New Making of TMP book

[Khan 2.0]

Yes i also had picked up the cinefantastique issue for VI also. Sadly it was my first and only issue i picked up. Loved it and read it a million times. Very good one. Havent read the II issue or the trilogy yet. Also got the 20th and 25th anniversary issues. They all look good. Was the generations issue any good?

II has half the issue on Blade Runner half TWOK which is about as good as it gets. the trilogy double trilogy is great (although as expected focuses on III/IV) and might've been the first time the 'Genesis Trilogy' was suggested as being that. and had some totally never seen before pics (even now), I remember looking at it years ago in a SF shop (maybe when it first came out and was too expensive to buy) and being astounded at seeing the unused FX shot of Kirk and Spock beaming off Genesis as it falls into its sun (said it was unused as it would've confused audiences but it looked such a cool shot like something off the cover of a SF pulp magazine, and kind of explained more why Kirk puts his arm up to shield his face as he and spock are beamed away)

yeah the anniversary issues were great too - in the 25th there was an early article on Trek VI with the first photos (which also gave away the Valerus plot). in fact these may have been the first pics I first saw of VI. And the 30th ann issue was a huge TOS retrospect and has a ton of rare TOS pics

The VI issue was the first CFQ I ever bought and had huge stuff I never knew about - Bennetts alternate SFA VI, the VI budget concerns, the lost 'Magnificent Seven' opening, Valerus started out as Savvik (but no Alley = no Savvik), the feuds (Shatner/cast, meyer/GR, Bennetts SFA), speculation on the next film another TOS cast or TNG? (all that stuff was expanded on in The Making of VI book). also there was a sidebar review of all the films that goes throughout the magazine and VI gets a higher rating than II (I think lot of fans considered VI so good at the time it bested II. I know I did. II was 10 years old and VI felt new, fresh, almost like a WOK for the 90s. of course in hindsight VI isn't in the same league as II)

May as well talk about the lack of V too - the only CFQ I could find with anything about V was May 89 Baron Munchausen issue but its literally just 2 pages. seems strange V got left out when all the other films were given full issues (we know what happened with TMP) but reading the article maybe offers some clues (its gonna be bad)

Generations is pretty good, an article about Nimoy on why he turned it down, speculation on a sequel - Gererations 'II' (heh I remember for a while people thought it might be called that. as if "The Next Generation" had been simplified for the movies so itd have been Star Trek Generations II: First Contact, Star Trek Generations III; Insurrection etc)

 

[One Lucky Red Shirt]

^^ cool. Thanks for the info. Yeah i had seen issues of the 30th anniversary up for grabs on ebay too. I was curious about that issue and the Generations issue. Im all about TOS so i can do without the TNG movie issues. Cinefantastique was still strong in 1989. So makes u wonder why they didnt go all out for V. Perhaps the staff didnt care for Trek or if they did the staff just didnt have high regards or respect for V. Surprised since im sure Paramount and Co. Wanted publicity to promote the film. Perhaps an issue on V wouldve helped.

Maybe we never know. Its just good we finally gonna get the making of TMP. Classic and good film. Not the greatest Trek but visually and musically its on my top ten. The films opening with the klingons sure catches your eye.

 

[Christopher]

Its just good we finally gonna get the making of TMP. Classic and good film. Not the greatest Trek but visually and musically its on my top ten.

Out of twelve? Not much of a compliment. Or do you mean your top ten out of movies in general?

 

[DonIago]

I'm working through the remastered TOS with friends who've never seen the show (I know right?) and there's been discussion about the movies. While I think TMP is -far- from the best film ever, I can't imagine a proper run through the franchise bypassing it.

Unlike TFF, apparently, which I still don't even own on DVD, and while I don't think it's utterly without merit, I can't justify exposing people to it.

 

[BillJ]

Unlike TFF, apparently, which I still don't even own on DVD, and while I don't think it's utterly without merit, I can't justify exposing people to it.

I think people tend to overblow how bad films like The Final Frontier and Nemesis are. They aren't my favorite Trek films but I still watch them occasionally and they are solid entertainment.

The only Trek film I don't revisit is Insurrection and I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who find entertainment value in it. It just isn't what I'm looking for in a Trek movie.

 

[DonIago]

I don't find TFF to be solid much of anything, myself. The McCoy sequence is interesting and the characterization is predictably good, but I'm having trouble readily coming up with any other virtues, especially ones that would make this Trek film uniquely worth watching.

