Harlan Ellison is Suing Paramount and Pocket Books

[CaptJimboJones]

I love--just love--how many of us trekkies insist that Ellison should fuck off and stand by while Paramount et al. wring every last nickel from his idea. Why, because paramount is so poor and deserving Ellison should just give perpetual use of his ideas to them?

I think it's because Ellison has basically shit all over Star Trek fans for the past few decades, taking many opportunities to call us simpering moronic idiots who aren't smart enough to appreciate anything other than Star Trek.

So a lot of the fans take great delight in returning the vitriol.

 

[Data Holmes]

I love--just love--how many of us trekkies insist that Ellison should fuck off and stand by while Paramount et al. wring every last nickel from his idea. Why, because paramount is so poor and deserving Ellison should just give perpetual use of his ideas to them?

I think it's because Ellison has basically shit all over Star Trek fans for the past few decades, taking many opportunities to call us simpering moronic idiots who aren't smart enough to appreciate anything other than Star Trek.

So a lot of the fans take great delight in returning the vitriol.

Again, I don't see where is wrong in general...

 

[TGTheodore]

Agreed. I hold over 50 copyrights.

Don't those get heavy?

No, because they haven't produced much.

--Ted

 

[SeerSGB]

I love--just love--how many of us trekkies insist that Ellison should fuck off and stand by while Paramount et al. wring every last nickel from his idea. Why, because paramount is so poor and deserving Ellison should just give perpetual use of his ideas to them?

I think it's because Ellison has basically shit all over Star Trek fans for the past few decades, taking many opportunities to call us simpering moronic idiots who aren't smart enough to appreciate anything other than Star Trek.

So a lot of the fans take great delight in returning the vitriol.

Now, now, you're going to get me to like that man.

I've heard his rants about Trekkies over the years. And I agree that some times he needs to get over it, but more often than not-- even if I don't agree with him a 100%-- the man's right, at least in broad concept.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

I love--just love--how many of us trekkies insist that Ellison should fuck off and stand by while Paramount et al. wring every last nickel from his idea. Why, because paramount is so poor and deserving Ellison should just give perpetual use of his ideas to them?

I think it's because Ellison has basically shit all over Star Trek fans for the past few decades, taking many opportunities to call us simpering moronic idiots who aren't smart enough to appreciate anything other than Star Trek.

So a lot of the fans take great delight in returning the vitriol.

Yeah, I felt that way about him--when I was 13!



A lot of what he says about Trekkies centers on us being a sub-literate boil on the ass of true SF. Reading through this thread, in which I discover that CotEoF is the only worthwhile thing he's ever done and that he's all washed up, I fear that, well, maybeeee...

Look, I agree that Ellison is an arrogant prick. I also think, despite his towereing achievement in the genre, he's not all that great a writer*--I sorta outgrew him sometime between my junior and senior years of college. I think that his sitting on the stories he comissioned for The Last Dangerous Visions** is unconscienable verging on criminal. In addition, I think his screenplay for CotEoF was far inferior to the version that aired. Above all, I think none of that is remotely relevant to this issue. And as far as shitting on Trekkies is concerned, I'd say the suits at Paramount--the fine folks who rushed an unfinished TMP into the theatres, who kicked GR off of his own creation and who kept Berman and Braga, of all people, from implementing their few good ideas--have been raining feces upon our sensitive widdle heads far more violently and efficiently than HE could ever hope to.

*I think the same about Asimov and Hemingway--doesn't affect my appreciation of their importance overall.

**Had HE done nothing else, the first two anthologies would pretty much cement his importance to the genre. Of course, he's done much, much more.

 

[captcalhoun]

CotEoF is over-rated anyway. it's good, but it's not Emmy-award winner material...

 

[siskokid888]

Harlan Ellison is a great writer. He is also nucking futs.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Just listened to that interview that he did at that university. I know this is just my opinion, but dear God what a pompous asshat. Fuck him and the Guardian of Forever he rode in on. Sue me if you can find me ya little shitworm.

