fred freiberger : hack or hapless?
- Thread starter PCz911
- Start date
- Status
The source is mostly the 50-year mission Vol1 book and everything I've stated can be referenced there with the exception of my personal FF bashing, which is mostly due to my being upset about s2 s1999. If you haven't seen it and if you don't care for S1999 s1, it's irrelevant. FF had a long career. That much I will stipulate.
Cushman, sadly, is repeatedly quoted as a source in that book.
I don't think it's fair in general to assume the network is the "villain." Networks don't make their decisions arbitrarily and capriciously. They don't want their shows to fail; they want them to succeed so they can make a profit. But making TV is a very, very expensive thing to do, so even if they love a show, they can't keep making it if it's costing them too much money. Yes, sometimes they make bad decisions that end up hurting their shows, but it's not out of malice, not as a rule, anyway.
Ultimately, most of the time, it's the audience that decides what shows succeed or fail, by whether they watch those shows or not. The reason science fiction has historically had a hard time surviving on television is because, until relatively recently, it was a niche genre, not as popular as mainstream shows, so SF shows tended to get lower ratings. They also tend to be more expensive to make than mainstream shows because of all the special effects and the futuristic/alien/fantasy things that have to be created. (The reason TOS had so many Earth-parallel worlds is because that was the only way to make the show affordable.) Between the greater expense and the smaller audience, it's always been much harder for an SF show to turn a profit than a mainstream show. It's easier now, since SF/fantasy has become more mainstream and digital effects allow doing more elaborate visuals for less money, but for the majority of TV history, SF shows all struggled to survive. Sometimes network execs didn't care for them or understand them or support them well enough, but at other times they did their very best to support genre shows, but those shows still had trouble turning a profit.
Huh? Of course it was the case. After all, Paramount Television was a major production company. It's produced hundreds of different series over the decades. Star Trek was just one of many. Even at the time Desilu was renamed to Paramount Television, it was also producing Mission: Impossible and Mannix, and those shows both continued for years after Star Trek was cancelled. And Paramount Television kept on making more and more shows after that, multiple new pilots and series every season, because that's what TV studios do.
What remaining crew? Coon, Fontana, and Lucas were no longer on staff. Roddenberry was no longer hands-on. Justman left halfway through season 3, and he was responsible for the logistical side of production rather than the creative side. Indeed, a large part of the problem that Freiberger and his story consultant Arthur H. Singer had is that there wasn't really anyone left to show them the ropes and teach them how the series was supposed to work.
And remember what I said -- season 2 was hardly perfect. It had stock TV racial stereotypes passed off as aliens, it (and season 1) had fewer strong female characters than season 3 did, and it had a lot of simplistic villains/threats defeated with violence. So it can't be correct to say that the third season's merits were exclusively due to staffers from former seasons, because there were some things season 3 arguably did better than season 2.
Again, yes, obviously season 3 is worthy of criticism for its concepts and writing. But it did manage to capture ST's values pretty well, and I think it deserves credit for that. Which is a better ending -- defeating an evil hate-mongering energy being by making peace with the enemy and laughing together to drive it off, or defeating an evil fear-generating energy being by drugging the whole crew into a torpor and disintegrating the poor guy who served as its unwitting host? Which is better, defeating alien abductor/torturers by reminding them of their own innate capacity for compassion, or defeating alien abductor/slavers by winning a gladiatorial contest and trusting them to honor the terms of the bet? Season 2 tends to get praised more highly than season 3, and in a lot of ways it deserved that, but in other ways it was often pretty shallow.
Off topic, but what was Cushman's motive for 'writing' the 'Voyages' trilogy?
When i joined a couple days ago, I thought I missed the boat on discussing this book. I didn't realize that most haven't read it yet. What struck me about it is that it's comprised of everyone's viewpoint. It doesn't have an overall narrative that quotes here and there. It's basically titles each comment with the person's name and affiliation with Trek and then what they say. For example in the course of 2 pages my opinion of Gene dropped, rose, dropped again, and rose again considerably. The book forces you to make up your mind. It makes this book hard to discredit in my opinion. It's also a frustrating read, but if you care about Trek from a production standpoint, it's essential. Vol 2 comes out in a few days.
make up your own mind I meant. Sorry, still can't edit
Off topic, but what was Cushman's motive for 'writing' the 'Voyages' trilogy?
To answer that question one needs to use the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. There are also a few things to keep in mind. First, the publisher of Cushman's books is "Jacobs Brown Press". It sounds legit, but in actuality the books are self-published and "Jacobs Brown" is a front. Knowing that the publisher is not an actual publisher, using the "Wayback Machine" and going to the snapshot taken on October 6, 2013, you can see bios of the people that work at Jacobs Brown. The bio of interest, and the probable answer to your question, is the person named, "Matthew Williams Brown II".
It states, "Matthew Williams Brown II was born in San Diego in the mid 1950s and, after three decades working in Los Angeles as screenwriter, as well as an author, magazine feature writer, film and video director/producer, college media instructor, and even, for about a week, movie critic, all under various noms de plume..."
This bio is very similar to Marc Cushman's, who was born "Matthew Marc Cushman". Marc was also born in San Diego. Marc has also worked as a screenwriter, author, film and video director/producer and college media instructor. You can view his bio here.