 

[Khan 2.0]

^^ cool. Thanks for the info. Yeah i had seen issues of the 30th anniversary up for grabs on ebay too. I was curious about that issue and the Generations issue. Im all about TOS so i can do without the TNG movie issues. Cinefantastique was still strong in 1989. So makes u wonder why they didnt go all out for V. Perhaps the staff didnt care for Trek or if they did the staff just didnt have high regards or respect for V. Surprised since im sure Paramount and Co. Wanted publicity to promote the film. Perhaps an issue on V wouldve helped.

the brief article in the May 89 issue (vol 19/#4) pretty much lambasts Trek V throughout. some quotes:

-"Apparently even Paramount doesn't quite know what to make of this unusual instalment. they began promoting the film with teaser posters in February that showed only a theatre seat equipped with a seat belt floating in outer space. The implication is that the film is so action packed you'll have to be belted in. In reality the films screenplay is such a howler the belts may be necessary to keep audiences from falling down laughing"

it goes on to say the film has a lot of jokes prompted by the huge success of IV. that there is a strong 'wild west' theme relating to Paradise City - horses, shoot outs, saloons etc, before going into a sort of space hippie movie involving spocks half brothers search for god. the article pretty much blows the entire plot and twists etc including the end of god turning into the devil and a horde of gargoyles chase Kirk back to the shuttle 'that plays out like scenes from Gremlins and Galileo 7' (the writer obviously wasn't aware of the changes that were made at that point)

the budget was a 'whopping' $32m and ILM was ditched as Nimoy and Shatner were getting $6m each, Kelly wanted $2m, Takei refused to sign on for the $150,000 that the rest were getting and a meeting was held in which a 'teary eyed' Bennett threatened to write Sulu out of the script! however Paramount stumped up the extra cash (gotta love the CFQ inside feud gossip!)

Bennett wanted to film V and VI back to back releasing them 1 year apart (shades of BTTF2/3 which was doing that around the same time?) but Paramount felt it was too risky - the article ends with 'Maybe they read the script for Trek V' (maybe he wanted to film the Academy movie at the same time as V and then release it for the 25th?)

 

[Ktrek]

Anybody gotten an update on when this is going to ship? I place my order back in June and have not heard a thing since.

Kevin

 

[Firebird]

The website says late October.

 

[Maurice]

I am chomping at the bit!!!

 

[Khan 2.0]

anyone saving theirs for a xmas present? (to give to yourself of course)

 

[EnriqueH]

I was calmer than the Autumn breeze.

And now...I'm officially fiending for this book!

Can't wait to read it.

 

[Leto_II]

Oh, absolutely cannot wait for this. Counting down the days.

 

[Khan 2.0]

interview with the author
http://trekcore.com/blog/2014/08/in...urn-to-tomorrow-the-filming-of-star-trek-tmp/

 

[Ktrek]

The latest email from them today now says October/November. The next one will probably say November/December. I suppose they are waiting until they have at least two thirds of the 1000 copies pre-ordered before actually printing it. Otherwise why the delay for so many months?

Kevin

 

[Therin of Andor]

Otherwise why the delay for so many months?

This material has been delayed since 1980. Be a little patient.

But seriously, the original promo said "Due in October/Fall", so how is that "many" months?

... the mammoth trade paperback is priced at $29.95 and available for pre-order now at CreatureFeatures.com. "Return to Tomorrow" will ship in October.

 

[EnriqueH]

The latest email from them today now says October/November.

Greaaaaat.

 

[Harvey]

The latest email from them today now says October/November. The next one will probably say November/December. I suppose they are waiting until they have at least two thirds of the 1000 copies pre-ordered before actually printing it. Otherwise why the delay for so many months?

Kevin

Speaking as someone who makes a living in ecommerce, I doubt it. All the pre-release buzz is already out there. The best advertising available at this point would come from releasing the book and getting both press and word of mouth. I'm sure whatever delays are happening at this point are as frustrating for the publisher as they are for us.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

I once ordered a retrospective of the Beetle Bailey* comic strip, publisher-direct, and nothing showed up for many months, and nobody answered my emails or even my phone calls about it. As I recall, when it finally DID show up, they included some sort of graphic novel with it as a peace offering. (I read the graphic novel, for me at least, it was kind of . . . meh . . .)

Hopefully this won't be THAT bad. But I still don't like having to order direct from a publisher I've never heard of.
____
* Any Beetle Bailey fans out there? Feel free to PM me, instead of derailing the thread.

 

[Khan 2.0]

The VI issue was the first CFQ I ever bought and had huge stuff I never knew about - Bennetts alternate SFA VI, the VI budget concerns, the lost 'Magnificent Seven' opening, Valerus started out as Savvik (but no Alley = no Savvik), the feuds (Shatner/cast, meyer/GR, Bennetts SFA), speculation on the next film another TOS cast or TNG? (all that stuff was expanded on in The Making of VI book). also there was a sidebar review of all the films that goes throughout the magazine and VI gets a higher rating than II (I think lot of fans considered VI so good at the time it bested II. I know I did. II was 10 years old and VI felt new, fresh, almost like a WOK for the 90s. of course in hindsight VI isn't in the same league as II)

looking at the VI CFQ (hard to believe this magazine im looking at is 25 years old!) to check if that was right about VI being considered better than II and the Altman sidebar reviews are thus: (out of **** stars)
TMP ** ½
TWOK *** ½ ("Until VI this was widely considered the best of the movie lot..")
TSFS ** ½
TVH ***
TFF ** ½
TUC *** ¾ ("this impressive capper on a 25year voyage is the best of the film series....boasting the best SFX of the series and one of the greatest space battles ever committed to celluloid")