Replies

Follow up comments by Gary Goddard:

I appreciate everyone’s comments and thoughts and I was surprised to see such a wide range of thoughts, comments and opinions. Because this blog has created such major interest by so many people, I thought I would take a moment to answer some of the interesting issues raised by others.

To be clear, I have been doing this for a LONG time. Meaning, creating attractions that push the envelope and hearing “it can’t be done” by so many others on a relatively consistent basis. Your readers should understand, if it were up to the suits- and in some cases even fellow designers – there would have been no Terminator 2/3D, certainly no Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man 3D ride, no Forum Shops at Caesar’s Palace — its a long list.

Doing the seemingly impossible has been something I have made a career of. I found some of the comments interesting, and some I felt were just the glib one liners — taking a shot at something just to be witty — but I’m taking the time to provide some additional information and comments here for those who care. I think the main thing is – some people seemed to think this was a sudden concept and that we did not THINK about the reality o buildling it and operating it, or that we don’t consider the economics on a project like this, or worse, that we don’t understand the nature of one of a kind attractions designed to appeal to large market. In fact, we think about ALL o these things. So, on some of the main points–made by well-intentioned readers here I know — here are some additional facts, background and comments to consider:

1. For those concerned with the Economics:

The project WAS economically viable because of a very unique situation. The downtown casino owners were going to finance the attraction and whether it made money or not was not their primary concern – they would make their money back in their hotels and casinos. And in fact, they NEEDED SOMETHING (and FAST) to keep the downtown viable. (It was they – after the ENTERPRISE project was vetoed by Jaffe) who then went on to spend about $65,000,000 on the “The Fremont Experience” and there was NO return on that possible – its a big digital projection screen that covers the street and shows some videos with blasting music – and its “free”.) So understand, the economics of this attraction were quite unique. The project was vetted by an outside economic consultant as well, who confirmed this would an absolute 100% home run. And by the way – the interesting thing is – if you believe this project would have attracted 4 to 5 million people a year, is that it would have made all of the investment back and more. If you do the math – trust me it works. (And I believe this attraction would have brought more like 8 to 10 million people downtown.)

2. For those who think this was only for TREK fans:

This project was much larger than one for Star Trek fans alone. Remember, I am IN this industry, I create attractions — The Forum Shops draws 18,000,000 people a year. The money is made in the shops and stores. But the people come to take their photos in the “night sky” that happens every 2 to 3 hours. The STAR TREK ENTERPRISE was on a scale — take this the right way – with Mount Rushmore, with the Statue of Liberty, with the Effiel Tower. It was to be a magnificent man-made monument on a colossal scale. It would be something that would become magnetic – a “must see” for people who are Trek Fans or not. On a relative scale of the people who visit these attractions, only a percentage go into the Statue of Liberty, or up to the top of the Eiffel Tower. But people FLOCK to see these man made wonders. the STAR TREK ENTERPRISE would have drawn people from all over Vegas — and would still be drawing them today. And remember, that was the first and foremost goal — get traffic (people) off the strip and BACK to the downtown area. I think ENTERPRISE would have done even more than that — I think ENTERPRISE would have been a destination for a high percentage of Las Vegas visitors (meaning that they are already intending to visit the ENTERPRISE even before they get to Vegas. It would be one of the “must see” destinations in Vegas.

3.For those who compare the “shelf life issue” to Star Trek- The Experience:

Comparing this to STAR TREK; THE EXPERIENCE is not in the cards. And I did STTE so don’t get me wrong – that was a hell of a great attraction and I am very very proud of it. But it was – ultimately – a very cool attraction inside a casino. (And attractions like that DO need updating when repeat visitation is a major part of the equation.) STTE was a truly great attraction — but it was not a frigging 28 story high, 4 football field-long stand-alone MONUMENT to an international mythology. IMAGINE this thing – day or night, sunrise, sunset, nighttime — whether you are on the ground looking at up it, or on the main deck looking out — its something you really have to SEE to believe. The magnetic power of the Starship Enteprise would be — I beileve – quite strong. Stronger than for Star Trek fans ONLY. This is the point – it was first and foremost a MONUMENT – something on a scale that fires the imagination. The “show” within it was important – but the real draw would have been the ship itself. And I disagree with everyone that thinks it would lose its appeal — the Disneyland Castle(s) don’t lose their appeal — The Empire State Building doesn;t lose its appeal — The ENTERPRISE would be as strong a draw today as it would have been the first five years. Think about this – there are very few projects in the world that would find major international press at ALL of these occasions: Announcement of the project. Revealing the Design Model. Ground Breaking. Previews. Opening Day. And then annual celebrations thereafter for spcial events. Live broadcasts from the site, and so on. The magnitude of this concept is quite different than STTE – though again, I am proud of both but you can’t compare them. They are very different attractions built with very different goals.

