The Screenplay to "Planet of the Titans"

[Maurice]

Most fans don't realize he was trying to sell other shows beyond Assignment: Earth. And Roddenberry was jonesing to get out from under Trek. It's part of why he handed over producing to Gene Coon in the first place. We've seen letters from him to his agent, etc., that make this rather plain, IIRC even before the 3rd season timeslot change to 10pm. @Harvey might remember better than I. Also, he had the opportunity to go over to National General and get a big paycheck for writing his ill-fated Tarzan script.

 

[Harvey]

There is a source, I can't recall which, which said that the real reason that Trek was moved to the Friday death slot in the last season is that NBC wanted to force Roddenberry's hand and essentially bully him into leaving the day to day operation of the show. The claim is made that they were just sick of his behavior, not the least of which was making speeches attacking them. Most of the people who could corroborate that version of events are dead now, so we'll likely never know.

I presume the source here is Marc Cushman; this is one of the principal arguments in his books about the original series. I find his argument to be rather flimsy. If NBC hated Roddenberry, why did they have him working on three pilots* in the fall of 1967?

*Yankee Gunfighter (a 30-minute Western, pilot not produced); Assignment Earth (produced as a backdoor pilot on Star Trek); and Police Story (30-minute cop show, originally produced in 1965, but under reconsideration by NBC in 1967).

 

[ChallengerHK]

I presume the source here is Marc Cushman; this is one of the principal arguments in his books about the original series. I find his argument to be rather flimsy. If NBC hated Roddenberry, why did they have him working on three pilots* in the fall of 1967?
.

I think you're right about the source, and thanks.

As for the "why"...people don't always behave logically, nor understandably, nor in a way perceived by others as being in their best interests. One possible interpretation of those facts is that NBC recognized that Roddenberry could come up with marketable ideas (even when the ratings were not expressed in demographics, Trek's ratings were usually mid-range, not bottom of the heap), and they hoped he would develop shows they could use and then induce him to walk away with a lump sum buyout. Dunno. Personally, I could see how they would have loved to have a development only deal with him where he sat at home coming up with interesting concepts but they rarely had to deal with him.

 

[Harvey]

(even when the ratings were not expressed in demographics, Trek's ratings were usually mid-range, not bottom of the heap)

During the first season, the show dropped from an initially promising 33rd place to an average place of 52nd for the season. That put the show right on the bubble, and all the evidence I've seen indicates that the ratings dropped further than that in years two and three.

For example, for the October 25, 1967 Nielsen NTI ratings (a national sample collecting two weeks of data), Star Trek tied for 68th place.

I only have the Nielsen NTI data that was published in Weekly Variety and national newspapers, so I haven't seen every report, nor do I have season average numbers from the second or third season. I'd love to see this data (or license it -- something Cushman didn't do, perhaps because it is unavailable, or perhaps because he didn't know what to ask for). However, all the internal correspondence I've seen suggests that the ratings were a source of struggle, and Roddenberry usually massaged the data by focusing on demographics when making the case for the series to NBC.

 

[Daddy Todd]

Well, it looks like Cash Markman has (or has access to) the POTT screenplay — he includes the opening page or two in his “Star Trek in the 1970s Volume 2” which I got yesterday.

I read about 1/3 of it last night, and only found one major blooper (stating Creation’s 20th anniversary convention took place in 1976, when it took place in ‘86) and a couple places where he referred to POTT screenwriter Chris Bryant as “Clarke” and “Clark”.

So, it looks like he had a crew doing fact-checking this time around. Of course, most of the text is quotations lifted from period articles and more recent interviews/books, which are only as reliable as the period journalist or the 45-years-later memories of the interviewees. Which makes it approximately as reliable as Gross & Altmann’s “oral history” book of a few years back. Which is definitely a step up for Cash.

 

[albion432]

With all of the distrust of and dislike for Cushman, would it be a good idea to devote a thread to debunking the "facts" of his books? By the sound of it that might be a colossal undertaking, but perhaps worth it?

 

[mb22]

With all of the distrust of and dislike for Cushman, would it be a good idea to devote a thread to debunking the "facts" of his books? By the sound of it that might be a colossal undertaking, but perhaps worth it?

There have already been a number of threads that have done that. Someone can create a thread with links to them and take it from there.

 

[albion432]

There have already been a number of threads that have done that. Someone can create a thread with links to them and take it from there.

That sounds like a great idea, and daunting at the same time, any volunteers?

 

[mb22]

That sounds like a great idea, and daunting at the same time, any volunteers?

Some of it has already been covered in http://startrekfactcheck.blogspot.com and https://www.facttrek.com.

 

[Harvey]

Not it!

 

[Firebird]

I must admit I'm considering getting the book on 1978-1980 to help fill out any script/story gaps for TMP I haven't been able to discover in Robert Wise and De Kelley's archival collections. But I'm not sure I can justify the price point against Cushman's sketchy research history.

 

[Harvey]

I must admit I'm considering getting the book on 1978-1980 to help fill out any script/story gaps for TMP I haven't been able to discover in Robert Wise and De Kelley's archival collections. But I'm not sure I can justify the price point against Cushman's sketchy research history.

If he had a better track record of getting the dates of documentation right, understanding the broader context, or just transcribing things correctly, I’d see the value.

But there are too many errors and mistakes and outright falsehoods in his TOS books for me to trust any piece of information Cushman reports without being able to verify it with other sources first.

Too bad. Self-published or not, Cushman had a real opportunity with these books to contribute to our knowledge about the history of the show—especially with the access Roddenberry Entertainment afforded him for these latest volumes. Instead, his efforts just further cloud that history. (Worse, parts of the underlying thesis of his TOS books, as much as he has one, are outright conspiracy theory territory.)

Having said all that, if you read these bricks @Firebird, you can bet I’ll want to read your detailed analysis!