• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Fact-Checking Inside Star Trek: The Real Story

Hmmm. Ellison disputes some of their recollections about City, especially about him being drunk, since he doesn't drink. There are some other inaccuracies I spotted, but I can't think of any offhand. I'd have to go through the book again.

Who here has the authority to label anything "inaccurate"? I, for, one, have always faulted Ellison's claims regarding Justman's statements regarding the budget as hogwash. Who has more legitimacy to speak to the programs budget, the man who had his hands in it (Justman) or a disgruntled writer who, more than likely, never saw a page of the series financial books (Ellison)? I'd say Justman is the far more credible source on all things related to TOS's first season budget considerations and constraints.

There can be multiple versions of an incident and to each teller they speaking the truth. Recollections are filled with instances of confirmation bias. It's natural. Doesn't mean anyone is liar as they are usually sincere in telling THEIR truth. I do exempt Ellison from that as I believe he would knowingly put out a false statement to further his point. I also reject Ellison's challenge to Roddenberry's right to determine what was or wasn't "right" for Star Trek. Also, Harlan certainly didn't mind re-writing other folks scripts which I feel made him a hypocrite considering how irrational he got when he was re-written.
 
Verified by Grace Lee Whitney who dated him for a bit. She talks about it in her book (I think that's where I read it) - that she would drink, and he would say "how can you stand that stuff."

Ellison may not have consumed alcohol, but that doesn't mean he didn't indulge in other things. Too many folks have gone on record as stating they found him acting in a way that led them to believe he was drunk. That could have been a contextual inference. So he, in truth, could have been "high" on something other than life. His demeanor has always led me to believe that at some point he did "things". LSD, for example, was a fad in the 50's in terms of legitimate psychotherapies - Ellison strikes me as the bold and curious type who may have given it a go (Cary Grant did).
 
Hmmm. Ellison disputes some of their recollections about City, especially about him being drunk, since he doesn't drink. There are some other inaccuracies I spotted, but I can't think of any offhand. I'd have to go through the book again.
^^^
I posted that five years ago.

You only quoted part of that post, leaving out the significant caveat, as below:
We should also be aware this is a memoir, so virtually every dialog in it is a best a paraphrase, because who can really remember exactly what was said in a conversation 30 years hence.

Who here has the authority to label anything "inaccurate"?
Oh I dunno, since Harvey's basically been digging through Roddenberry;as papers for years I think he's got a helluva more credibility on matters of Star Trek's production than most. No one can be all-seeing and all-knowing, but people like him work hard to try to get as close the objective truth as is humanly possible.

I, for, one, have always faulted Ellison's claims regarding Justman's statements regarding the budget as hogwash. Who has more legitimacy to speak to the programs budget, the man who had his hands in it (Justman) or a disgruntled writer who, more than likely, never saw a page of the series financial books (Ellison)? I'd say Justman is the far more credible source on all things related to TOS's first season budget considerations and constraints.
Since you opened that can of worms, here goes nothing...

Thanks to several folks I've read many of the development drafts of "City" (including the wretched Carabatsos draft) and a lot of the memos that circulated around them. And because of that I've been for some time critical of Justman's assessment of the costs of Harlan's scripts, as—based on having read the scripts myself—he rather dramatically exaggerated the issues instead of, oh I dunno doing his job and suggesting how to bring the budget in line. Justman wrote funny memos, but sometimes he let his snark overwhelm him to the point where he was being anti-helpful. In fact, GR called out several staffers on this in a "knock it off" memo.

I'm not claiming to have "the authority to label anything 'inaccurate', but I have seen the documentation and I have some background in film and TV and new media production, so make of my opinions what you will.

And that's all I'm going to say about that for now.
 
Last edited:
Oh I dunno, since Harvey's basically been digging through Roddenberry;as papers for years I think he's got a helluva more credibility on matters of Star Trek's production than most.

Except for, with all due respect, those whose actual job it was. Hearsay, in the end, is still hearsay and should be treated as such. I think most folks involved, like Justman, were honorable guys. Not perfect but honorable therefore I am hesitant to call them liars or assign negative motivations to them based on speculations.

No one can be all-seeing and all-knowing, but people like him work hard to try to get as close the objective truth as in humanly possible.

"Objective truth?" A lot reads to be more spin than "objective truth." We know the series would spend more on some episodes and compensate when it came to others. At what state was the series budgeting when it came time for "City On The Edge of Forever?" Factually, not speculatively?

