Slashdot Mirror


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

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."

67 of 240 comments (clear)

  1. RAGE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    KAHN!!!

    1. Re:RAGE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Which Kahn? Bob Kahn?

      The late great Madeline.

    2. Re:RAGE! by RedDeadThumb · · Score: 2

      JAFFE!!!

  2. Really just as well by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Really just as well by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Really just as well by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 2

      You're more right than you think. Downtown Las Vegas until VERY recently(within the last 5 years or so?) has languished BADLY.

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

      STILL, it would've been cool as fuck the first few trips down.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    3. Re:Really just as well by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Really just as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "it would have just sat there for some time languisingh after the novelty wore off for people."

      Much like the manned space race itself...

    5. Re:Really just as well by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 2

      I dont think so. First part of it at least could have been a hotel and restaurant, casino, etc, and those things dont wear off. But i really think that the interest would have held up and would have become very popular, if it was lifelike enough,.

    6. Re:Really just as well by FrootLoops · · Score: 3, Funny

      Where, I am sure, some eccentric billionaire would buy it. I mean, it would be the ONLY life sized complete Enterprise in existence.

      That's the first good reason I've heard for wanting to be filthy rich!

    7. Re:Really just as well by mikael · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Each one of those was an original masterpiece designed to be something different and never seen before. Usually it was built from state-of-the-art materials and construction techniques. The Eiffel Tower wasn't even intended to be a permanent structure.

      A replica life size model of a TV series starship might work if it were part of an office block, startup incubator, luxury hotel or cinema multiplex. The exterior wouldn't diminish the functionality of the inside space, but the functionality would pay for the maintenance.

      The best location in my opinion would be as part of an airport hotel or conference center. Imagine having your flight coming in through the fog or haze and the first thing you see is a spaceship coming into view like something out of the Wrath of Khan.

      port.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    8. Re:Really just as well by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:Really just as well by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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. 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.

    10. Re:Really just as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Vegas did indeed have the coolest Star Trek exhibit/show. It eventually turned into a very expensive and poorly managed coolest Start Trek exhibit/show. When you charge in the neighborhood of the admission price of a full theme park for what IN a full theme park would be a couple of shows, you're not going to attract non-geeks and the generally curious. I went there every time I was in Vegas while it was there and I'm glad I did, but I also watched the prices go up, the quantity of shows go down, Quark's Bar always inaccessible because of being booked for a wedding or some "special event" or just plain closed early because somebody wanted to save payroll. My first visit, which was several years after the attraction opened, I had to wait in decently long lines to get in. The last couple of years--barely any, and I STILL couldn't get in to have a drink at Quark's.

      Point is: it's not good to say something failed because people didn't want it. Management or lack of it has a LOT to do with stuff like that.

    11. Re:Really just as well by Xeranar · · Score: 2

      Honestly in 1992 if they had built a $150 Million dollar Enterprise (even if it was 30 or so years prior to the current universe they were promoting) would have kept Star Trek active a great deal longer. Instead of DS9 & Voyager on their own private UPN they would have probably landed on CBS or NBC. The benefit of it existing would drive trekkies into a frenzy so that not only would it make a constant revenue stream available but it would essentially cement Star Trek as a permanent part of reality. As it stands unless they continue the current Star Trek continuum with the new Kirk when the baby boomer and Gen X generation get older and pass Star Trek will largely pass with them. Already shows like I Love Lucy and The Honeymooners are starting to suffer that effect. I see it as both a great loss for Paramount and Trekkies but also for culture in general. With that giant ship constantly there we would have always had a nagging reminder of Star Trek in our minds, driving us into space with vigor.

    12. Re:Really just as well by scharkalvin · · Score: 2

      Hey this is Vegas. The full size Enterprise could have become a hotel (just how many crew staterooms ARE there on the USS Enterprise?). As a hotel it would have been booked solid FOREVER (who wouldn't want to stay there?) They would have had to build the turbo lifts oversized and have more of them then in the plans though, otherwise there wouldn't have been enough elevator capacity for all the guests. You know the real Enterprise (as per the published plans) had a bowling alley and a full size swimming pool?

