Star Trek Publicity Myths

[Warped9]

I think the 11-foot was too large for that kind of wire work, which would rob the model of the steady movement necessary to sell the idea of it being massive. Even using the miniatures of Jupiter 2 (largest measuring 4 ft.) & Flying Sub (largest measuring 3 ft.), there was the occasional wobble, when one would think both offered greater control.

Imagine how that would have worked with the 11 ft. Enterprise.

It wouldn't have. The thing weighed 225 pounds. The model appears to have been suspended from a stationary wire for some of the early FX shots, but I don't think it could ever have been swooshed past the camera on a Lydecker rig.

I believe it's been established the 3-footer was used for the fast fly-by sequences.

 

[Christopher]

I believe it's been established the 3-footer was used for the fast fly-by sequences.

Wouldn't make a difference. For bluescreen work, it would've always been the camera that moved past the model, not the other way around. A "fast" flyby would probably be done by filming at a slow camera speed so it would go faster when played back normally.

It is possible to use an equivalent moving-camera approach for in-camera mattes like those used in Space: 1999. Just move the camera for the pass where you film the model ship, then keep it stationary for the pass where you film the background stars or planet or whatever. They basically did it that way in 2001, which also used latent-image, in-camera composite effects rather than bluescreen mattes -- and which did move the camera past the stationary Discovery model.

 

[Maurice]

...The thing weighed 225 pounds. The model appears to have been suspended from a stationary wire for some of the early FX shots, but I don't think it could ever have been swooshed past the camera on a Lydecker rig.

The 11'2" model could hang by a wire as originally built, but once the lights were added that was no longer practical.

...Just move the camera for the pass where you film the model ship, then keep it stationary for the pass where you film the background stars or planet or whatever. They basically did it that way in 2001, which also used latent-image, in-camera composite effects rather than bluescreen mattes -- and which did move the camera past the stationary Discovery model.

Along with a WHOLE lot of hand painted rotomattes to fix the glitches or for shots where that technique wasn't feasible.

 

[K'Toska]

Famous stories that were probably total baloney.

The network execs didn't want a female first officer (number one). Actually they loved the idea, they just didn't want Majel Barrett in the role.

WHAT. Sorry. Do you happen to know where I could find more info about this? I don't understand why they didn't want her in that role. I friggin' love Majel Barrett.

 

[Christopher]

WHAT. Sorry. Do you happen to know where I could find more info about this?

Inside Star Trek: The Real Story by Herb Solow and Bob Justman is one of the best sources.

I don't understand why they didn't want her in that role. I friggin' love Majel Barrett.

Well, A, she wasn't a very experienced actress at the time, at least not compared to other potential candidates (I think Lee Meriwether was considered). And B, she was Roddenberry's mistress at the time, and there were concerns over the appropriateness of that.

 

[K'Toska]

WHAT. Sorry. Do you happen to know where I could find more info about this?

Inside Star Trek: The Real Story by Herb Solow and Bob Justman is one of the best sources.

I don't understand why they didn't want her in that role. I friggin' love Majel Barrett.

Well, A, she wasn't a very experienced actress at the time, at least not compared to other potential candidates (I think Lee Meriwether was considered). And B, she was Roddenberry's mistress at the time, and there were concerns over the appropriateness of that.

Ah, fair enough. I thought her few performances in TOS were good, but she really won me over as Lwaxana Troi. Her acting probably improved quite a bit since then. I'll check out that book - thanks! I guess the upside is that if she'd been cast to play a major role in TOS, we might not have her as the voice of the computer. I can't imagine anyone else fulfilling that role!

 

[Warped9]

Believe it or not but I believe Jeanne Bal--who played Nancy Crater in "The Man Trao"--was one of the actresses listed as a possible candidate for the role of Number One. That said I think Roddenberry intended all along for Majel Barrett to get the role and a list of other possible actresses was probably mostly for show.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

At this juncture, it's probably worthwhile to note that, in "Turnabout Intruder," Kirk/Lester threatened to execute a party on the hangar deck, presumably by firing squad, and security evidently would have actually done it, were those orders not countermanded. The story-by credit for that episode goes to none other than Gene Roddenberry.

It would be interesting to know whether Roddenberry himself can take credit for that.

It is also noteworthy that none of the officers shown would have supported it and the evidence of security carrying that out is very meager. There was incredible outrage by all shown characters at that "order" and a vague statement about security obeying him is not conclusive.

