Fact-Checking Inside Star Trek: The Real Story

McCoy's divorce backstory was suggested by DeForest Kelley and worked into the second-season writers' bible by D.C. Fontana. TMoST did publicize the idea, though; its chapter on McCoy's past is practically a paraphrase of his bio page in the bible. It did, however, establish that Kirk entered the "Space Service" at 17, the youngest age allowed, and that he was the youngest "Starship Command Captain" ever (which I take to mean the captain of a capital ship like the Enterprise rather than a smaller ship like the destroyer-equivalent ship he commanded previously).

But TMoST did not claim that Spock was the first Vulcan in Starfleet. It explicitly does refer to other "Vulcans in the Space Service" -- naturally, since it was written after "The Immunity Syndrome." It says that Spock's decision to join Starfleet went against Sarek's view of Vulcan tradition, and that he's the only Vulcan on the Enterprise. I think the "first Vulcan in Starfleet" myth may have arisen in fandom as a misreading of those statements. I can't figure out where else it might've come from.

I think Marsden meant that, by analogy with the unused idea from BoT, a possible explanation for the use of Klingon designs in TEI might be that the Romulans stole the plans.

 

Although the "Balance of Terror" script has Commander Hansen speculating that the Romulan ship design might have been stolen (based on a resemblance to Federation starships), I think it is only Marsden speculating with his editorial comment that the design might have been "stolen from the Klingons."

 

Thanks for refreshing my memory, Christopher. I had a vague memory of reading those things in TMoST back when I was working on my TOS Chronology.

 

Yes, I said :
A dropped premise from Balance of Terror, that the Romulan ship was partially or fully based on stolen Federation technology .
Meaning they stole from the Federation, no Klingons were mentioned in that episode, but then I speculated
that the Romulans may have just stolen the designs from the Klingons, based on their excellent espionage network. An alliance need not be the only way that could be accomplished. That's all. I'm never going to overturn 46 or so years of a given, but it's surprising to me on how little it's based on.

I'm thinking it's based on Chinese Migs, if we keep the Soviet = Klingon, Romulan = Chinese analogies, then the Chinese certainly did have Soviet designed equipment at times. But they weren't always allies, too.

BTW, purchased works for me, too. Nations sell technology and fished equipment to other nations that aren't allies, either.

 

The alliance (really, more of a trade agreement) first appears in Fontana's revised story outline (the one dated April 19, but delivered April 22):

Fontana's earlier draft (March 29, 1968) does not mention Klingon ships, although a hand-written note on the first full page (Roddenberry's, I would guess) says "Klingon vessel?"

Actually, in the revised story outline, the reason the Enterprise is spying in the first place is to determine if reports that the Romulans have been supplied with the Klingon's "new battle cruiser" are true.

I have little doubt that The Making of Star Trek was drawing upon this story material, although I do not have the exact dates when that typescript was finalized on hand.

--

I'm going to try and write up a couple of "Unseen Trek" summaries of Fontana's two story outlines...maybe this weekend.

 

That's a pretty good analogy if you take into account what TNG established about the longstanding hatred between Klingons and Romulans. The Soviets and the Chinese may have been allies of necessity because of their shared rivalry with the West, but they actively loathed each other and vied for supremacy as the ones who would define and lead the global Communist revolution, because they both had very different ideas about how communism should work, and because a lot of the old nationalist and cross-cultural tensions were still in play as well.

 

Apologies for the misunderstanding, but the phrasing on your initial post didn't make that clear.

 

Much of the Klingon/Romulan alliance ideas come from references made in TNG about how they were allies until The Romulans sneak attacked the base at Khitomer! The Klingons believe that Romulans have no honour and are blood enemies while The Romulans think The Klingons are less than animals!
JB

 

Plus The Klingons having cloaking technology comes from Star Trek III:The Search For Spock! And is also a mismatched storyline for it was to be The Romulans as the enemy in that one but The Klingons were picked instead as being better known by the public at large!
JB

 

Yes, and they are both very much after the fact. They canonized a preexisting story rather than introduced the concept. So many things come from outside sources during the 70s, because that's all we had. Except TAS, of course.

I wonder if there was any reference in a TAS episode, but I don't recall one even though Klingons and Romulans were in episodes.

I see that now, sorry for the confusion, I left an important middle section out of my statement to get to that last supposition. And have some compassion, many Bothans died for those plans.

It just strikes me that Spock says, "Intelligence reports Romulans now using Klingon design."
That seems to leave several options available but the alliance story was told and told and anyone that's been around since the beginning, (or almost for me, born in 1970 but a fan since 77 only ten years late to the party) that alliance was taken as officially the story.

Was it in the (Franz Joseph) Tech Manual possibly? I read that, but I foolishly loaned my copy to a friend who has since moved away without returning It about 20 years ago.

Thank you for looking Harvey. I wasn't intending to make more work for you, but it seemed once I got past the "it's always been this way" I didn't really see any evidence of it.

 

Most excellent reference, sir. No hard feelings whatsoever. I just initially read that & thought, "Wait... what?"

I think that's a pretty solid supposition, and it fits in well with the devious nature of most TOS villains. I love it when you can look at an old piece of dialogue in a new way, and come up with a new theory that still fits in with what the show told us. The theft of the Klingon ship design strikes me as a pretty cool concept and a potential story that could be told.

 

Didn't The Romulans use both the D-7 Cruisers and their Birds of Prey in different episodes of the cartoon series?
JB

 

No. The Romulan BoP was never seen in TAS.

 

Because they had lost the model.

 

Oh! A wise guy, eh? Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk!

 

We're keeping this guy around far longer than his allotted 15 minutes of fame.

 

Fair enough. The problem is that the project as a concept is pretty terrific. If he had done what he had claimed these books would have been a treasure trove.

And the answer to my original question was essentially yes. For decades I've been told that the whole "Romulan / Klingon alliance" was fan wank where we leapt to a conclusion that was never supported on screen. Or that it was something that The Making of Star Trek made up. Now I find out that this came from Fontana. I would never have read that outside of Cushman.

I think just because of the breadth (but not depth) of these books they're tough to ignore. Of course it drives me nuts now when I read "Hey look, this untrue thing is true because I read it in Cushman!" (Of course the same can be said of Solow and Justman.)

Someone needs to write "These Are the Voyages: The Good Parts Version".

 

I think it says a lot about these books that you had to ask for independent verification of this first.

There's much of value in them...but good luck being able to parse out the good from all the misstatements and outright fabrication.

 

The problem is that the assertions he's made will be accepted as "fact" for generations to come unless they're corrected. Like how some guy online speculated that maybe Isis in "Assignment: Earth" might possibly have been Victoria Vetri, admitting that it was just a guess that might be wrong, and then some idiot IMDb editor mistook that speculation for fact and put it in Vetri's IMDb filmography, and everyone else blindly copied IMDb's info without fact-checking, and now it's widely treated as fact that Vetri played Isis even though the woman is very clearly not Vetri.

So it's not about the person, it's about the information. Inaccurate information in a reference or documentary text will propagate forever unless it's challenged and corrected.

 

The good news is that Cushman says Vetri was in the episode, too.

Wait, did I say good news?