  3. Backroom land deals? by ScooterComputer · · Score: 2

    Next we'll have an informer tell us that Mr. Jaffe has been busy secretly buying up property in Iowa.

    --
    Scott
    "Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
  4. I've never had a desire to go to Vegas by flogger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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. :-)

    --
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    "First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
    -- The Doctor, "Doctor
    1. Re:I've never had a desire to go to Vegas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It wasn't a full life sized one, but the Hilton in Vegas had a fully built full size STTNG bridge as an attraction, along with turbolifts and such. It looked pretty much exactly like the TV show and they had actors in full costume. There was a bar and restraut with it as well, but it was more like the Star Wars cantina with Star Trek decorations.

      They shut the entire thing down about 2 years ago, it had been there for a long time before that.

    2. Re:I've never had a desire to go to Vegas by thygate · · Score: 2

      And Klingon Gagh and Bloodwine .. oh wait ..

    3. Re:I've never had a desire to go to Vegas by FrootLoops · · Score: 3, Informative

      Damn, you just made me realize how little men have been objectified in Star Trek compared to women. I demand equality! Chris Pine needs to go shirtless the entire next movie to help make up for it.

      Women:
        * At least one major character per series whose job included being sexy: Counselor Troi (TNG), Yeoman Rand and Uhura (TOS), Seven of Nine (VOY), T'Pol (ENT), and Dax (DS9)
        * Orion slave girls as in TOS: The Cage and ENT: Bound (three at once there)
        * Kirk's various women
        * Dabo girls throughout DS9
        * Numerous other women in skimpy outfits, eg. Vanessa William's character in the horrible episode DS9: Let He Who Is Without Sin..., Tasha's seduction scene in TNG: The Naked Now, Uhura's sexy dance in the movie that does not exist, ....

      Men:
        * Trip saving the ship in his underwear in ENT: Aquisition and a few other shirtless scenes, usually with T'Pol
        * Several scenes with Kirk at least partly shirtless for very little reason in TOS
        * Scattered shirtlessness as in the Edo episode (also had women in skimpy outfits), the horrible DS9 episode above (brief), Sulu in The Naked Time
        * (Counts negative) Leonard Nimoy shirtless on Nazi-episode-planet

      Actually, The Naked Time reminded me of something. There's a hilarious moment at the end of the episode after McCoy develops a serum to cure everyone. He goes around the bridge injecting people, and when he gets to Kirk, for no apparent reason he grabs Kirk's shoulder and rips his shirt open before injecting him like everyone else. It's so gratuitous--I would absolutely love a brief parody of that scene in the next movie.

    4. Re:I've never had a desire to go to Vegas by FrootLoops · · Score: 2

      To be honest, I'm gay (completely; no bi), so my female sexiness detector is pretty buggy. Still, here's my reasoning.

        * Troi was the only main character to wear a skirt for the first season or two. Tasha did not. Troi was also the only main character to use a non-standard and skin-tight uniform. Her job was often pretty superfluous considering none of the other shows included a counselor.
        * I always thought Dax was supposed to provide some sort of adventuresome sexiness. Terry Farrell was more physically attractive (by my estimate) than any of the male actors on DS9 by far. None of Quark, Garak, Sisko, Odo, Worf, or Bashir approached model-looks whereas I think Terry Farrell did. I didn't think Ezri's actress was attractive, but that's probably just a bug on my part.
        * Rand seemed to have no purpose plot-wise since all she did was carry trays of food and order padds. I figured she was just there to provide a pretty figure to look at.
        * Uhura's skirt was ridiculously short and her legs were included in many a shot of her at her station. Still, I agree, she had lots more going for her than sex appeal.
        * I agree with you about the Dabo girls. They were covered up pretty well much of the time, though IIRC there was some pretty prominent cleavage shown by some of them sometimes--maybe Rom's wife? They should have had Dabo boys though, and I imagine if the series were done today there would be at least one or two male Dabo attendants.

      As for sexy male scenes, there really weren't many. By far the most gratuitous were the ones I mentioned, particularly Trip in Enterprise--he was the only male character in Star Trek who was regularly objectified aside from the weird shirtless Kirk scenes (William Shatner wasn't even really attractive; a hetero male almost certainly designed those scenes). Trip was reasonably hot, at least. The Edo planet episode was somewhat gratuitous in background shots, but the main male guest star was not at all attractive and his female companion was. It actually annoys me a little--they couldn't have gotten a decent male actor who also looked good in basically nothing when they did for the female? Really?