Clearly, while some of us here have vision, there are others, due to rectal-cranial inversion, who have to wear ass-focals.

You sir are in the latter category.

OK, comments like this really aren't necessary.

One Warning for Flaming, send comments via PM.

 

[Meredith]

He may as well sue the Animated series and the "Star Trek : The New Voyages" Fan Film crew too for re-using his guardian concept.

The fans need to counter sue his miserable ass for being an miserable ass!

 

[SeerSGB]

He may as well sue the Animated series and the "Star Trek : The New Voyages" Fan Film crew too for re-using his guardian concept.

The fans need to counter sue his miserable ass for being an miserable ass!

Come on now, what's wrong with the man wanting to get paid what he's owed? If the courts decides he owed the money, then he should get paid, end of story.

 

[Data Holmes]

He may as well sue the Animated series and the "Star Trek : The New Voyages" Fan Film crew too for re-using his guardian concept.

The fans need to counter sue his miserable ass for being an miserable ass!

New Voyages had gotten permission from him to use the concept.

 

[CaptJimboJones]

I'm still of the theory that a lot of his Trek-related behavior is either A) an elaborate put-on, almost a form of performance art, or B) some form of mental illness.

I read his COTEOF book a few years ago, and the lengthy "essay" on his experience with the teleplay - which just got more and more bizarre as it went on - seemed to be written with his tongue planted firmly in cheek. I thought, "this is either some sort of hilarious satire, or this guy is just nuts."

Also, has anyone mentioned the infamous "Ellision Boob-Grab?" You can't have a serious discussion about Ellison without bringing up the Boob-Grab.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

He may as well sue the Animated series and the "Star Trek : The New Voyages" Fan Film crew too for re-using his guardian concept.

The fans need to counter sue his miserable ass for being an miserable ass!

This is exactly what I was talking about.

First off, do we know he didn't get paid for TAS? Secondly, Ellison has shown himself to perfectly gracious to Trekkies (like Peter David and Bjo Trimble) who don't have their heads crammed entirely up their sphincters. And, as someone else pointed out, the New Voyages people obtained his permission--which means he gave it to them. Add to that the fact he NV is non-profit... you know what, why bother? All this thread is doing is proving hat HE's estimation of the intelligence level of the average person and the average Trekkie is rashly inflated.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Also, has anyone mentioned the infamous "Ellision Boob-Grab?" You can't have a serious discussion about Ellison without bringing up the Boob-Grab.

When Ellison first demaned a "trailer truck of cash" (or words to that effect) on his website for Provenance of Shadows two years ago, it came just a few days after SF fandom began raining shit down on Ellison's head for groping Connie Willis at a con. At the time, I thought his crusade against Paramount was a diversionary tactic -- get fandom's attention focused on something other than his behavior toward Willis.

As for other things mentioned upthread...

As groundbreaking as Last Dangerous Visions might've been thirty years ago, the ship has sailed. Ellison should have returned the stories to the authors, to do with them as they will. Christopher Priest's The Last Deadloss Visions is a damning indictment of Ellison's behavior to his contributors over the years.

 

[Sector 7]

Gene Roddenberry could be an ass too

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Theme_from_Star_Trek

I find that much worst

I obtained this little nugget from reading the article:

Michael Giacchino, the composer for 2009's Star Trek directed by J.J. Abrams, has stated that he will incorporate Courage's theme into his own score for the film.

Once again, this makes me feel much better about the new movie.

 

[Nebusj]

As groundbreaking as Last Dangerous Visions might've been thirty years ago, the ship has sailed. Ellison should have returned the stories to the authors, to do with them as they will. Christopher Priest's The Last Deadloss Visions is a damning indictment of Ellison's behavior to his contributors over the years.

