Putting the Shatner "ego issue" from TOS to rest

[TREK_GOD_1]

R. Star wrote:

---

. How much bigger of an ego can you get than that?

Probably the ego from the guy who took what--no more than 15 minutes worth of screen time on TOS (even less on TAS), and elevated that to Sulu deserving not only his own ship, but a TV series. Nothing touches that level of delusional self-importance.

Honestly, that would be as bad if the actress who portrayed Scrubs' minor supporting character nurse Laverne campaigned for Laverne the Series, because her fans think she's "all that", and should be on the level of the Scrubs stars/series focus.

Actually, that may not be the best example, because Laverne had about 10 times the amount of screen time/dialogue as Sulu, and more character develpment.

I guess that means Takei really has no grounds to even think of a Sulu series!

[A beaker full of death]

R. Star wrote:

---

Star Trek V, written by Shatner... Kirk is of so epic proportions that the proper antagonist for him is God... and God dies. How much bigger of an ego can you get than that?

oh please. The theme was pure Roddenberry.

SPOILER, it seems...
it wasn't actually God.

[trevanian]

A beaker full of death wrote:

---

oh please. The theme was pure Roddenberry.

SPOILER, it seems...
it wasn't actually God.

Roddenberry's ego issues may not have gotten the same play, but his had to have been way up in the Stratos-phere ...

Doing the ALL MY WORDS IN CAPS thing in TMoST was a little annoying, but then there was that coffee table book Pocket had to pulp because Nimoy wouldn't sign off on it ... that was because GR was supposedly the only person quoted in the book, like he invented every aspect of the the first 25 years of Trek. Steve Roby's site has a slightly different take on the reason, but I think it still ties back into Nimoy/GR issues.

[AtoZ]

trevanian wrote:

---

Roddenberry's ego issues may not have gotten the same play, but his had to have been way up in the Stratos-phere ...

Doing the ALL MY WORDS IN CAPS thing in TMoST was a little annoying, but then there was that coffee table book Pocket had to pulp because Nimoy wouldn't sign off on it ... that was because GR was supposedly the only person quoted in the book, like he invented every aspect of the the first 25 years of Trek. Steve Roby's site has a slightly different take on the reason, but I think it still ties back into Nimoy/GR issues.

You make a very good point about Roddenberry likely having a monumental ego.

Strangely, reading Justman's accounts in his book some years back I was taken with the similarities between his description of Roddenberry, many of his recollections of said boss and Gene's entire style of negotiation and avoidance of responsibility. It was almost to a point very much like the co-owner of a company I once worked for as an operations manager....right down to the late night brainstorming and other sordid dalliances. Given my experiences with that character and the similarities with Roddenberry, I have no trouble at all pinning 'Bird' as having a massive ego despite never having actually met the man.

[Harvey]

trevanian wrote:

---

Doing the ALL MY WORDS IN CAPS thing in TMoST was a little annoying, but then there was that coffee table book Pocket had to pulp because Nimoy wouldn't sign off on it ... that was because GR was supposedly the only person quoted in the book, like he invented every aspect of the the first 25 years of Trek. Steve Roby's site has a slightly different take on the reason, but I think it still ties back into Nimoy/GR issues.

I assume the pulped book you are talking about is Star Trek: The First 25 Years?

If that's the case, where does the anecdote about it only quoting Roddenberry come from?

The Complete Star Trek Library -- quoting from Susan Sackett's memoir -- confirms that Nimoy didn't sign off on the book, but for a different reason than the one you suggest:

According to Sackett, the rumor that Leonard Nimoy was responsible for the book's cancellation is true. First he was late in signing off on photos of him in the book, and then he wanted editorial changes made to the text of the book. After a closed-doors meeting with Roddenberry, his lawyer Leonard Maizlish, Leonard Nimoy, and his attorney (but not Sackett), Maizlish told Sackett "that the book was on hold because Leonard Nimoy didn't think the prose 'lofty enough,' as Maizlish put it, and wanted it more in the style of someone like Bill Moyers." [p.189]

http://www.well.com/~sjroby/lostbooks.html

[trevanian]

Harvey wrote:

---

I assume the pulped book you are talking about is Star Trek: The First 25 Years?

If that's the case, where does the anecdote about it only quoting Roddenberry come from?

I SAID his page had a different recollection of the event but that it involved Nimoy/GR issues. I'm pretty sure I first read about this in CINEFANTASTIQUE -- and this was during the Mark Altman era, when they were still on top of their game -- that instead of having loads of quotes from everybody as planned, it was pretty much all GR, and Nimoy took issue with that. Since Nimoy had (may still have for all I know) veto power over anything containing his likeness, he vetoed.

This kind of thing isn't a one-off ... very recently, the lady who re-voiced nearly all of the early Bond girls came out with her autobiography, but was forced to pulp the run because Roger Moore withdrew permission to use his introduction ... That's a case of really playing foul pool, as we're talking an elderly lady with scant resources, somebody who is being picked on by the current Bond producers (hey, I won't discriminate, ALL of the Bond producers were sue-happy jerks) because she is daring to say that she got nothing on the back end for her work.

So I guess they can pull Roger Moore's strings as easily as ever to screw this woman over, just like the previous producers tried to trash the first honest book about Bond, THE JAMES BOND FILMS, by making sure the author had no access to pictures with which to illustrate the volume, so he had to get them all from wire services and the like ... and that was a dedicated Bond fan who wasn't looking to screw them over, and in fact would have been a better choice to look after their interests than the guys they have doing all that stuff for them now. !