      Q cuddling Picard in Tapestry? The many Klingon show of strength scenes with Worf in TNG / DS9? Picard nude in Cardasian custody in Chain of Command?

      Q cuddling with Picard was just funny. Worf stayed fully, almost aggressively, clothed always (or neck-up in his mud bath scene) so none of that was terribly sexy. Patrick Stewart was pretty old and physically unattractive in his nude scene (which is fine, he's a great actor), though I would have loved seeing Trip in that one.

    5. Re:I've never had a desire to go to Vegas by FrootLoops · · Score: 2

      And there are many really bad ST episodes.

      Indeed there are! I happen to have a list of my personal series-worsts right here:

        * The Original Series (TOS): 3x06 Spock's Brain.
        * The Animated Series (TAS): 1x05 More Tribbles, More Troubles.
        * The Next Generation (TNG): 2x22 Shades of Grey (clip show); 2x12 The Royale; Wesley's part in 1x03 The Naked Now (also Wesley's most annoying part period).
        * Deep Space 9 (DS9): 5x07 Let He Who Is Without Sin....
        * Voyager (VOY): 2x15 Threshold. Threshold is probably the worst episode of Star Trek period. The writer later said, "Out of a hundred and some episodes, you're gonna have some stinkers! Unfortunately, that was a royal, steaming stinker."
        * Enterprise (ENT): 2x11 Precious Cargo. The series finale, 4x22 These Are the Voyages..., is often deeply hated and is sometimes loved.

      As for Troi's sexiness, as I mentioned in another post, I'm gay and have trouble accurately judging female sexiness as it appears to straight men. It seems Troi was intended to be sexy but didn't really achieve that goal very well, at least with many (probably most) of the relevant fans.

  5. Re:Fuck Paramount execs. Galactica FTW! by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Galactica was pseudo religious military wank with a dash of body horror and a vague stab at challenging social issues like racism to be honest, an homage to the Bush era.

  6. Re:WHICH ONE?! by eobanb · · Score: 4, Informative

    D. The article makes reference to Ten Forward. Plus TNG was currently on the air at the time so it would have made the most sense.

    --

    Take off every sig. For great justice.

  7. Re:WHICH ONE?! by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny
    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  8. oh forget that by FudRucker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:oh forget that by mosb1000 · · Score: 2

      The it couldn't be a hotel or a casino, as that would take business away from the downtown area (which it was intended to help).

  9. Gambling by stevegee58 · · Score: 2

    OP said he was saddened it wasn't built, but the real question is would he have actually gone to Vegas and left money there in the casino?
    That's all that matters to casinos, Enterprise ships or not.

  10. They are timeless and universal by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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???

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:They are timeless and universal by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The other guy was probably talking abut the REPLICAS of those things.

      It's like you've never been to Vegas ever.

      That and the guy from Paramount too. They're fine with blowing up a local landmark and puting a redundant Italian themed casino in it's place.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:They are timeless and universal by pmontra · · Score: 4, Informative

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

      I had to google the exact measures but the Eiffel Tower (320 m) is way bigger than the other two monuments (I've seen the three of them with my eyes). It's a little taller than what the Enterprise is long (286 m). The Statue of Liberty (93 m) is much smaller and the statue alone (46 m) without the base would be shorter than the Pisa tower (58 m). Check this for the relative sizes (Pisa tower not included).

    3. Re:They are timeless and universal by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

      Actually, yes. It's Nevada. It's a giant desert... nothing is ever going to 'crumble' out there... There are cars out there that were parked in the 1930s and except for damage caused by the sun are still exactly the way they were left. If you build something out there and right after civilization ends, it would take hundreds of years before it started to show traces of weathering beyond what you'd expect from being sandblasted. -_-

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:They are timeless and universal by icebike · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's a Tower of Pisa in Vegas?

      Not exactly, but it was called that early in its development

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veer_Towers

      Google Street View Link

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:They are timeless and universal by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      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.