… he [Justman] rather dramatically exaggerated the issues instead of, oh I dunno doing his job and suggesting how to bring the budget in line. Justman wrote funny memos, but sometimes he let his snark overwhelm him to the point where he was being anti-helpful. In fact, GR called out several staffers on this in a "knock it off" memo.

Well, a "knock it off" memo is not the same as a "you're numbers and projections are wrong" memo. He may not have communicated it in the best terms but no one at the time challenged the validity.
 
They had enough money (or at least spent enough money) that late in the season for original score. The other two seasons didn't have any new music after around the first of the new calendar year.

(I don't know if that moves the needle one way or the other.)
 
I may be the only person posting here who has actually spent time with both Bob Justman and Michael Kmet. What both gentleman have in common is an unbelievable attention to detail and a genuinely decent heart. I believe Michael's intentions with this thread and his blog is not to attack Bob Justman and Herb Solow, but to correct the record when the facts can clearly be seen. I believe that's why he calls his blog a "Fact Check". That does not constitute an attack on Justman or Solow - just a matter of taking the time to actually examine what the documents from a relevant time are telling us. Justman actually said as much to Marc Cushman, at least according to Cushman. There's an account from Cushman saying that Justman pointed him to the UCLA files and the original memos and papers, saying that those would be a more reliable source of information about the production of Star Trek than his own memories so many years after the events happened. Reading the actual memos and schedules and callsheets and production reports and budget sheets around a 50 year old episode does not constitute relying on hearsay. Hearsay would be obtained from just listening to an interview with one person about that episode. Or from listening to the opinions of a couple of people about it. But reading the actual paperwork from the time tends to bring a lot more clarity. Which is why I found the surviving papers on "Alternative Factor" interesting.

There are a few inaccuracies in the book by Bob Justman and Herb Solow, but they do not obviate that book's overall reliability. A single example of those inaccuracies comes from the beginning of this thread, wherein Michael details a mistake in the book about whether Alexander Courage continued to write music for Star Trek after the first season. The book states that Courage refused to do so following the scenario of Gene Roddenberry adding his own lyrics to the main title theme to get half the residuals for the music. This turns out to not be the case - Courage in fact did continue to participate - returning to conduct a group of cues for the second season, including some completely new cues that were used in multiple episodes, and a pair of new scores for the third season. Michael's take on this is the same one that Justman apparently gave Cushman - that Justman's memory of Cushman's additional scores must have been a bit foggy. That doesn't erase the rest of the book - it simply provides further information and a correction. And I still rely on the Justman and Solow book - both for information about the original series and for some guidance about dealing with production and studio politics as I have spent my career working in episodic television.

I've read the materials around "City on the Edge" - including Ellison's book about it, Ellison's original script, and multiple accounts of what happened around it - from Justman, from Shatner, from Roddenberry. My take on the material is that Justman was correct that the episode was going to cost a LOT more than they could afford - particularly the early Ellison draft with the pirate ship Condor, the period crowd scenes, the floating city, the fantastical Guardians, the fate of Beckwith in the exploding star, etc. Justman repeatedly states in his memos about the episode that he loved the mystery and the beauty of what Ellison had presented them but felt that there was no way to effectively produce such a script within the limitations they had. The hope that Justman had was that encouraging Ellison to cut it himself would allow them to preserve a lot of it. There was a further issue that Ellison took a long time to deliver the script, but they stayed with him out of respect for him and out of what was clearly Justman's personal friendship with him. Everything that I can see in the timeline indicates that they really wanted to do "City" but in the end could only manage to do what was about 1/3 of what Ellison had written. There's some truth to Roddenberry's comment that many scripts could win awards if there was no barometer on what would be possible for a television series to actually film and air. I note that there was an added problem to the original Ellison version of "City" - it gives us a Captain who is consciously willing to give up not only the ship but the entire universe for the girl of the week (and one he only met about halfway through the story). That's an amazing idea and an amazing choice - for an anthology series. It doesn't really work when the Captain needs to be the lead of a continuing episodic series. For that reason, the staff rewrites - particularly what came from D.C. Fontana - bring the script into something a lot more recognizable as an episode of this particular series. One significant change from the early draft has to do with Kirk's efforts to save Edith. In the Ellison draft, Keeler slips in an earlier scene and Kirk stops himself from doing anything about it; when the big moment of truth happens in the Ellison draft, Kirk freezes and it's Spock who must save everything. After the staff rewrites, this situation is now reversed. Kirk now moves to save Edith from slipping early and is immediately corrected by Spock - but when the big moment of truth happens, Kirk has one moment of wanting to save her and then decisively moves to stop McCoy. It's frankly a stronger ending. Although, like Justman, I miss the beauty of Ellison's draft. The speech from Spock at the end is quite good, and there are many grace notes in Ellison's draft - especially the character of Trooper.