[trevanian]

EDIT ADD-ON: while there is stuff in the Sackett book that was of interest, it is still hard to judge its accuracy.

Remember, this is the lady who wrote The Making of ST-TMP, and managed to get so much stuff wrong because she mostly showed things from the studio's side. Brick Price gave huge interviews with her detailing his involvement in the props as well as his Phase 2 ENT model work, but in her section about props, she doesn't mention him; instead she makes it sound like the studio's prop man (the guy who hands the props to the actors) actually came up with all this stuff, and wired the gags (not the physical effects guy?!)

So in terms of how screwed over she was on this book or what it contained ... well, I'd be interested in hearing Dillard's side. Was so much of it Sackett's work? maybe ...

[Harvey]

trevanian wrote:

---

I SAID his page had a different recollection of the event but that it involved Nimoy/GR issues.

Whoops! I wasn't familiar with the name of the person who runs that website, just the name of the site itself. My apologies...

I suppose the another issue with Sackett's account (which I haven't read) is that she wasn't in the meeting about the book, and her source (Roddenberry's lawyer) isn't exactly renowned for his trustworthiness.

I haven't read all of The Making of Star Trek--The Motion Picture, but Sackett's introduction reads like Gene Roddenberry's preferred history of the series. In other words, one that (a) diminishes, ignores, or takes credit for the contributions of as many other people as possible and (b) flatters his fan base.

[jayrath]

Holy cow, what difference does it make? I'm far more concerned with how everyone is wildly speculating over supposed motivations of possible hurts committed more than 40 years ago.

The series is what it is. Enjoy it on its face. Or don't.

How come no one ever suggests wild, mad theories about how nice someone back then was?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

R. Star wrote:

---

I didn't read the whole thread so maybe this was touched upon... but the Shatner ego?

Star Trek V, written by Shatner... Kirk is of so epic proportions that the proper antagonist for him is God... and God dies. How much bigger of an ego can you get than that?

Shatner wrote part of the story for ST V, but not the actual screenplay. And he did direct it though.

And for his part, every one of his co-stars has always said that purely as a director, Shat was entirely professional and had none of the ego issues he had as an actor on the series itself. Working for him when he directed that film was always pleasant for them, and they said so. However hard he was to get along with as a fellow actor? Irrelevant. As a director, he earned and was given all the respect.

[DalekJim]

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

---

Probably the ego from the guy who took what--no more than 15 minutes worth of screen time on TOS (even less on TAS), and elevated that to Sulu deserving not only his own ship, but a TV series. Nothing touches that level of delusional self-importance.

Oh, don't get me started on that man's obsession with self-publicity. For a bit player who did little more than say "Aye, air!", Takei is a seriously entitled media whore.

He should take a leaf out of Leonard Nimoy's book and learn some humility. And Nimoy was uh.... one of the actual stars!

[ZapBrannigan]

I just saw Takei as a guest judge on a "reality" (yeah) show called KING OF THE NERDS. I gave up on the show before he spoke up, though. It's pretty weak. They try to capture the joy of genre hobbies that's portrayed on THE BIG BANG THEORY, but it comes across as forced, and there are just so many facets to "nerd culture" that the contestants seem to have no common culture or shared interests among them.

[TREK_GOD_1]

jayrath wrote:

---

How come no one ever suggests wild, mad theories about how nice someone back then was?

Lowbrow entertainment gossip is almost as old as the film business, but now more than ever, filth sells to a culture with an overwhelming thrist for filth, with the media--including so-called legitimate news sources encouraging it. This allows Takei to go on and on like the screaming girl he is, trying to convince the world that Sulu was on the fasttrack for "higher office," while that same world knows he was a bit player at best.

Honestly, Takei's position would be as assbrained if the late Stafford Repp (Batman's Chief O'Hara) spent the remainder of his life claiming O'Hara was supposed to be as important as the superheroes, but blamed Adam West or Burt Ward for removing lines which would have elevated the character to that never-gonna-happen level.

Thankfully, some supporting actors understood their position, while others....well others turned into Takei.

[Trek Survivor]

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

---

Lowbrow entertainment gossip is almost as old as the film business, but now more than ever, filth sells to a culture with an overwhelming thrist for filth, with the media--including so-called legitimate news sources encouraging it. This allows Takei to go on and on like the screaming girl he is, trying to convince the world that Sulu was on the fasttrack for "higher office," while that same world knows he was a bit player at best.

Honestly, Takei's position would be as assbrained if the late Stafford Repp (Batman's Chief O'Hara) spent the remainder of his life claiming O'Hara was supposed to be as important as the superheroes, but blamed Adam West or Burt Ward for removing lines which would have elevated the character to that never-gonna-happen level.

Thankfully, some supporting actors understood their position, while others....well others turned into Takei.

Good comparison, though I think Chief O'Hara probably had more lines than Sulu!!

Slightly off-topic, but I was intrigued to read that the actors who played O'Hara and Commissioner Gordon really DIDN'T get on... it's not just Trek where this sort of thing is focused on.

[The Mirrorball Man]

ZapBrannigan wrote:

---

Agreed, but I find myself wondering if there was an aspect of sibling rivalry involved. The VOYAGER writers, producers, director, etc., might have subconsciously wanted the prior "generation" guest stars to come off badly so that VOYAGER itself would look better by comparison.

I don't think that's what happened. Tim Russ was awful in those flashback scenes.