Thoughts and observations on the Kzinti from "The Slaver Weapon”

[Therin of Andor]

All this was a looonggg time ago.

Welcome aboard, ADF!

We have communicated a few times via proxies and emails over the years. I loved your five-part essay that was serialised across the five trade-size paperback "Log" omnibuses that came out in 2006!

I recall you discussing how you included the storyline from a spec Klingon TOS script (from in your filing cabinet), which saved the day when Ballantine suddenly wanted "Star Trek Log Seven" to use only one episode but expanded to novel length. The message you sent back to me was that, sadly, you no longer remembered your script's title, nor had the script itself. The character of Commander Kumara, Kirk's former Klingon roommate during an exchange program, remains a fun character that enhances my fond memories of TAS.

The additional scenes you wrote for Arex, M'Ress and Uhura across the ten "Star Trek Log" books are also very much appreciated.

 

[T'Bonz]

I still have my original Log books. From my teen years, which was a zillion years ago.

 

[Redfern]

Mr. Foster? Hopefully you can answer this question. Did you write the short "biography" for M'Ress (and Arex) that was sold through Lincoln Enterprises? Several points within it coincide with the incidental scenes you added to the Log novelizations. As presented in the episodes themselves, she was barely a background extra, but you gave her a "history", a "life". I really appreciate what you did with her. Thank you!

 

[Noname Given]

Paramount would've had little if anything to do with it. I think they distributed it, but it was a production of Filmation and Roddenberry's Norway Corporation, because he hadn't yet sold the series to Paramount.

Um, YES - GR had already lost the rights to the Star Trek IP (IE it WAS owned by Paramount in 1973):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek#Corporate_ownership

Corporate ownership
At Star Trek's creation, Norway Productions, Roddenberry's production company, shared ownership with Desilu Productions and, after Gulf+Western acquired Desilu in 1967, with Paramount Pictures, the conglomerate's film studio. Paramount did not want to own the unsuccessful show; net profit was to be shared between Norway, Desilu/Paramount, Shatner, and NBC but Star Trek lost money, and the studio did not expect to syndicate it. In 1970 Paramount offered to sell all rights to Star Trek to Roddenberry, but he could not afford the $150,000 cost (equivalent to $946,787 in 2017).

Effectively, Paramount owned Star Trek at the end of the 1969 season.

 

[Christopher]

Effectively, Paramount owned Star Trek at the end of the 1969 season.

See, that's what puzzles me -- if they owned it, then why doesn't TAS have a Paramount copyright on its title screen, just Filmation and Norway?

But I think my point still stands. Even if they owned the property, they still subcontracted the production to Filmation, and I don't think they were really involved beyond distribution. So as far as the production was concerned, in terms of providing materials to the animators or the like, I don't think Paramount was very hands-on. As stated, it was mostly Fontana who was keeping things straight continuity-wise, and the fact that the Filmation staffers were fans of the show no doubt helped them get the look right.

Although Filmation tended to care about authenticity in most of its adaptations. Its Tarzan and Flash Gordon series were just about the most faithful screen adaptations those properties have ever had.

 

[FormerLurker]

Although Filmation tended to care about authenticity in most of its adaptations. Its Tarzan and Flash Gordon series were just about the most faithful screen adaptations those properties have ever had.

Indeed they did. Save for making allowances for the target audience being children, such as no knife, Tarzan specifically referenced at least half the original novels, and had guest appearances by many of the original characters therein.

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, when I read a few of the original Tarzan novels in my teens, I was surprised by how much more violent the books' Tarzan was than the Filmation version, who was more the chief diplomat and ombudsman of the jungle than its unbeatable warrior king. It was still a damn sight closer than nearly all of the movies, though.

 

[Therin of Andor]

See, that's what puzzles me -- if they owned it, then why doesn't TAS have a Paramount copyright on its title screen, just Filmation and Norway?
But I think my point still stands. Even if they owned the property, they still subcontracted the production to Filmation, and I don't think they were really involved beyond distribution.