Ellison's reasons for attacking Roddenberry throughout the rest of his life are his own - it's clear that he held a serious grudge. The reason for the grudge is something only those two guys could answer and neither of them is with us any longer. I personally believe it may have something to do with Roddenberry getting Ellison to keep his name on the episode after the rewrites, but there's no way to know for sure. I have also found some issue with some of the criticisms that Ellison made in his book as diverting actual issues into semantics rather than substance.

As I said, I continue to enjoy and rely upon volumes like the Justman/Solow book, just as I have enjoyed pieces like the Return to Tomorrow interview compilation about Star Trek TMP. I have serious issues with some of the other volumes, such as the Cushman books, usually for such a wide spread of major errors that it would take a book of Michael's columns to correct them all. (And the three posts around "Alternative Factor" could well be combined into a short book of its own...) I also have serious issues with attack pieces like the Joel Engel book. But regardless of which book is being discussed, I appreciate Michael's attention to the specifics. His dedication to them has made his blog one that I look forward to seeing as he updates it.
 
I appreciate Myko's clarification about Tom Steele. I had looked up material on the stuntman from that time, who is also featured with a listing at Memory Alpha. I thought about including it in our article but felt that I was going to over-complicate the story here. I'm not certain that the Tom Steele listed on the 11/21/66 PR is the same Tom Steele who did stunts and is pictured as having made an appearance in "Bread & Circuses" without credit. It's definitely possible. I do think that the Carey Foster listed on the PR is the young woman seen sitting at the table with Masters and her assistant. There is a Carey Foster listed at imdb with a handful of small, likely background, roles in productions around that time, usually playing an uncredited "girl" in a scene. And of course, that assumes that imdb listings are accurate, which is always a roll of the dice.

And I honestly don't know much about the people who would regularly work on the original series as BG - aside from one man named Roger Holloway, who worked as a standin and extra on the show. I only know him because my father worked with him a bunch of times in the 1970s and introduced him to me on set as an actor from Star Trek, telling me "He played Mr. Lemli". (I was cast as one of Roger's kids in a sci-fi comedy pilot called "Space Force", where they were doing a gag that alien families were being transported aboard that were completely identical. Roger's family unit of mom-dad-brother-sister was given Roger's look at the time - a mop of dark hair and a bushy 70s moustache - something that was applied to me, to the mom and to my "sister" for the shot.) I did meet a few of the regular SI's and BG from Next Gen when I worked on Voyager, but I haven't seen those guys in eons at this point.

What we do know from that PR is that a Tom Steele and a Carey Foster participated in scenework as speaking performers, but were never credited or included on any other paperwork that we can find. The PR is a bit odd on this, in that the listing for Foster looks directly connected to the BG section - there's one extra who was upgraded to SAG later in the morning and then dismissed when the rec room scene was done. The listing for Steele, is odd because it has a bizarre in time of 2:00, but the same outtime as Foster. I believe that in-time to be a typo and that Steele was in the same scene as Foster and released at the same time. The only other option would be for Steele to have been brought in during the afternoon, and for his dismissal time on the PR to be a typo, which frankly doesn't make any sense. So from what we have, I am inferring that both of them were in the deleted Rec Room scene between Spock and Lazarus - whatever it was they did has been lost - this was not part of the material scavenged by Roddenberry for his Lincoln Enterprises material and recently re-purposed with the "Roddenberry Vault" release.

It's not uncommon to see background players getting upgraded to speaking roles - but usually there's more of a record than what we see here. On various shows I have worked, whenever someone was bumped up to cast, they'd get a credit. The situation here is one where they were simply paid for the upgrade and that was it. That would not be the case with stunts, but there's nothing in the Rec Room that would call for stuntwork, particularly from a young woman sitting at one of the tables. I doubt the Concordance's take on this, for the same reason that you do.

The full story of what happened with these two upgrades is apparently lost to history now. The people involved are long gone from the business (and many from the planet itself), and the few survivors (including Robert Brown) are unlikely to remember who was upgraded to speaking roles on a day on TV shoot over 50 years ago. The best shot we have at this is the basic documentation - the callsheets and the PRs. And if I could get my hands on it, Bob Justman's production board - but even that board wouldn't note anything about extras being upgraded.