      I think he was talking about these:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/16/nyregion/liberty-statue-in-las-vegas-stands-among-many-replicas.html

      http://3dpariseiffeltower.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Eiffel-Tower-In-Las-Vegas.jpg

      http://www.finehomeslv.com/blog/project-city-center-las-vegas-towers-resemble-leaning-tower-of-pisa/ (there is actually no Pisa Tower replica in Las Vegas, it's more of a leaning high-rise)

    6. Re:They are timeless and universal by sjames · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why not? We did it for the Washington Monument which is nothing but a giant rock dildo.

      But it so perfectly symbolizes what the People have come to expect from D.C.

  11. Re:WHICH ONE?! by owlnation · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The images loaded for me -- it was the Enterprise A. And it looked great in the pics, it has to be said.

    Can't really see the issue they had. Everything in Vegas gets blown up after a decade or so. It would have paid for itself in that time -- especially if it looked as good as it does in the pics, and did inside too.

    If they installed working phasers they could have taken a lot of work out of demolishing casinos!

  12. You know what would help? by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 2
    What size we are talking about here. I don't know about you, I don't know offhand the "real" size of the Enterprise.

    From wiki:

    Length 642.5 Meters

    Width 467.0 Meters

    Height 137.5 Meters

    This is not trivial. There are no structural integrity fields in the real world. 150M$ for that? Doubtful.

    --
    Mostly random stuff.
    1. Re:You know what would help? by swalve · · Score: 2

      For comparison, the Pentagon (the world's largest office building by square footage) is 23 m tall, and each of the five sides of the building is 281 m long. Which works out to the saucer section being about as big as the Pentagon. That would definitely be a sight to see. Even the original Enterprise would probably take up about the same footprint as the Pentagon. I say we build it.

  13. Re:WHICH ONE?! by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  14. He doesn't undeestand how Vegas works by sprior · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Nothing sits for long after it stops being popular/profitable, they implode it and build something else.

  15. I vote for 1701-A by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 2

    I think 1701-A of 1701-B would look best with a crew staffed in ST II-VI uniforms. There could be a hotel inside, as well as restaurants, all themed like the real ship.

    I was never fond of 1701-D or nor the crews unform from that era, though, the STNG series was well written and well executed. I always wished they could couple the story line quality of STNG with the styles of the 1701-A or 1701-B era. I found the tight fitting uniforms of D to be cheesy and the ship too cheesy as well.

    Another factor is the 1701-A was a much smaller ship than the D, the D is just a huge thing that might be completely infeasible to build, if they want to build the thing to spec, it would be enormous.

    I imagine this thing could have rather than a mock up, could have been an entire building, including a built in hotel and so on. But the saucer section raises quistions on structural support, I am not sure if it would be possible to construct an unsupported, hanging saucer section without some sort of supports from below, in a feasible way. Having support columns from below for the saucer section would take away from the whole thing. Probably the main hull could be fully occupied hotel and attraction space and they might have to settle with a shell for saucer, with some places inside being built, such as the bridge and so on, unless a way can be found to build the saucer.

    1. Re:I vote for 1701-A by Nimey · · Score: 3, Informative

      Supposedly the Constitution class could do saucer-sep maneuvers nearly as easily as the Galaxy class.

      Don't know if that's canon or not, but I definitely read it in a novel or two back in the day.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  16. Re:WHICH ONE?! by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Enterprise A? Or Enterprise D? The images from the site aren't showing up.

    They're building a cloaked ship, whaddya expect?

  17. Land is expensive in Vegas; build a TARDIS instead by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Funny

    Then you can pack more gamblers inside, than it appears outside. The dream of every casino owner.

    And if the house starts to lose big time . . . just skip back in time, to before the bets were placed.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  18. Re:WHICH ONE?! by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

  19. Re:WHICH ONE?! by Tastecicles · · Score: 2

    TFS says "refit Enterprise". So that'd be the one from TMP (1979). No bloody A, B, C or D. As Scotty once said (TNG: "Relics". God I'm a nerd).