AFAIK, that is correct. When Richard Arnold was clarifying "What is canon?" for that infamous memo in 1988-89, TAS was excluded as "not-live action" and "not produced by Desilu/Paramount".

I recall hearing that NBC's Children's TV Division had lots of early sway with TAS, but distribution hadn't fallen to Paramount until the series stopped production. When Filmation was being sold off in the late 80s, it took some time for clarification as to who owned TAS (ultimately Paramount) and all the other Filmation products.

 

[Christopher]

When Richard Arnold was clarifying "What is canon?" for that infamous memo in 1988-89, TAS was excluded as "not-live action" and "not produced by Desilu/Paramount".

That former parameter was pretty arbitrary. There are canons that include both live action and animation, like Star Wars, The Matrix, the Arrowverse, and Doctor Who.

Really, though, I've come to suspect that the exclusion of TAS was more connected to Roddenberry's attempts to delegitimize D.C. Fontana's contributions to the franchise as part of his effort to deny her rightful co-creator credit to TNG. It certainly didn't have a genuine impact on canon, given that TNG, DS9, etc. freely referenced TAS elements (mostly "Yesteryear") while the memo was supposedly in effect. The only actual impact of the memo was on the tie-ins and on fan perceptions.

 

[Therin of Andor]

That former parameter was pretty arbitrary. There are canons that include both live action and animation, like Star Wars, The Matrix, the Arrowverse, and Doctor Who.

Yes, but those were the Star Trek Office (via Richard)'s parameters.

Really, though, I've come to suspect that the exclusion of TAS was more connected to Roddenberry's attempts to delegitimize D.C. Fontana's contributions to the franchise as part of his effort to deny her rightful co-creator credit to TNG.

Precisely. It was easy to blame red tape and just cut it free. DC Fontana and David Gerrold were closely attached to both TAS and the early days of TNG. Efficient! And RA admitted at conventions that he had really disliked TAS as a fan in the 70s, and seemed annoyed when Len Wein added Arex & M'Ress to the ongoing post-ST IV DC Comic (Richard started on the payroll as official Archivist at that point), so relicensing the comics before ST V came out was an efficient way of resolving that.

It certainly didn't have a genuine impact on canon, given that TNG, DS9, etc. freely referenced TAS elements (mostly "Yesteryear") while the memo was supposedly in effect. The only actual impact of the memo was on the tie-ins and on fan perceptions.

Yes. Tellingly, the very first reference to TAS after Roddenberry's passing was a namedrop to the Phylosians in the novelisation of "Unification" by Jeri Taylor, the very episode that carried a dedication to GR after he died.

 

[Maurice]

Roddenberry attempting to de-canonize TAS would not have affected Fontana and Gerrold complaints with the WGA because that's not how the WGA works. They don't care about how something is categorized for licensing purposes. TAS would have fallen under their basic agreement as a spin-off and so would TNG, and no disavowing the former would have swayed a decision. And, as I've said elsewhere (link), when you compare TNG to other spin-offs you see that it's unlikely either Gerrold or Fontana could have successfully gotten credit as creators because the basic premise and setting of TNG was too close to TOS for the Guild to have ruled otherwise. Had it gone through arbitration they might've gotten renumeration and perhaps different credits, but not a created by credit.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Roddenberry attempting to de-canonize TAS would not have affected Fontana and Gerrold complaints with the WGA because that's not how the WGA works... Had it gone through arbitration they might've gotten renumeration and perhaps different credits, but not a created by credit.

And yet there was a settlement, seemingly in their favour (except they can't discuss it), when Fontana & Gerrold sued for compensation.

 

[Christopher]

Yes, but those were the Star Trek Office (via Richard)'s parameters.