There wasn't any evidence presented that security was showing any doubts either, as they had been obeying Kirk/Lester up to that point, despite the absurdity of his/her orders. The threat of execution was the "peril" that the characters were in. If you take that away, then the characters weren't in actual danger and there was no drama. This was a poorly written episode, and the implausibility of the character danger is just another reason why. On its own terms, though, for it to function as the source of drama at all, the danger must be real. Ergo, the author's intent was that security was going to obey, as ridiculous as that was.

 

[The Old Mixer]

In a military organization that had a general order enabling starship captains to decimate populated planets, an execution order might not have seemed so out of the question for some security grunts...the justification for it would have been way above their pay grade.

 

[Melakon]

...The thing weighed 225 pounds. The model appears to have been suspended from a stationary wire for some of the early FX shots, but I don't think it could ever have been swooshed past the camera on a Lydecker rig.

The 11'2" model could hang by a wire as originally built, but once the lights were added that was no longer practical.

...Just move the camera for the pass where you film the model ship, then keep it stationary for the pass where you film the background stars or planet or whatever. They basically did it that way in 2001, which also used latent-image, in-camera composite effects rather than bluescreen mattes -- and which did move the camera past the stationary Discovery model.

Along with a WHOLE lot of hand painted rotomattes to fix the glitches or for shots where that technique wasn't feasible.

If I remember right, some of the 2001 space effects were also photo cut-outs on an animation stand, a technique later used in Space: 1999.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

In a military organization that had a general order enabling starship captains to decimate populated planets, an execution order might not have seemed so out of the question for some security grunts...the justification for it would have been way above their pay grade.

Well, that's how the episode was playing out, for sure.

And, that would certainly fly in the face of the notion that Starfleet isn't a military organization. Call it whatever you like—military, non-military, or whatever—but, when you have officers and/or enlisted personnel who will blindly follow orders in the application of lethal force, then a military organization is really exactly what you have.

Granted, the characterization of Starfleet as a non-military organization was emphasized only in the TNG era, but still.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Yeah, that's a Picard-era conceit...in TOS, they never said that Starfleet wasn't a military organization...and I believe there was at least one odd reference to Kirk being a "soldier", though don't ask me where.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Yeah, that's a Picard-era conceit...in TOS, they never said that Starfleet wasn't a military organization...and I believe there was at least one odd reference to Kirk being a "soldier", though don't ask me where.

"Errand of Mercy," I believe.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Right you are: "I'm a soldier, not a diplomat." (Had to look it up.)

 

[Harvey]

"However, having read Ellison's draft, which is very good, I can say that in my opinion, Roddenberry was right to heavily revise it; it was good, but it wasn't exactly Star Trek. Roddenberry took it and turned it into Star Trek, and vintage Star Trek at that. We here at Where No Blog Has Gone Before love ya, Harlan . . . but you ain't always right, and this was one of those times when you were mostly not."

It's important to remember that it took Ellison most of the first season to write the script to COTEOF, so what Star Trek was was still in the process of being discovered, as not many episodes were in the can when Ellison started writing. So I think he can be forgiven for it not entirely jibing with the Star Trek that we know.

Yeah, it's weird to think of the Enterprise we know having a firing squad execute an officer for drug-dealing on the Enterprise, but if it's happened somewhere in the first few episodes, we wouldn't think it so strange. Heck, one of Roddenberry's early drafts of "The Cage" had April/Pike throwing a crewman off his ship for opening fire on a non-humanoid alien species.

At this juncture, it's probably worthwhile to note that, in "Turnabout Intruder," Kirk/Lester threatened to execute a party on the hangar deck, presumably by firing squad, and security evidently would have actually done it, were those orders not countermanded. The story-by credit for that episode goes to none other than Gene Roddenberry.

It would be interesting to know whether Roddenberry himself can take credit for that.

From Roddenberry's story outline:

​

​But they reckon without Janice’s ambition-driven intelligence. This very conversation of McCoy’s and Scott’s “conspiracy with mutineers” has been recorded -- and McCoy, Scott, and the prisoners finding themselves looking into the business end of phasers held by Security Guards backing their Captain in the announcement that they are convicted by their own words of mutiny. The bogus Kirk announces that with all his senior officers against him, this is an extreme emergency which forces the Captain to disregard the limitations of Starfleet regulations. The sentence is death, immediate execution.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

Yeah, that's a Picard-era conceit...in TOS, they never said that Starfleet wasn't a military organization...and I believe there was at least one odd reference to Kirk being a "soldier", though don't ask me where.