Ellison has released stories intended for inclusion in Last Dangerous Visions when the author (or representatives) have asked for it, and something like one or two dozen of the stories have appeared in other venues. That others haven't may reflect that, say, Octavia Butler or Stephen King or Vonda McIntyre may not be worried that their writing careers are being held back.

Fortunately, I think Ellison's really going to get the book published this time, as he's got David Gerrold and Steven R Boyett helping him out.

 

[trevanian]

I read his COTEOF book a few years ago, and the lengthy "essay" on his experience with the teleplay - which just got more and more bizarre as it went on - seemed to be written with his tongue planted firmly in cheek. I thought, "this is either some sort of hilarious satire, or this guy is just nuts."
.

You really missed the point, he kept trotting more and more out, because he KNEW all these treknuts would keep looking for one word that they could use to exonerate GR and the rest. So he kept piling it on (and the fact that he COULD should indicate just how fucked over the rest of them were.)

Somebody else mentioned outgrowing Ellison as a writer. For the short stories, I can kinda sorta agree for many, but I find his nonfiction to be better and better with every reread. Essayist is how I'd probably list him first, along with 'best batch of unproduced screenplays.'

 

[Red Ranger]

Same here. Why is that the majority of fandom thinks that the writer should bend down and take it for the sheer privilege of working on their beloved show or any other beloved property? They tend to think writers don't deserve to make as much money as they can from their art because then it's just being greedy and selling out. No it ain't. It's hard work and without it there be nothing for us to read, to watch and to bitch about.

As Harlan Ellison would say and has said, "Pay the fucking writer!"

I'm of two minds about this. I do agree with Ellison, "Pay the fucking writer!" I've been screwed over as a freelancer, so I sympathize. So part of me roots for Ellison getting his piece and taking it from the rich, untalented suits at Paramount.

However, I also think he's a misanthropic, anti-social troll -- and that's quite a statement coming from a self-described curmudgeon. But curmudgeons can be lovable, and Ellison is anything but! It's too bad writers don't have a better, more media-savvy representative who isn't hell bent on offending everyone within earshot and beyond, enforcing the negative impression people have of writers in general, and socially inept science fiction writers like Ellison in particular.

The thing is, Harlan's a great guy, anything but a "misanthropic, anti-social troll" and he's far more media-savvy than most representatives he could hire. What he is also is very sure of himself and of his facts, inclined to be outspoken and not at all inclined to suffer fools gladly. He gets his shit straight and lays it out in matter-of-fact, often blunt fashion, without being overly concerned about offending the easily-offended.

On this current business with Paramount, CBS, et al: if Harlan says he's owed something under such-and-so contract and has found it necessary to go to court over it, then I'm quite confident that he is not only correct in so asserting but will end up getting what he says he is owed and be perfectly gracious about the whole thing once it's over. There is nothing wrong with standing up and demanding what you're due, and nothing which says you've got to candy-ass around in doing so. Harlan makes sure he's in the right, and then goes and gets results in a direct manner.

M'Sharak: I see your points. However, having seen some of these interviews where he foams at the mouth, I have difficulty believing he isn't a misanthropic, anti-social troll. Your points also don't convince me that maybe Ellison should try to remember that old adage: "You get more flies with honey than with vinegar." Perhaps fans could listen to his points if they weren't obscured by his decades-old rage over the injustice his original script suffered, and over his current, shabby treatment by Paramount. Oh, poor you! Publish something new already, sir! BTW, does he have his own web site? If so, perhaps he should consider just publishing his new works on the Internet. -- RR

 

[EEE]

If Ellison has a contractual right to be paid when his intellectual property is used (particularly to enrich others), then more power to him. He shouldn't have to explain himself to anyone.

Are any of you critics working for free?

Yes, as a matter of fact. All of my criticisms ARE free.

And don't forget, Ellison had to stand by and watch Roddenberry rewrite his script.

You should read Ellison's book about who wrote what.