Uh, yes, obviously they were the parameters. My point is that they were dumb parameters, arising from Arnold's personal dislikes rather than any objectively rational standard. It's arbitrary and prejudiced to say that being animated is grounds for exclusion, because there are numerous examples of canons that include works in multiple formats or media.

Certainly most animated adaptations of live-action shows and movies are incompatible with their canons because of the changes they make (especially '70s and '80s animated adaptations like The Brady Kids or The Fonz and the Happy Days Gang with their addition of magic, talking animals, time travel, etc.), but the same can be said of most live-action series spun off of movies (e.g. Starman retconning the movie's events from the '80s to the '70s so the title character could have a teenage son in the present day, or Planet of the Apes just using the general premise and designs from the movies while telling a story in an incompatible continuity), so it's not specific to animation. And TAS was perhaps the one animated adaptation from that era that meshed perfectly with its live-action source, with no changes to the continuity or the rules of the universe and with a number of direct sequels and returning characters. Indeed, it's one of the few animated adaptations from any era that fit so perfectly with their live-action sources. (The current Star Wars animated shows count, of course. There was also Godzilla: The Series, which works just about perfectly as a continuation of the 1998 TriStar Godzilla movie, aside from being much better than the movie.)

Roddenberry attempting to de-canonize TAS would not have affected Fontana and Gerrold complaints with the WGA because that's not how the WGA works.

Of course not. That isn't what I'm suggesting. I just feel that if Roddenberry was in a fight to deny Fontana credit for co-creating TNG, and given what a control freak he'd become about "his creation" by that late stage of his life, he might have wanted to discredit Fontana's work on TAS out of sheer pettiness. I'm not talking about how the WGA's rules work, I'm speculating about how the elderly, ailing, insecure Gene Roddenberry's mind worked and what might have motivated his rejection of TAS. According to Lou Scheimer: Creating the Filmation Generation, TAS was the one iteration of Star Trek that Roddenberry was given complete, unfettered creative control over, but he chose to hand over that control to Fontana, entrusting her with his creation. So it's paradoxical (and damned hypocritical) that he'd later dismiss it as "not real Star Trek" because it wasn't under his control. The most plausible explanation I can think of is that his later falling-out with Fontana over TNG creator credit could explain why he became dismissive of the show she'd made, even though he'd been the one who'd entrusted her with that responsibility in the first place.

 

[Maurice]

And yet there was a settlement, seemingly in their favour (except they can't discuss it), when Fontana & Gerrold sued for compensation.

Yes, there was a settlement, but it had nothing to do with TAS, and sometimes complaints like this get settled because the studio doesn't want the bad publicity for their property. I have no doubt that Fontana at least was screwed over in some capacity, but not necessarily in the "created by" category. As i've said before, TNG was a bit of an odd duck as it doesn't quite fit either type of spinoff as described in the WGA Minimum Basic Agreement.

 

[Christopher]

Yes, there was a settlement, but it had nothing to do with TAS

Once more, I was never talking about the WGA's decision process, I was talking about Roddenberry's psychology and his need to claim Star Trek as exclusively his. If he was willing to screw over Fontana where TNG credit was concerned (regardless of the specifics of how he did so), then that desire to discredit Fontana's work, or whatever bad blood might have arisen between them as a result of the TNG dispute, might have also been a factor in his renunciation of TAS. I'm suggesting an emotional connection, not a legal or procedural one.

As i've said before, TNG was a bit of an odd duck as it doesn't quite fit either type of spinoff as described in the WGA Minimum Basic Agreement.

Further complicated by the fact that in a lot of ways, it's a rehash of Star Trek Phase II and other failed Roddenberry projects. Picard is the older, mentor-figure Kirk, Riker is Decker, Troi is Ilia, Data is Xon crossed with Questor from The Questor Tapes. And the "Post-Atomic Horror" stuff from "Encounter at Farpoint" is basically a reuse of the premise of Genesis II/Planet Earth.

