Comments on: Library Computer: “Star Trek Mere Anarchy” Review + “Haynes Enterprise Manual” Announced

By: Dwight Williams

Dwight Williams — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:02:00 +0000

I have that Superman Returns art book. I remember being mildly annoyed that the one collection of mapping that I most wanted to see in the book was left out: the street mapping of that movie’s version of Metropolis that was used as props in the Daily Planet scenes. But then, studying that sort of fictional mapping is something of a personal hobby of mine.

The Haynes project reads as particularly intriguing, though…

By: captbufford

captbufford — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 05:56:33 +0000

Glad to hear about the Haynes manual. I’m building a life-size Enterprise in my backyard and this book will come in handy. I intend on moving in full-time after a public showing. The living room will be… well, duh… the bridge. Oh, wait a minute… I can’t AFFORD to build such a thing. But I’ll buy the book!

By: T

Tue, 26 May 2009 10:58:49 +0000

I remember the TNG tech manual like i read it yesterday. i could build a warp core, no problem !

By: screaming satellite

screaming satellite — Sat, 23 May 2009 00:29:45 +0000

83 – true i have the’Art of Superman Returns’ as well as the ‘making of’ (aka ‘Guide to’) and the Art of is far superior.

the ‘Guide’ is basically a glorified movie magazine – much like the one Titan did for the new Trek movie (so in a way the new film DID get a ‘Making of’)

perhaps now Paramount sees just how popular the new film is they will produce an ‘Art of’ type book to go alongside the forthcoming Tech Mannual

By: JonWes

JonWes — Fri, 22 May 2009 21:24:28 +0000

I think an “Art of” book might still be possible. They got one out in time for Iron Man’s DVD release… although it seemed to be a pretty limited release and is hard to come by now, much to my consternation. I think the Art book would be easier to do as it just involves selecting the work, writing captions, maybe interviewing some of the behind the scenes people and writing the main text (which is usually rather minimal) and can be done after the fact, which is harder to do with a “Making of.”

I’d much prefer an “Art of” anyway… “Making of” books can get a bit repetitive once you’ve read one of them.

By: Keith R.A. DeCandido

Keith R.A. DeCandido — Fri, 22 May 2009 16:16:06 +0000

#56: The laying off of Marco Palmieri — one of the two TREK editors — had precisely NOTHING to do with STAR TREK and everything to do with the economic downturn we’re currently in. Marco was one of 35 employees of Simon & Schuster who were let go in early December 2008 from all across the company.

Also: STAR TREK was only part of what Marco was responsible for — he also handed the books based on Blizzard Games (World of Warcraft, StarCraft, Diablo), books based on DC Comics, some of the Marvel Comics-based books, and other game tie-ins, as well as a few original genre novels (like David Mack’s upcoming THE CALLING).

Bottom line: the fact that there’s only one TREK editor now instead of two has absolutely nothing to do with TREK and everything to do with the economic realities of the world right now.

As for a making-of book, that requires access to the set, which was rather severely limited in the making of this movie, which may have been a factor in whether or not such a book was done.

On another topic, the vast majority of the TREK books published by Pocket Books remain TOS and TNG books. That has not changed. There was a moratorium on TOS books for 2008 because they were told to leave that era alone (and then they went and moved the movie to 2009, thus screwing with that plan). The “Destiny” trilogy was designed to be released at the same time as the movie, and featured all the non-TOS parts of the franchise.

#79: Roddenberry actually hated ALL the films made after “The Motion Picture.” He spent all of 1982 going to conventions bad-mouthing “The Wrath of Khan,” saying it wasn’t “real” STAR TREK. Nobody remembers that now, because everybody EXCEPT Roddenberry loved TWOK. People remember him bad-mouthing “The Final Frontier” because, well, so did everybody else, but the fact is that GR had no use for any of the films made after 1979.

By: Colonel West

Colonel West — Fri, 22 May 2009 15:50:47 +0000

With regard to the Pocket Books situation I remember reading last year that they had made severe cutbacks throughout the company and in the Trek division one of the editors; Margret Clark or the other guy whose name escapes me at the minute; got let go along with being told to stay completely away from TOS for at least a year and to cut back on releases.

I completely agree with those who have said that the Trek book market was oversaturated. Neelix’s cookbook was around the time I started thinking they were taking the p**s big time.

Having said that though there’s been plenty of unofficial movie companions written over the years so get writing Anthony! (unless of course you don’t want to get in the bad books with TPTB, no pun intended!)

By: screaming satellite

screaming satellite — Fri, 22 May 2009 10:00:16 +0000

id like to see Anthony do a making of either this movie or a sequel…i mean what is this site than a sort of big online ‘making of’ / ‘guide to’ the new film over the past 2 years?

anyone could print off a selection of the articles/interviews and there would be the ‘making of’

By: Cato the Llama

Cato the Llama — Fri, 22 May 2009 05:57:01 +0000

-77. Mark, from what I understand, Gene Roddenberry didn’t think much of STV, and that he didn’t consider it canon. So if that helps any. . . . :P

By: MC1 Doug

MC1 Doug — Fri, 22 May 2009 05:41:11 +0000

#77:

Mark, perhaps because that film didn’t have its act together… bad continuity, bad research, well bad lots of things… and too bad really, since the KMS triad was at its best in this film… the film should have had everything going in its favor in this one mis-step of all TREK movies.