When I originally watched that skit live on NBC all those years ago. my only reaction was:
"Where's the parody? I've encountered those kind of Star Trek fans at science fiction conventions..."
Just rewatched the SNL skit "Get A Life!": what are the episode numbers supposed to be? And does this question make me a nerd parodied in the skit?
- Thread starter Skipper
- Start date
"Where's the parody? I've encountered those kind of Star Trek fans at science fiction conventions..."
I saw video once from a convention in the 80s or whenever, and there was a gaggle of dudes talking trivia, and I guess it became a little competitive. Then one guy starting singing a song from "The Way to Eden." And they all joined in — and sang it all the way through! With gusto! — because nobody wanted to be the guy who didn't seem to know the words.
Past a certain point, the Star Trek fan's concept of "how to avoid embarrassment" can turn eccentric and steer him wrong. But they had fun.
Yes, I've read Schacht more than once for professional reasons - and not just the Wikipedia article. It's absolutely not illegal to depict military uniforms accurately. However - and I can't explain why I know this, so take my word for it or don't, at your pleasure and with absolutely no disrespect intended - Hollywood productions that don't hire Dale Dye or some other hyper-competent military advisor often deliberately flub the uniforms to avoid various entanglements, as not everyone wants to go to SCOTUS over a costuming issue. As I said, the calculus is not quite as simple as "this is a parody or a work of fiction, so we can do anything we want." Generally, the lower-value the production, the more risk-averse the producers will be about such things. Since SNL was not quite the institution it is now at the time of Shatner's skit (in that it was far younger, although concededly pretty powerful), I remain surprised that its producers took the risk when they just as easily could have left the episode titles out. I wonder if Roddenberry ever called them up demanding royalties or threatening legal action. If he'd written to them I'm sure we'd know about it.
True, and for example, in less than a year, Batman and TOS had episodes with "A Piece of the Action" as their titles. It just happens from time to time.
I only remember the first seven TOS episode numbers, plus the 50th. That ''anniversary'' episode is BY ANY OTHER NAME, though SNL got that wrong for whatever reason.
No one's saying that you can't reuse an episode title across two different productions.
I "knew" the same thing for decades. A "fact" that stuck in my head, much like many Trek myths, but later proven to be false.
But what are the chances the US government would sue over the use of a uniform that didn't " discredit the armed forces"? The case was prompted by an anti-war protest and not even one on film. The statues violated in the case included even partial and similar uniforms,
This is pretty loose and could be applied to just about any production's use of a uniform at the government's discretion.
When I watched White Christmas last night, I had this conversation in mind. I'm willing to bet Crosby and Kaye's uniforms were better tailored than those of the average GI in WWII.
SNL was in it's tenth season by then and Trek was in it's TOS film phase. Both were well on their way to be "institutions." Trek though was a couple of years away from TNG and dawn of the "Second Renaissance". TVH had been released the month before so I'm sure Paramount was happy to have one of its stars on a popular TV show. As for Gene suing? On what grounds? He didn't own Star Trek and had been shut out for years. He had only recently been invited back into the fold to develop TNG.
I'm also reminded of SNL's first Trek sketch which painted NBC executives is a less than flattering light.
Royalties for what? SNL weren't making actual Star Trek, nor did they use actual Trek footage. You don't get royalties just because someone mentions your show on another show.
Does Roddenberry strike you as the sort of person to observe that nicety, or rather to send off a threatening letter and create litigation work for all involved?
Again, on what grounds? He doesn't own Star Trek. Paramount could sue, but not Gene.
To quote a lawyer radio I use to listen to, "You can sue anyone. You just have to find a court to hear the argument."
Yes, people can be that litigious.
That's just dead wrong. And we're obviously not going to agree here so I'll leave it there with thanks for the discussion.
Where is the disagreement? Either Gene owns Star Trek and can sue on those grounds or he doesn't and can't. Everything I've read indicates he didn't own Star Trek in 1986. If there is something that shows otherwise, I'd like to hear it.That's just dead wrong. And we're obviously not going to agree here so I'll leave it there with thanks for the discussion.
It is entirely correct. Star Trek is wholly owned by the studio. Roddenberry sold his share of the property in exchange for part of the (then hypothetical) profits in the 1970s.
He - now, his estate - is entitled to compensation for the use of characters he created, per WGA contracts with the signatory studios. The studio, however, does not have to obtain permission to use them.
"Get a Life" was painfully true at times, and yet funny as hell. It was taken by some poorly because Shatner wasn't one of us. He's not fan-friendly; fans are only there to provide revenue for him.
It's not a biggie to me, as some actors like the fans, some not. They don't have to like us and I fully admit, if I had to deal with some of the crazies, I might be wary myself and I'm part of the community. But he's a normie.
It's not a biggie to me, as some actors like the fans, some not. They don't have to like us and I fully admit, if I had to deal with some of the crazies, I might be wary myself and I'm part of the community. But he's a normie.
I think @Phaser Two is alluding to the fact that, in the U.S., you can dangle the threat of a lawsuit that has absolutely no merit, and the innocent party being targeted will often pay an out-of-court settlement because it's cheaper to pay than to fight. You don't need a valid legal case if you have greed and a callous disregard for fairness.
You don't even need the greed. The other motivation for frivolous lawsuits is to hobble your target's involvement in a political issue:
en.wikipedia.org
Other countries have rules that make the loser pay the winner's legal fees, and that discourages abuse, but trial attorneys have enormous clout in the United States.
You don't even need the greed. The other motivation for frivolous lawsuits is to hobble your target's involvement in a political issue:
Strategic lawsuit against public participation - Wikipedia
Other countries have rules that make the loser pay the winner's legal fees, and that discourages abuse, but trial attorneys have enormous clout in the United States.
Yeah, I don't think Gene would win against NBC's lawyers.I think @Phaser Two is alluding to the fact that, in the U.S., you can dangle the threat of a lawsuit that has absolutely no merit, and the innocent party being targeted will often pay an out-of-court settlement because it's cheaper to pay than to fight. You don't need a valid legal case if you have greed and a callous disregard for fairness.
You don't even need the greed. The other motivation for frivolous lawsuits is to hobble your target's involvement in a political issue:
Strategic lawsuit against public participation - Wikipedia
Other countries have rules that make the loser pay the winner's legal fees, and that discourages abuse, but it's still the Wild West in the United States.
It's not always about winning, except on a perceived moral point. I.e. "Look at how evil NBC is for picking on me."Yeah, I don't think Gene would win against NBC's lawyers.