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  20. Quark's @ The Hilton by eepok · · Score: 2

    I'm not super-trekkie, but I know from personal experience that the Hilton in Vegas through away massive amounts of convention/conference business when it closed down Quark's. =\

    I miss my Moogie's Choice Pasta and Warp Core Breach

  21. Foolish decision to nix it. by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 2

    Seriously this would have gotten me to make regular visits to Vegas just to see the whole damn thing. Also if they bundled this with actual science type things it would have been fantastic. Hell I bet even Neal deGrasse Tyson would have done one of his talks/shows/etc from the bridge if they worked things out right. It'd have been a boon for education, science, and future dreamers. The money draw in would have been huge.

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
  22. Re:WHICH ONE?! by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  23. Re:Fuck Paramount execs. Galactica FTW! by kikito · · Score: 2

    That's as true as saying that Star Trek is just a long story about people in pajamas.

  24. Biggest reason this fell through: by Bieeanda · · Score: 2

    The powers that be in Vegas refused to license Fizzbin tables.

  25. Re:WHICH ONE?! by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Informative

    1701-D would have been huge, perhaps too large to be feasible....

    This is a point worth emphasising. The actual ships in Star Trek really are on an space age scale. The ship supposed to be over 1km long.

    Rather than quote statistics, I'll just link to a Minecraft Megaproject video of a virtual 1:1 scale model of the ship (to 1m resolution). It's a lot bigger than the impression given by the Paramounts sets in the show. Seeing shuttle-bay 1 was an experience in itself, and illustrative of just how infeasible building such an object would really be.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  26. Re:WHICH ONE?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    This would have been in LasVegas. All females would have worn the mini-skirts from TOS.

  27. Geek Paradise? by greggman · · Score: 2

    I wonder if there is a big enough market for a geek hotel in Vegas. Maybe shaped like the enterprise but with as many geek oriented things as possible. Lan parties, demo scene parties, techno music? (maybe that's my bias), arcades, VR stuff, video games, board games, card games, figure games, game competitions, hack-a-thons, maker studios, hi-tech rooms, gadget stores,

    I suppose one problem would be keeping it ahead of the tech curve but maybe they could get various corporate sponsors or have the guest themselves help upgrade stuff. (the open source resort so to speak)

    1. Re:Geek Paradise? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      I'd rather put it into California. Make it a conference hotel and invite every half way on-the-edge tech conference over. It's no secret that a fair lot of the tech people are big into Star Trek (hell, when I was with a not-so-unimportant IT-Security company my boss was one of the biggest trekkers I ever met. Imagine your boss coming in at Halloween in full Klingon war gear, and even having the body to actually look impressive in it). That should make it fairly simple to stay ahead of the tech curve if you manage to convince the relevant corporations that you are THE place tech cons go.

      Plus, I'm fairly sure you can convince quite a few geeks to be your maintenance crew for a free stay during their vacation. I mean... let's be honest here, you get to stay in the coolest hotel on this planet AND you get to toy with on-the-edge IT tech, all for free, and you are asked to actually put together and install that nifty technology and toy with it 'til it works... Where do I sign?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  28. CSI by shentino · · Score: 3, Funny

    I guess it was just

    *shades*

    Too much of a gamble

  29. Re:Geeks and Vegas don't mix by million_monkeys · · Score: 2

    There's a rumor that the American Physical Society is banned from hosting their conferences in Vegas because physicists don't gamble, don't have champagne parties with hookers, and drink considerably less then the average Vegas-goer. I'd assume that these points also applied to anyone getting excited about a Star Trek themed hotel.

    You don't know many physicists, do you?

  30. Re:WHICH ONE?! by Teancum · · Score: 2

    Sadly, this one is schedule for decommissioning. The "Big E" may live on as another ship, but this one is going to be turned into scrap metal and sold to China (most likely).

  31. Re:Geeks and Vegas don't mix by modecx · · Score: 4, Funny

    Quite the contrary, as you know, physicists are big into experimentation. Vegas would love to have the physicists, except... Well, you know how people sometimes get a little crazy on the Las Vegas booze, hookers and drugs scene, and cause a ruckus; there was one year the Physical Society's meeting happened to overlap with the pharmacist's and psychiatrist's conventions...going on, oh about 50 years ago now.

