LOL...

Oops.



Fixed it.

But at the same time? I think Star Trek would have resurfaced around the late 80s, but it's clear they popped out a movie in '79 just to cash in on the craze.

It was already in the works. Star Trek didn't go from nothing to a completed movie in the space of two years.

Obviously, but they weren't putting anything out in '79 without Star Wars.

It didn't.

To bad.

That would have at least have explained why it was so disappointing.

Did you not read my first post? Yes, they were. It might have been a series instead of a movie, but they were developing something. In fact, several scripts originally written for the proposed second series were rewritten for Star Trek The Next Generation.

Yeah, that first movie sucked balls. Great visual effects, but a lame story (ripped off from an old episode) and particularly bad acting from pretty much everybody, especially a scenery-chewing Shatner. Those bell-bottom jumpsuit uniforms were ghastly as well.

They got it right in the Wrath of Khan, though.

in the wake of Star Trek's popularity in the early 1970s as a result of newborn Trek fandom and syndication, there were several failed attempts to produce a Trek feature film, starting in 1974.

Instead, in 1977, attention was turned away from a film and toward a second television series, to be entitled Star Trek: Phase II, as part of a fourth television network to be created by Paramount.

In the midst of preparation for shooting, Michael Eisner, then-head of Paramount, called a landmark studio meeting. Eisner was said to declare regarding the pilot, "we've been looking for a Star Trek motion picture for five years and this is it!" Despite already-existent casting, costuming, set production, and 12 written scripts, the new series, along with the new Paramount network, were both abandoned.

Work commenced on rewriting the Phase II pilot episode In Thy Image as Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

All this couldn't have come at a more opportune moment. By the end of 1977, Star Wars had become a huge box-office success, and Paramount put The Motion Picture into pre-production.

And you have no way of knowing whether or not things would have been revived differently/elsewhere had there been no Star Wars.

What is the point of this crap, anyway?

I'm confident there wouldn't have been a Star Trek film in 1979.

Maybe a TV series. But a movie? No way. It took a groundbreaking, once-in-a-century epic masterpiece like Star Wars to clear the way for Star Trek to rise from the grave.

STAR TREK I: GEORGE DID OUR SPECIAL EFFECTS!

I guess you missed 2001. :shake:

2001 didn't spawn anything. It came out in 1968. It was the exception to the rule - Hollywood wasn't making science fiction for the better part of a decade.

Then Star Wars came along and science fiction returned - thanks to the Messiah.

http://george.lucas.net/George%20Lucas2.jpg

That's capitalism dude, you have to strike while the iron is hot.

And you don't think any FX techniques from 2001 were applied to Star Wars? Give me a break.

I loved Star Wars. It played in the theaters for over a year and a half, and I saw it dozens of times before you were even a gleam (or tear) in anybody's eye. But there was plenty of science fiction before Star Wars, and lots of it was really good.

And there is this:

Star Wars: 6 movies.

Star Trek: 5 TV series and 10 movies, with No. 11 in development.

I agree, Wrath of Khan was the best Star Trek movie in the series.