will and/or time to do this for "days or weeks".

 

[David Strickhouser]

^Not as many as you might think.

It is far easier to dissect the episodes and movies at home, buy replicas and manuals, than flying to a city where a hypothetical museum would be only to see how fake many of those props may turn out up close, like being able to tell the prop were plywood. Many would not have the means, will and/or time to do this for "days or weeks".

I'm all for fans and collectors having replicas/collectibles/toys of props,ships, etc.
But items that Wah Chang, the Desilu Prop Dept., Robert Abel, John Dykstra, ILM built and created; and those items the actors held in their hands should be for all to see.
Should the eleven-foot Enterprise model be hidden away for a private collector's edification instead of being where it belongs ... in the Smithsonian?
Paramount should have donated the entire warehouse collection to the Smithsonian. I trust their judgment better than Christie's auction.

 

[Finn]

Most of that stuff would just end up in the "basement". You are aware that a bulk of Smithsonian's collection aren't on display but packed in boxes, shelves somewhere in a facility run by the Smithsonian, in some cases on "display" but you have to work for them to see them....right?

Actually, the Smithsonian probably won't accept most of that stuff you think should be treasured.

The National Zoo, which is actually part of the Smithsonian, has a huge collection of animals and nature-related artifacts behind the scenes. They are awesome, and you can see it as part of a tour. I saw it when I volunteered there many years ago.

 

[1001001]

Yes, it appears succeeding generations would rather "tour" a virtual museum than a physical one. Very sad.
Maybe if they combined museum with an amusement park (after all, Paramount is owned by National Amusements, Sumner Redstone's business), that would bring the bodies.
Disney seems to have it down pretty good. There's a template to follow.

They did that (sort of) with The Star Trek Experience in Las Vegas. In addition to two Star Trek themed rides/experiences, they had Quark's Bar, and shopping along the DS9 promenade. They also had a long entryway corridor where the Star Trek timeline was one side, and props and costumes were on the other. They had all kinds of cool stuff: phasers, tricorders, uniforms. My favorite was the giant champagne bottle that christened the Enterprise in the opening sequence of Generations.

Anyway, it was a great place. We went 5 times during it's run. But it proved everyone else's point. It was not financially viable in the long run, even in a city like Vegas which constantly turns over it's population.

 

[locutus101]

They did that (sort of) with The Star Trek Experience in Las Vegas. In addition to two Star Trek themed rides/experiences, they had Quark's Bar, and shopping along the DS9 promenade. They also had a long entryway corridor where the Star Trek timeline was one side, and props and costumes were on the other. They had all kinds of cool stuff: phasers, tricorders, uniforms. My favorite was the giant champagne bottle that christened the Enterprise in the opening sequence of Generations.

Anyway, it was a great place. We went 5 times during it's run. But it proved everyone else's point. It was not financially viable in the long run, even in a city like Vegas which constantly turns over it's population.

It would seem that I was wrong.

 

[David Strickhouser]

I liked the Experience but Las Vegas was the wrong venue.
As for the Smithsonian idea, they house pop culture items frequently in the American History pavilion.
Star Trek is the "primo" of pop culture; an entire pavilion, administered by the Smithsonian, dedicated to the world of Star Trek ... is that such a bad thing?

 

[Finn]

Okay, you clearly have trek on a pedestal.

There's no way in hell the Smithsonian would dedicate a pavilion to Trek, especially not permanently. They'd have to do the same for other iconic and influential TV/Movie franchises. Actually they had a trek exhibit at the air and space museum, on Trek 24 years ago. I don't know how long it lasted but not long. It was gone by the time I started college a few years later in DC.

I admit it'd be neat to visit a permanent exhibit that revolves around trek. But it's not realistic. Time to time, there may be exhibits that pop up some places but they tend to last between a couple weeks and a couple months. Money talks like Digits mentioned about the Vegas place. I visited it. It was awesome, but it was more of a novelty in a long run.