Also in the bio of Matthew Williams Brown II is this statement, which I believe to be the answer to your question, "What was Cushman's motive for 'writing' the 'Voyages' trilogy?" The bio says, "It is not our attention [sic] at J/B to crank out a great deal of product. I’ve done that under various pseudonyms and now look forward to putting my stamp, and my name, on product I can be proud of."
Marc Cushman has used various pseudonyms since 1986 in the porn industry. Those names include Cash Markman, Bill Dollars, Sterling Pounds, Penny Nichols and Frank Marks. In terms of cranking out product, since 1986 he's written over 800, directed over 300 and produced over 200 adult films. Having his name now attached to Star Trek gets him something he can be proud of. It's just too bad he's a poor scholar and his self-published books are riddled with errors.
Neil
^^Upon reading that he worked in the porn business, that is enough to convince me what type of individual he is.
Agree, Kevin Wolff.
I believe johnnybear meant the second season arrival "....when he came on board.." of Fred Freiberger, not season one.
You are correct, I missed that. Thanks for the clarificationAgree, Kevin Wolff.
I believe johnnybear meant the second season arrival "....when he came on board.." of Fred Freiberger, not season one.
Time for some research
. But seriously, he is in the book, but most of my quotes from the book were from the production and and story editing perspective. In case I haven't said it already, I highly recommend this book.
Time for some research
You are talking about Cushman's "These Are The Voyages" books, correct? I've been tempted to buy them, but the bad publicity posted here and elsewhere makes me wary.
Just got promoted! That's lieutenant to you, ensign whomever ( he or she doesn't need to know the junior part)
No, I'm referring to Star Trek: The Fifty year Mission Vol1 that covers the beginning through ST6. Vol 2 comes out on the 30th in the US and covers TNG to Abramsverse. It covers mostly the production aspect of Trek which is what we are all discussing mostly. It doesn't heavily cover creativity the way "The making of" and other books do.
Many thanks! Congrats on your promotion.
I've read it.Time for some research
Neil
What I've skimmed through was a breezy read, but the book does have a few things about that bother me. For one thing, there's no indication of when each quote was given. Roddenberry of the '60s was a very different person than Roddenberry of the '80s. David Gerrold's opinions about Roddenberry changed dramatically following their public falling out over TNG.
I also saw a lot of filler in the book -- I have no idea why an oral history of Star Trek is citing the opinion of Chris Pratt, for example, except that the authors must have been either excited to talk to him, or hoped he'd promote their book on social media. I've already made my opinion of Mr. Cushman's scholarship abundantly clear -- it is error-ridden and prone to outright fabrication -- his inclusion means that I will never buy a new copy of this book.
Finally, the editing left something to be desired. I'm all for balance, but when certain speakers are making claims that are verifiably untrue without correction or commentary (David Gerrold says that Roddenberry never worked as a writer under another producer, for example, which is incredibly wrong) it only continues to foster a behind the scenes mythology that has little relation to the truth.
The Name of the Game was a 90-minute drama series revolving around the publishing company Howard Publications, with three rotating stars: Gene Barry, Tony Franciosa and Robert Stack. Bracken's World, set at the fictional Century Studios (wink-wink), featured an ensemble cast and the voice of Warren Stevens as studio boss John Bracken (heard over intercom speakers but not seen). In the show's second season, Bracken became an on-screen character played by Leslie Nielsen.
If I'm not mistaken MI was Desilu orignanally also and part of Paramount's gripe with these expensive shows. Also what I said was that in this case NBC was NOT the villain, villain being a metaphor for the usual antagonist who gets in one's way.
I meant Paramount didn't have an expensive cutting edge show on deck. They went away from Scifi. It's no criticism of their business practices. That's a completely different discussion.
All comments are about how Trek didn't fit the mold of TV production at the time. SciFi is financial risk, even now. For example, the book talks about how Planet of the Titans and the tv movie model were rejected because Paramount said world-building a new show without at least a full season commitment is not profitable. That makes sense. That's how it went back to tv with Phase 2 before Star Wars changed the game.
The book talks about Shatner's and Nimoy's ego growing season by season, but also how they were a creative force in s3 helping FF to preserve Trek integrity. They cared about the show and their characters. The book ( you know, they left it here. The other ship. The Horizon.
) also claims that Gene was on the outside since Coon took over, but Gene never stopped reviewing scripts and sending notes, even in s3. I was surprised to read this. Your points on s2 and s3 are valid. Gene Coon, invariably seen as a great, hard-working man, made Trek more accessible and opened it up to some of the criticisms and jokes that came later (Beam me up, Scotty, Tribbles as villains, The constant Kirk/spock/mccoy landing party etc. I realized after reading about him that polarized Trek fans are in either the Roddenberry or Coon camp. Roddenberry was criticized for not knowing what the show was in s1 and Coon brought it together in s2. I feel it's the reverse. I loved the diverse storytelling of s1 and it is my favorite season so I found out after years of criticizing Roddenberry for TNG s1 and S2, it turned out he did the stuff I liked most in TOS.
I agree completely. I too was bothered by and skipped the Chris Pratt sections. I also skimmed and skipped anyone who was giving an opinion based on hearsay (Rod). I'm really only quoting those that were there for TOS. The book is a mess editing-wise but to me it feels like the most comprehensive account of what really happened so far.
- Status