 

[FormerLurker]

Planet of the Apes just using the general premise and designs from the movies while telling a story in an incompatible continuity

It wouldn't surprise me if the main reason this was done was so the human characters wouldn't be nekkid.

Further complicated by the fact that in a lot of ways, it's a rehash of Star Trek Phase II and other failed Roddenberry projects. Picard is the older, mentor-figure Kirk, Riker is Decker, Troi is Ilia, Data is Xon crossed with Questor from The Questor Tapes. And the "Post-Atomic Horror" stuff from "Encounter at Farpoint" is basically a reuse of the premise of Genesis II/Planet Earth.

Here's an interesting fanfic premise for you: see how many different present and near future GR projects you can cram into Star Trek's history before you get one that just won't fit, like Earth: Final Conflict, and use actual Trek references to explain them all.

 

[Maurice]

I just realized @Christopher thinks I was replying to him. I wasn't, and hadn't read his posts. If I'm replying to someone I tend to quote them because context.

 

[Christopher]

It wouldn't surprise me if the main reason this was done was so the human characters wouldn't be nekkid.

More so that they could talk. The Planet of the Apes TV series didn't have the time or budget to put dozens of actors in ape makeup every week, so the show needed to focus mainly on human guest stars; thus, the humans needed to be intelligent, verbal, and civilized at a medieval level, living in mostly human villages with a few elite apes and gorilla troops ruling over them.

Here's an interesting fanfic premise for you: see how many different present and near future GR projects you can cram into Star Trek's history before you get one that just won't fit, like Earth: Final Conflict, and use actual Trek references to explain them all.

I choose to believe that The Questor Tapes takes place in the Trek universe, and that Flint and Noonien Soong based their android tech on Questor's. This has been hinted at in several Pocket Trek novels, including a couple of mine, although we can't overtly come out and say it because CBS doesn't have the rights to the character.

As for Genesis II/Planet Earth, it portrays a nuclear apocalypse in the 1990s, so I see it as an alternate timeline where the Eugenics Wars got out of hand and became a global holocaust. Specifically, I see it as the future Gary Seven prevented by stopping the buildup of orbital nukes in the '60s. (A tie to the Eugenics Wars also helps explain the "atomic mutant" races in those movies -- perhaps they were actually descended from Augments instead.) That means that in the Prime timeline, with a diminished nuclear threat from above, there was no need for Dylan Hunt's 1979 cryogenics experiment to be performed deep underground, so he was probably never trapped in a cave-in and his work would've proceeded; perhaps his team innovated the cryogenics tech used in the DY-100 sleeper ships.

I don't believe Spectre would fit in the Trek universe, since it's supernatural horror. I considered whether you could interpret its demonic forces as misinterpreted aliens, but I don't think it would really work, and it certainly wouldn't fit Roddenberry's intentions for the show. Of course, Earth: Final Conflict and Andromeda could never fit, since their portrayals of Earth future history, the date of first contact, the nature of life in the galaxy, and the physics of starflight are completely incompatible -- plus they both got progressively more ruined and dumbed down by the studio and just don't hold together as shows. They don't even have cohesive continuities within themselves, so never mind reconciling them with anything else.

That just leaves Roddenberry's early, non-SF projects like The Lieutenant and the Police Story pilot, neither of which I've seen. There's probably no reason they couldn't fit in the Trek universe, but it would be somewhat trivial. I have seen the Roger Vadim sex comedy that Roddenberry scripted and produced, Pretty Maids All in a Row, but it's too absurd and exaggerated a comedy to fit in a theoretically plausible, grounded universe like Trek, and its gender attitudes are creepy anyway.

 

[FormerLurker]

Showoff.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Roger Vadim sex comedy that Roddenberry scripted and produced, Pretty Maids All in a Row, but it's too absurd and exaggerated a comedy to fit in a theoretically plausible, grounded universe like Trek, and its gender attitudes are creepy anyway.

What happens on the holodeck stays on the holodeck.