4. For the “architects” who say it could not be done:

For you “experts” I say “ye of little faith” – and I banish you from any and all future projects of epic imagination. We have done projects around the world – over and over – for which certain “architects” always said “it could not be done.” But then we find an architect or engineer who says “you know – with a few changes, this CAN be done.” (Obviously we prefer the latter architects to the former.) For the record, this project was being engineered by no less than Ken Ball and a team of engineers (ex Disney engineers who were trained to always say “how can we do this” rather than “this is not possible”) And yes, there would be some compromises to the conceptual design, but (a) this is normal in the design process, and (b) the compromises that were being discussed were all viable — and by that I mean being able to solve the engineering issues in ways that would not destroy the ship’s design, lines, and aesthetics. Part of my experience doing projects like these is knowig WHO to go to because of EXACTLY people like the architect who commented on the seeming impossibility. It as not impossible. Challenging yes, but do-able. (I actually mentioned the wind shear factors in my original blog, and that fact that we were coming up with solutions.)

5. The Financial Viability: The project – because of the unique source of financing mentioned earlier – made possible by land being given for free by the city, and the casino operators providing the capital without requiring a profit – was unique. In fact, in the original brief, they city and casino owners were not looking for a profit. The unique thing was with THIS project, they got a best possible attraction, AND it actually promised to return a profit as well. Something NO ONE thought possible at the time. The cash flow from “the attraction” part of this was to provide, first and foremost, payments to Paramount under the licensing deal, and 2nd cover the operating and marketing costs for the attraction. Anything left over would go to the investors – which were the casino owners. So this would have been a big financial success for the licensee (Paramount) without any financial risk on their part, and it would have been a success for the operators, whomever that turned out to be – AND it would most likely have returned the investment to the developers. (Remember — the project that was done in place of the ENTERPRISE – The FREMONT STREET EXPERIENCE — cost about half of what the ENTERPRISE was going to cost and its FREE – so there was never any hope of recouping cost from the attraction itself, yet it was built.)

6. Lastly, for those that think as new Starships were designed for new movies, that this one would be obsolete – I disagree. We picked this model for very specific reasons. I don’t need to go into that here, because you are all fans – so you KNOW the place that his ship holds in the Star Trek legacy. And, in success, perhaps another park in Europe or Asia would take on the next generation design, or a Romulan Ship, or whatever. But Ground Zero would always have been Vegas.

Sooooo —

I hope this helps to let everyone know that the issues raised in many cases are understandable given the fact that my blog was a condensed version of the events. But we did not go boldly forward on any project as blind men. We were being tasked by EVERYONE at the time regarding “who, what, how, when, why” and every one of the issues raised here – and more — had to be answered.

Do not think that anyone in this group took this project on lightly. It was vetted at a level far beyond what has transpired in this blog. The Mayor and her team, the downtown redevelopment committee, the hotel and casino owners, Paramount Licensing – they all took it seriously and analyzed it from every perspective. And I am telling you – this was the “silver bullet” that met and exceeded every goal.

The point of all of this is this: BECAUSE we did our homework and had the answers — BECAUSE this project was so ideal for this particular set of goals and resources — BECAUSE of all of this, we found ourselves IN THE ROOM — with all of the principles — with the land, the city, the financing, the licensing agreement agreed to “in principle” — and everyone (except ONE as it turned out) WANTED this to happen. Each for their own reasons. The RARITY of getting all of the parts working together on a project of this magnitude in five months time – is quite staggering. So – when it was shot down by the one person in the room who did not do his homework, who made his decisions based upon fear, and who lacked any kind of understanding of his own property (Star Trek) I consider it tragic. It was a great personal, creative and emotional loss for me – I can tell you that.

Frankly I am surprised that so many “fans” of Star Trek don’t see what could have been. I just ask that rather than be a naysayer in hindsight — just take a moment, and THINK about the sun rising on THE STARSHIP ENTERPRISE on that Plaza, or the Silhouette at night as the sun sets, with the lights going on throughout the ship. Think about it at night, lit up and glowing like a beacon — I am telling you — THIS was a home run. On every level. And it is one of the great disappointment of my life that it did not happen.

So, I hope this provides a bit of additional insight. We do not approach any projects we do lightly, nor did we approach this one without fully comprehending what it was we are intending to create. On every level.

Challenges yes. Impossible, a resounding no.