GR was apparently turning into a hippie, which was perfectly compatible with the sympathies of most of the Hollywood types he was working with anyway.

So Starfleet was a uniformed, armed service with naval ranks and titles, that fought the Federation's space battles, but it wasn't "the military." And that's ridiculous.

 

[Christopher]

GR was apparently turning into a hippie, which was perfectly compatible with the sympathies of most of the Hollywood types he was working with anyway.

Then how come so many Hollywood movies and shows glorify violence and gunplay? How come Hollywood movies are so backward when it comes to ethnic and gender diversity? The claim that Hollywood is ruled by liberal sensibilities is malarkey. Hollywood is ruled by wealthy businessmen, who tend to be conservative -- although their decisions about what to put onscreen has more to do with what they think audiences will pay to see than with anything ideological or political. And creators and performers include as wide a mix of different political views as you'll find anywhere else.

So Starfleet was a uniformed, armed service with naval ranks and titles, that fought the Federation's space battles, but it wasn't "the military." And that's ridiculous.

Indeed. You don't even have to fight battles to be a military. Sure, a military is an armed service, but it can be strictly defensive (like the Japan Self Defense Force), and it's not like militaries do nothing during peacetime. Real-world militaries don't just fight, they also engage in engineering projects, scientific research and exploration, international diplomacy and law enforcement, medical and humanitarian relief missions, peacekeeping missions like treaty verification... in short, real militaries today do everything Starfleet does, even if you leave combat out of the equation. Starfleet is not warlike, but that doesn't mean it isn't a military.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It would be interesting to know whether Roddenberry himself can take credit for that.

From Roddenberry's story outline:

​

​But they reckon without Janice’s ambition-driven intelligence. This very conversation of McCoy’s and Scott’s “conspiracy with mutineers” has been recorded -- and McCoy, Scott, and the prisoners finding themselves looking into the business end of phasers held by Security Guards backing their Captain in the announcement that they are convicted by their own words of mutiny. The bogus Kirk announces that with all his senior officers against him, this is an extreme emergency which forces the Captain to disregard the limitations of Starfleet regulations. The sentence is death, immediate execution.

Well, there we go. Thanks for digging that up, Harvey!

 

[Warped9]

Starfleet is not warlike, but that doesn't mean it isn't a military.

A very good distinction.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

GR was apparently turning into a hippie, which was perfectly compatible with the sympathies of most of the Hollywood types he was working with anyway.

Then how come so many Hollywood movies and shows glorify violence and gunplay? How come Hollywood movies are so backward when it comes to ethnic and gender diversity? The claim that Hollywood is ruled by liberal sensibilities is malarkey. Hollywood is ruled by wealthy businessmen, who tend to be conservative -- although their decisions about what to put onscreen has more to do with what they think audiences will pay to see than with anything ideological or political. And creators and performers include as wide a mix of different political views as you'll find anywhere else.

I must disagree with you a several points.

- I think movies and TV glorify violence in order to make more money, as you said, but the executives behind it all are indeed people of the left-- and immense hypocrites.

- I do not think Hollywood movies are backward in the area of diversity. It's my understanding that some minority groups are actually over-represented on screen compared to their proportion of the actual population. At the very least, the matter is somewhat subjective. And again the decisions are surely money-driven.

- I agree that Hollywood is run by wealthy businessmen, but it is absolutely false to suggest that they are conservative, or that the wealthy in America are conservative in general. The majority of the very rich are not conservatives.

The American left has forged a top-and-bottom coalition of the very rich and the poor. They favor an endless supply of cheap labor coming in from the Third Word, endless Federal Reserve support for the stock market (zero interest rates), and an endless array of welfare benefits for the poor (in 2010 there were about 185 means-tested Federal programs).

The very rich and the poor benefit from all of that (in the short run). But people in the middle, with ordinary jobs and savings accounts, are the ones who pay, and that's where the political right finds the great majority of its votes nowadays. The left's top-and-bottom coalition strategy is not a secret or denied by one side. This stuff is not in dispute.

So anyway, be aware that the rich in Hollywood today are not conservatives. They would be very offended to hear you say that.