Knowing his views, I was curious enough to see what his reaction was to Obama's re-election, and he didn't disappoint: http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2012-11-08-1.html
I thought Card's claim that Obama was suppressing documents that would prove his guilt was particularly funny. Card somehow already knows Obama is guilty (of something, although Card can't quite explain what Obama actually did.) Since Card doesn't need these magical documents to know the truth, plainly no one else does. Which makes all the blasts against the media letting Obama slide completely irrelevant. Card regularly congratulates himself on his fairmindedness!
^He doesn't have to beg for attention. A built in fanbase will lavish on him all the attention that he needs. Brain fever.
I meant OSC. I'm not familiar with the OP up there ... though since you mentioned it, I clicked on the "more posts" linky and you're right. He posted the exact same thread in TNZ. That's an automatic warning for spam, per the board rules.
Orson Scott Card is a lunatic who wrote a ST script so shitty and opposed to Roddenberry's vision (whether you agree with it or not) that it had to be rewritten. The fact that it ended up as the best TOS episode after being taken out of that bloviating douches hands is icing on the cake.
No it isn't. A thread can exist in both TNZ and Misc without penalty, since TNZ is an "opt-in" forum.
Indeed. Card was born in 1951, hardly old enough to write a teleplay for an episode that aired in 1967. And, whatever your feelings about Ellison's original teleplay, you're drinking the Roddenberry kool-aid if you think it's "shitty." It was a WGA award winner, after all.
That's right. I always get those 2 dickbags confused. I don't deny that the script was good, it just wasn't good for ST for the simple fact that it shat all over Roddenberry's vision. And no, I'm not a Roddenberry kool aid drinker, I think he was a monumental shitbag himself. But it would be like submitting a script, no matter how good it is, to nBSG where they break out into musical numbers from Glee. It doesn't work within the constraints of the show.
Based on this post from Neroon, it was originally posted in SF, and was moved to TNZ by a mod. SF isn't opt-in. Though, I do wonder why the OP would post it in SF, let it get moved to TNZ, and then a full week later, post the exact same thread in Misc. Wasn't one thread enough?
Sorry for the repost, but for some reason I can't access my original thread, so I thought it had been deleted. Originally it said that that thread was moved, but when I tried to access it I got a message saying I wasn't able to access the page (the same thing happened when I clicked on the Neroon post you just linked to). I'm not sure what's going on, but I'm sorry for the confusion.
Roddenberry liked to claim that Ellison's teleplay marked a dramatic departure from the series format, but it just isn't true. You can purchase the teleplay (along with Ellison's outlines and plenty of background interview) or just read about it here.
Might you have closed yourself off from the TNZ group in your control panel? The thread is still [thread=194563]here[/thread] in the election sub-forum in TNZ. I have read it, and I think it's excellent, but I agree with GR that his rewrite is a better fit for the series. In particular, I like the change from the drug dealer to an accidentally drugged McCoy, and I like the depiction of the Guardian in Roddenberry's version better than Ellison's. I gather that what upset Ellison the most is the ending: Spoiler: end of Ellison's teleplay At the climactic moment in Ellison's version, Kirk freezes up, but fortunately Spock is able to intervene and prevent the fugitive officer from changing history. I don't presume to declare which version is artistically superior, but ultimately these characters are Roddenberry's creation, he was responsible for creating a coherent, consistent portrait of them across episodes from various authors, and I think it was perfectly appropriate for him to rewrite Ellison's ending to be more consistent with his own vision of the characters.