Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×
Sci-Fi Television

How Las Vegas Missed Out on a Life-Sized Starship Enterprise 240

Posted by timothy
from the oh-the-the-huge-manatee dept.
T-Kir writes "Apparently 20 years ago, instead of the Fremont Experience, downtown Las Vegas was actually close to building a life sized version of the refit USS Enterprise, and would have — had it not been for the then studio chairman Stanley Jaffe nixing it at the final meeting. The project had support from Paramount licensing and then-CEO Sherry Lansing, the Las Vegas Mayor, and the downtown redevelopment committee, but not opinion of Mr Jaffe: 'I don't want to be the guy that approved this and then it's a flop and sitting out there in Vegas forever.' As a Trek fan, I'm saddened that this never got built because I feel that this would've appealed to a much wider audience than science fiction fans. Props to io9 for picking this story up."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Las Vegas Missed Out on a Life-Sized Starship Enterprise

Comments Filter:
  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Sunday April 08, 2012 @04:11PM (#39614139)

    While it sounds awesome, the guy who cancelled it is right on the money - it would have just sat there for some time languisingh after the novelty wore off for people.

    Vegas already had the coolest Star Trek exhibit/show I've ever seen (Qwark's bar and two really well done shows). That is gone now. If those great shows could not survive, no way the Enterprise would have lasted.

  • by El_Muerte_TDS (592157) on Sunday April 08, 2012 @04:15PM (#39614173) Homepage

    Just like the novelty of the Eifel Tower, Liberty Statue, Tower of Pisa, etc. have worn off?

  • by flogger (524072) <non@nonegiven> on Sunday April 08, 2012 @04:15PM (#39614175) Journal
    But if there was a "Life-Sized" enterprise in which I could book passage (rent a room) and visit 10-Forward or see the bridge, I would make the "trek" to vegas. I am sure I am not the only tight ass that would do this... Flop? I don;t thin it would be, espesially if they built the Emporer's imperial cruiser next door and they had weekly geek fights to see which would win. :-)
  • oh forget that (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FudRucker (866063) on Sunday April 08, 2012 @04:25PM (#39614225)
    sure it would look like the Star Trek Enterprise on the outside but once you get inside it then it will be like any other Las Vegas casino = full of slot machines, roulette wheels, blackjack tables etc...etc...etc... which would ruin the whole thing

    http://i.imgur.com/kezWj.jpg [imgur.com]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08, 2012 @04:29PM (#39614249)

    from an engineering stand point alone. In the photos the entire saucer section is only held up by the neck piece down to the engineering section. Building this thing would be a feat all on its own.

  • by mysidia (191772) on Sunday April 08, 2012 @04:29PM (#39614251)

    If they built a giant Enterprise, it'd just sit there and become a giant eyesore.

    If they built a giant Enterprise, they'd probably have trekkie fans all over the world visting downtown vegas. And moving to the city.

    You know that would still be a big attraction today. But in 40 or 50 years, yeah, it would eventually become a giant eyesore.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08, 2012 @04:31PM (#39614255)
    "it would have just sat there for some time languisingh after the novelty wore off for people."

    Much like the manned space race itself...

  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Sunday April 08, 2012 @04:34PM (#39614269)

    I would argue that each of those are more timeless and universal than the Enterprise would have been.

    All of them except for the Pisa tower are far larger than the Enterprise would have been.

    You know that the Enterprise would not have been built nearly as well as any of those things.

    Also ALL of the things you list are nationally beloved monuments to the respective countries they are in, meaning there is money from a whole nation to take care of each of those national treasures. Can you honestly say with a straight face that a crumbling Enterprise in Vegas would draw the nation in to repair it as was done with the Statue of Liberty?

    I mean, if you're going to go there then the parallel is that it would have been repaired by now, but you wouldn't be able to go to the bridge anymore. Well what the hell good is THAT???

  • Re:WHICH ONE?! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Eravnrekaree (467752) on Sunday April 08, 2012 @04:39PM (#39614303)

    Enterprise NCC 1701-A and NCC-1701 are different ships. But they are the same design and look exactly the same on the outside. But have very different bridges. The 1701-A is filled with the backlight touch panels. NCC 1701 was destroyed in STIII. I vote for Enterprise 1701-A, since I thought it had the coolest looking interiors and exteriors, and was featured in Star Trek VI ( as well as ST-V, but that should not reflect badly on the ship, it was a fine vessel). If the Las Vegas 1701-A is staffed with a crew, have them wear the Star Trek II-VI uniform style which I liked better than any other style used on the entire series. It was very distinctive but not too cheesy.

  • Re:WHICH ONE?! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by icebike (68054) * on Sunday April 08, 2012 @05:45PM (#39614615)

    1701-D would have been huge, perhaps too large to be feasible, the !701-A was 289 M long, 72 M high and 127 meters wide which would make it a lot more feasible

    " Feasible" isn't a word that comes immediately to mind as a limiting convept while walking around in Vegas.

  • by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Sunday April 08, 2012 @06:39PM (#39614893)

    You know that would still be a big attraction today. But in 40 or 50 years, yeah, it would eventually become a giant eyesore.

    TOS debuted in 1966, that's 46 years ago. It's as popular today as it ever was. At this point, it's safe to say it's a hallmark of science fiction. A life-sized replica would remain culturally relevant for much longer than 50 years. It's hard to imagine that people would ever look at it and say "what's that supposed to be?" and even if they did, it would be like looking at the Great Pyramid. Even though we don't really know what it originally meant, it's simply too large to be ignored.

    People often bring up the idea that a megastructure may become an eyesore over time. I can't think of an example where that's been true. As far as buildings go, if it's huge and strange looking, people will be impressed buy it. It doesn't matter how old it is.

  • by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Sunday April 08, 2012 @09:12PM (#39615717)

    Any kind of huge large vehicle would be an eyesore as it just doesn't fit in.

    Have you ever been to Las Vegas?

    People trying to claim a spaceship is on par with the pyramids, Eiffel tower or other things are letting their fandom get in the way of reality.

    No one's saying this would be the next great pyramid (excepting your attempt to present such a claim as a straw man). Of course the two objects would be similar in scale [slashdot.org]. But people said the Eiffel tower would be an eyesore when it was built, and the people of Paris have not found it to be so. What I'm saying is that this story has repeated itself over time, and none of the things people have said were going to be eyesores have actually turned out that way.

    Doubtless an ancient ancestor of yours objected to the building of the great pyramids claiming it would be an eyesore as well. And let's not forget all those idiots complaining about windmills. You aren't objectively looking at the situation, you are simply looking at a strange new idea and rejecting it because it doesn't fit with your existing world view.

In the realm of scientific observation, luck is granted only to those who are prepared. - Louis Pasteur

Working...