What made the research work here interesting was how much went wrong and how they were able to keep going and just shoot SOMETHING. The materials for many 3rd season episodes are readily available but are frankly not that interesting, simply because they just record fairly mundane days. (I might be interested in looking at what happened on "The Tholian Web", just because that one went off the tracks and wound up with its director, Ralph Senensky, being fired midway, but most of the 3rd season record is a sad routine, as discussed by many of the people who were there.)

What got me interested here was the realization of how wrong the THESE ARE THE VOYAGES timeline is. I'm not joking about Cushman getting this stuff upside down and backwards. And that was only one example. We could get into some really fun stuff about the producing deal they made with John Meredyth Lucas, which was also quite interesting, and even about how Lucas stepped in and covered for Ralph Senensky on Yom Kippur - something Cushman doesn't even include in his accounting of the relevant episode.
Cool!

That's right. The original idea was that Star Trek would be set so far in the future that colonists from Earth had forgotten where they came from and become primitives after a nuclear war. That's why they had a copy of the U.S. Constitution but could barely read it.

The trouble comes when the ongoing series is set only 300 years in the future, hardly enough time for so much to transpire, and thus the episode seems to imply that the natives had our Constitution for the same reason Miri's planet looked like Earth, pure coincidence. And that's crazy.
It's a question of how long it would reasonably take the events that led up to "Omega" to occur.

When "Omega" was originally conceived as an alternate pilot, no one had defined how far in the future Star Trek might be set. So it seemed possible that, all before the time of Star Trek, space travel could become advanced enough for colonists to leave Earth, get to some distant planet, settle in, build two competing nations there, fight a nuclear war, be blasted back to the Stone Age, and forget how to read English properly, but still retain a reverence for the U.S. Constitution. That would take a long time.

When the episode was shot however, it was pretty clear that the series was not set in the far distant future, but just 200 or 300 years from 1966. That makes it seem as if the Yangs and Combs were just native aliens whose ancestors had not come from Earth, but had somehow written their own duplicate of our Constitution by a flabbergasting coincidence that Kirk doesn't even find odd!

It's a huge loose thread in the story, and I really like Markonian's info about Rise of the Federation providing a decent explanation for all this: it's like "A Piece of the Action." The filmed episode should have included that, if only they could have thought of it in time.
i think the original premise would be much better (no matter how unrealistic)- surely more credible than the final "Omega Glory".
The way I look at "Omega Glory" and "Miri", the Roman planet and the John Gill episode is just that they were meant to be allegorical. I think having colony ships sent out 100 years ago or so that hit a time travel black hole thingy so they went back in time could be a semi more realistic explanation for some of the amazing coincidences
 
The way I look at "Omega Glory" and "Miri", the Roman planet and the John Gill episode is just that they were meant to be allegorical. I think having colony ships sent out 100 years ago or so that hit a time travel black hole thingy so they went back in time could be a semi more realistic explanation for some of the amazing coincidences
Given the almost casual reaction when they discover the "time warp" in The Naked Time, I have long assumed that some of the earlier colony ships (having less well balanced warp engines) inadvertently created time warps and landed centuries before their launch dates, thus explaining the prevalence of human-like "aliens" in TOS. Starfleet would have suspected this but been unable to prove it (since most warp engine imbalances end with a vessel's destruction) until the incident at Psi-2000
 
I think it's worth saying that everyone's memories are flawed, even people who are honest and trying to report things honestly. Correcting honest mistakes is not to attack or diminish those who being corrected. Sometimes it's simply about trying to set the record straight and no slight is intended or made.
 
I want to to thank Kevin EK for his insightful post. It puts the entire matter in perspective and shows the difficulty in reconstructing the truth when the passage of time and personalities have done with it. Also, it poignantly establishes that the producers and writers were passionate about putting a good production on the screen, but that the necessary hard choices can wreak havoc on personal and professional relationships.

Maurice also makes a good point about memory and setting the record straight. There’s been talk about hearsay, but the legal concept is intended to protect the trial process from unrealiable testimony. The rule itself is riddled with two dozen exceptions, among the strongest being the business records exception. Harvey’s research is reliable because those records were kept in the regular course of business and it was in Desilu/Norway’s interest to keep accurate records.
 
Correction the ongoing series was set 200 years in the future based on what's in TOS. 300 years is a retcon, but I understand your point.
During the series run, the timeframe was in flux from episode to episode. hell, TOS - "The Squire of Gothos" had Star Trek set in the 28th century. Trelaine is talking about Napoleon who died in 1821.