If Roddenberry didn't want the script Ellison had written, he should have written one of his own -- fresh, and not derived from Ellison's work.

You really should read Justman's & Solow's book to understand the time all that happened. (not to mention Ellison was paid for a filmable script).

Ellison might have been able to rework the script into a short story for publication.

Ummm, he did get it inot publication... it was called "The City on the Edge of Forever - The original teleplay that became the classic star trek episode"

In fact I think everyone should read just his prologue, and then the guest commentaries. His prologue goes on and on about who did what and how his was better and his guests prove it. His "guests" pretty much only say it was a good story. One makes an argument about how Roddenberry threw out the drug dealer on crew (not Scotty as rumours had it for years, and years), but kept other people with big problems. He missed the fact that Ellison wanted a drug dealer in the first season, whereas the other people with problems came after things were starting their inevitable slide into everyone's favorite season to malign. His guest's argument was completely oblivious to context.

The problem I think Ellison missed is that the televised version was the one most of us fell in love with. No matter how beautiful his original (and often called un-filmable) version was.

Just reading his City prologue (not many include the "F" word in print) and lack of promised proof of anything by his guest commentaries convinced me that he could be the most brilliant writer of all time, but for all I care, he's a sad, sad little man that likes to throw temper tantrums.

But on thing I do know, is what Ellison thinks of me (and YOU)...

“I have no love for Paramount,” said Harlan Ellison, in an interview with Maggie Thompson, printed in Sci-Fi Universe in June 1995. “Paramount is not a studio…steeped in ethical behavior...The fanatics who feed off that whole money-making Trek franchise, who live it and breathe it, who don't merely watch the show, are to me the most pathetic creatures in the world; suckers being mulcted by venal Paramount, publishers of garbage novels with stock characters, hustlers and inheritors of Roddenberry's scam, and cult-like gurus who prey on Star Trek obsessives and Trekkies and Trekkers and Treksters and Trekoids and Treknoids and Trekiloids and Diploids and Dippies. They're like those sad couch potatoes who worship at the TV altars of The 700 Club and Home Shopping Channel, which are one and the same, whether the viewers are being fleeced in the name of Consumerism or Jesus. They are…absolutely the most pathetic creatures in the world. I mean, they talk about a TV series as if it were real life. They wear damned Star Trek uniforms. People change their names so they have the same names as the characters. Doesn't anyone else see the resemblance this all bears to the Branch Davidians or the Jonestown cults?”

 

[Red Ranger]

Originally Posted by Harlan Ellison
“I have no love for Paramount,” said Harlan Ellison, in an interview with Maggie Thompson, printed in Sci-Fi Universe in June 1995. “Paramount is not a studio…steeped in ethical behavior...The fanatics who feed off that whole money-making Trek franchise, who live it and breathe it, who don't merely watch the show, are to me the most pathetic creatures in the world; suckers being mulcted by venal Paramount, publishers of garbage novels with stock characters, hustlers and inheritors of Roddenberry's scam, and cult-like gurus who prey on Star Trek obsessives and Trekkies and Trekkers and Treksters and Trekoids and Treknoids and Trekiloids and Diploids and Dippies. They're like those sad couch potatoes who worship at the TV altars of The 700 Club and Home Shopping Channel, which are one and the same, whether the viewers are being fleeced in the name of Consumerism or Jesus. They are…absolutely the most pathetic creatures in the world. I mean, they talk about a TV series as if it were real life. They wear damned Star Trek uniforms. People change their names so they have the same names as the characters. Doesn't anyone else see the resemblance this all bears to the Branch Davidians or the Jonestown cults?”

Wow. Talk about hyperbole. If Trekkies made their followers drink poisoned Kool-Aid or had a violent stand-off with the FBI, then maybe his last statement would have a shred of merit. All I know is, SF fans don't have riots like sports fans, or even religious fanatics. -- RR