    Now, some people are bound to call me a liar, or say I have a runaway imagination, but buried in a vault somewhere under Washington, there's a classified briefing my grand-pappy told me about--he was a fed you see--and if you go down to the FBI office and ask someone, they're going to deny it and look at you like you're some kind of lunatic. And if you press 'em on it, they're going to call the cops and people with white coats. That's when you know you've got 'em in a lie, it's right in the secret FBI training manual under Chapter 11, Deny, Divert and Attack! You know, so you'd better not. Ask anyone that is.

    Anyway, to make a short story long, many of the physicists, pharmacists, and psychiatrists shared the same hotel, and as is always the case in a large enough group of people, some of the pharmacists were into the...recreational side of their business, and the psychiatrists, well, you know how they always want to know what makes people tick.

    As a prank, and to get the physicists to loosen up, the pharmacists slipped a bunch of amphetamines and the psychiatry researchers' LSD into the physicists' punch bowl. Nobody knows how they did it, but the hopped-up and wigged-out physicists spent the next five days straight in the conference room where they built at life size, fully functional replica of Big Boy, right there in Sands Hotel.

    Now, this was also about the time the Roswell aliens escaped Area 51, the aliens kidnapped the atom bomb and held Las Vegas as ransom for their flying saucer and took Humphrey Bogart hostage...but I digress. That's a whole 'nother story, and if I told you I'd have to kill you. So, in a nutshell, that's why LSD research was banned, because when you mix physicists with amphetamines, LSD, and spiked punch, doomsday almost happens, and aliens fly off with Humphrey fucking Bogart. We just can't take the chance.

    --
    Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
  32. Re:It would never work by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Quite the opposite. It would have been a hit.

    Star Trek has become somewhat of an American icon show. Go out there and find a single person who doesn't know about Star Trek (don't ask the Amish, that's unfair, stay with the, as you called them, normals). Every single person knows about Star Trek. And even if the movie wasn't a hit, people would flock there to see "an Enterprise". They don't give a fuck what movie it was from, but they'd want to see it.

    The die hard fans would certainly complain about how inaccurate it is and how the tech print demands something completely different in this or that area, but (and that's what counts for its makers), they would still go there, if for no other reason than to verify with their own eyes that it is inaccurate.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  33. Re:Fuck Paramount execs. Galactica FTW! by geekoid · · Score: 2

    ST dealt with large moral issues.
    Galactica about individual personal issue.

    Nothing there to compare.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  34. Re:Lucky break by geekoid · · Score: 2

    It's moving as quickly as possible away from family friendly. Turned out catering to peopel on a tight budget, with special needs for kids, and don't drink as much doesn't make as much money as young people with excess cash and a desire to break the house.

    A family around a pool in a casino is nothing but lost revenue.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  35. Except Eiffel Tower was no monument by Kupfernigk · · Score: 3, Informative
    The continued existence of the Eiffel Tower is an accident. M. Eiffel built it as a demonstration of what could be done with the new technology of steel framing. It was intended to be temporary, but it became an iconic symbol of France just by being (a) big and (b) in Paris.

    In Bavaria, Ludwig II von Sachsenhausen caused a load of pre-Hollywood fantasy castles to be built; for many people they are the defining image of Bavaria. Personally I barely know the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars, but I suspect that a huge building in the shape of an enormous fantasy spaceship would, in exactly the same way, define its own myth. If it wasn't built too well, before long there would be a campaign to rebuild or restore it.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  36. Re:WHICH ONE?! by flyneye · · Score: 2

    Enterprise 1701 LV XXX
    Beam aboard for Baccarat at the captains helm.
    Replicator buffet 24/7.
    Non stop Holo-brothel.
    Shooting craps with the boys in engineering.
    Vulcan security guards.
    Romulan Cocktails......

    We are talking about Vegas

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  37. Re:WHICH ONE?! by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to a page I found on the Internet, "D" is 642.5m long. But point taken, still big though. I don't know if that would have been profitable to build well.

    The quote in the article:
    "I don't want to be the guy that approved this and then it's a flop and sitting out there in Vegas forever."

    Nothing in Vegas stays forever. It's usually demolished to make way for the next thing, it doesn't matter if the building is steeped in history, if it's not profitable enough, it goes.

  38. Re:WHICH ONE?! by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 2, Funny

    Las Vegas made me realize that New York City is tastefully understated.