From the episode:
http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/18.htm
TRELANE: Ah, yes. I've been looking in on the doings on your lively little Earth.

KIRK: Then you've been looking in on the doings nine hundred years past.

TRELANE: Oh, really? Have I made an error in time? How fallible of me. Oh, I did so want to make you feel at home. I'm quite proud of the detail.

1821 + 900 = 2721 = 28th century.

Then you have:
TOS - "Tomorrow is Yesterday":
The Enterprise has gone through a time warp to 1967:
http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/21.htm
KIRK: All right, Colonel. The truth is, I'm a little green man from Alpha Centauri. A beautiful place. You ought to see it.

FELLINI: I am going to lock you up for two hundred years.

KIRK: That ought to be just about right.

and TOS - "Space Seed":
Where the Enterprise encounters a DY-100 Class ship launched in 1996:
http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/24.htm
KHAN: How long?

KIRK: How long have you been sleeping? Two centuries we estimate. Landing party to Enterprise. Come in.
The century was never conclusively set on screen until STII:TWoK with the opening slug: "In the 23rd Century..."
^^^
At that point all the retconning to the stated timeframe began. But hell, even some of Kahn's lines in STII:TWoK:

KHAN: Captain! Captain! Save your strength. These people have sworn to live and die at my command two hundred years before you were born. Do you mean he never told you the tale? To amuse your Captain? No? Never told you how the Enterprise picked up the Botany Bay, lost in space in the year nineteen hundred and ninety-six, myself and the ship's company in cryogenic freeze?

TERRELL: I've never even met Admiral Kirk.

KHAN: Admiral? Admiral! Admiral... Never told you how Admiral Kirk sent seventy of us into exile on this barren sand heap with only the contents of these cargo bays to sustain us?

CHEKOV: You lie! On Ceti Alpha Five there was life, a fair chance.

KHAN: This is Ceti Alpha Five. ...Ceti Alpha Six exploded six months after we were left here. The shock shifted the orbit of this planet and everything was laid waste. Admiral Kirk ...never bothered to check on our progress. It was only the fact of my genetically engineered intellect that enabled us to survive! On Earth, ...two hundred years ago, ...I was a prince, ...with power over millions.

So, yeah, up until the feature films, the on screen material never referenced conclusively what century TOS took place in. That said, the majority of scripts during the TV run placed it 200 to 300 years in the future.
 
So, yeah, up until the feature films, the on screen material never referenced conclusively what century TOS took place in. That said, the majority of scripts during the TV run placed it 200 to 300 years in the future.

And the fact that The Making of Star Trek (which was written during and after the second season in close consultation with the show's staff) mentioned the 23rd century as the setting strongly suggests that the producers had implicitly settled on that timeframe by then.
 
Personally I loved all of the alternate earth adventures with A Piece of The Action being my least liked of the five!
JB
 
Personally I loved all of the alternate earth adventures with A Piece of The Action being my least liked of the five!
JB

APotA was fun. The Omega Glory was hokey, but had Shatner giving one of his iconic speeches. All in all, Bread and Circuses was the weakest. BLECH!
 
APotA was fun. The Omega Glory was hokey, but had Shatner giving one of his iconic speeches. All in all, Bread and Circuses was the weakest. BLECH!

I'd say "Patterns of Force" was the weakest.

"Bread and Circuses" was pretty good by comparison. It had an intriguing dynamic between three kinds of leaders (Kirk, Merrick, and Marcus), plus a powerful and highly theatrical scene with McCoy berating Spock. And it had gladiator fights, Drusilla in a silver gown, two glimpses of the "Jupiter 8" supercar, and to top it off, an ironic, "knowing" social commentary on television itself. It's not a bad hour of Star Trek.

What's missing from "Bread" is one scene that would have lent credibility to a crucial moment. Scotty's perfect timing of the city-wide power outage comes off as an insanely lucky coincidence. They should have shown that the bridge crew was watching Name the Winner when Kirk was about to be executed. And that's why Scotty says "Now!"

The trouble with that: Star Trek had already done it in "Arena", "The Menagerie", "Court Martial", and "The Gamesters of Triskelion." The producers might have asked, how often should people on television sit around watching people on television?
 
I'd say "Patterns of Force" was the weakest.
I have to disagree. For all the episode's faults, and there are many, beginning with historical inaccuracy, probably from poor research, the episode is still unfortunately quite topical on several fronts. When I was younger, I didn't think so, but then again I hadn't lived in today's times, when the problem seems much less hypothetical.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top