The Making of Star Trek (Whitfield)

[Falconer]

This is a long shot, but, was there ever a large-format publication of this book? Man, that would be awesome. As far as I know, it has always been a dinky little mass market paperback, but it would make an awesome coffee table book. I figured there was always a chance that something of such archival importance would have gotten at least a limited library ed. release at some point, but I’m coming up dry in my searches.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

The first edition was a "paperback original," meaning it came out with no hardcover preceding it. I recall book snobs of the period putting the phrase in scare quotes to sneer at the insignificance of such titles.

That said, I don't know if there was ever a big edition later on, especially if it was in another country like the UK. But I never saw one. If a big edition went back to the actual, original photographs for the larger prints, the "remastered in high definition" book would be a tremendous thing.

 

[Albertese]

I'm about 87% certain that I own a copy of each release of that book and they're all the same format except for differing cover art.

--Alex

 

[Mysterion]

This is a long shot, but, was there ever a large-format publication of this book? Man, that would be awesome. As far as I know, it has always been a dinky little mass market paperback, but it would make an awesome coffee table book. I figured there was always a chance that something of such archival importance would have gotten at least a limited library ed. release at some point, but I’m coming up dry in my searches.

There was a trade paperback edition from Titan. About 7.5 inches high and 5 inches wide. Published in 1991.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/454061.The_Making_of_Star_Trek

 

[Maurice]

There was a trade paperback edition from Titan. About 7.5 inches high and 5 inches wide. Published in 1991.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/454061.The_Making_of_Star_Trek

God what a terrible cover and a weird retitle.

 

[FormerLurker]

There was a trade paperback edition from Titan. About 7.5 inches high and 5 inches wide. Published in 1991.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/454061.The_Making_of_Star_Trek

God what a terrible cover and a weird retitle.

I'vd got a friend (he's a member here, but doesn't post anymore) who has an edition of that larger format version with the original cover art and title. I think that one was a one-off, though.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

God what a terrible cover and a weird retitle.

Yeah--of all of the great publicity photos they could have picked,they performed a bad magic wand job that was as pieced together as John Byrne's TOS photo comics. Ugh.

 

[Falconer]

Thanks, I will check it out. Shame about the covers, but, theoretically it can be custom rebound. Hopefully the paper stock is not complete garbage. Too much to hope for sewn folios, though.

 

[Methuselah Flint]

I have that one somewhere. I think I even put a plastic library cover over it.

 

[publiusr]

I think Feek61 was going to make a coffee table book with more info...

 

[Maurice]

I think Feek61 was going to make a coffee table book with more info...

He said he pitched such a thing

 

[Falconer]

Interesting. I found the info, here:
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/the...-roddenberry-1968.299158/page-3#post-12936823

 

[publiusr]

What could have been...

 

[Phaser Two]

Yeah--of all of the great publicity photos they could have picked,they performed a bad magic wand job that was as pieced together as John Byrne's TOS photo comics. Ugh.

What does this mean?

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

What does this mean?

It means that cover photo looked like an amateur Photoshop job from 1994. Byrne's Star Trek books are pieced together in a similarly amateurish manner, with images of cast members in the same scene, but sourcing it from different season, which is the easiest thing to spot due to costume & make-up changes, the weight of the actors, etc.

 

[Phaser Two]

It means that cover photo looked like an amateur Photoshop job from 1994. Byrne's Star Trek books are pieced together in a similarly amateurish manner, with images of cast members in the same scene, but sourcing it from different season, which is the easiest thing to spot due to costume & make-up changes, the weight of the actors, etc.

Ah. I'm not familiar with the Byrne books. I also thought that TMOST had a cover photo of the Enterprise firing its phasers . . . ?

 

[Maurice]

Different editions, different covers.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Byrne's Star Trek books are pieced together in a similarly amateurish manner, with images of cast members in the same scene, but sourcing it from different season, which is the easiest thing to spot due to costume & make-up changes, the weight of the actors, etc.

Expecting the Byrne New Visions comics to be completely seamless is not a realistic expectation. And they're a lot more work than I think most people realize. Hell, even doing a straight adaptation of an episode using screencaps (as Byrne did with "The Cage") is a lot of work.

 

[Falconer]

Okay, I added a poll. Let’s get some numbers up, then start a letter-writing campaign!

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I don't believe that a new edition of TMoST is really indicated. I would prefer to see a more accurate, more complete opus covering similar ground. That I would buy (for a reasonable price).