Harlan Ellison COTEF Lawsuit Gains Momentum

[trevanian]

^^Judging by the script submitted (in Ellison's own book), I would say the rewrites were motivated more by the former. It just wasn't Star Trek as originally written.

Only in details. Obviously they'd need to fix the angry Kirk/Spock exchanges about vulcan history and who 'hit space 200 years' before who, but the important stuff all would have worked. I'd say the contrivance factor of the sun and the keel and all that pointing the way to Edith is the only really weak aspect in the Ellison, and I'd suffer that in exchange for Trooper's inclusion anytime.

I love both versions, but I do have to say that the drunk w/ the milk bottle never worked for me in the aired version,

 

[Photoman15]

Why? Who is Trooper? Why would an average television/Trek viewer in 1966-68 care about Trooper? He wasn't a regular character. He wasn't someone in history that people would know about. For the story, it was fine, for the weekly television show "STAR TREK" is was unneeded.

 

[Maurice]

Why? Who is Trooper? Why would an average television/Trek viewer in 1966-68 care about Trooper? He wasn't a regular character. He wasn't someone in history that people would know about. For the story, it was fine, for the weekly television show "STAR TREK" is was unneeded.

Lets just change the episode and see how this reads:

Why? Who is Kevin Riley? Why would an average television/Trek viewer in 1966-68 care about Riley? He wasn't a regular character. He wasn't someone in history that people would know about. For the story, it was fine, for the weekly television show "STAR TREK"
​

That idea operates on the false premise that the audience doesn't care about anyone but the regular characters, which clearly is not the case.

 

[number6]

Trooper was one of the few things I miss about Ellison's version of the script.

Jewels of Sound I could definitely do without. That behaviour was certainly very un-StarFleet.

If Ellison had written this for Outer Limits or Twilight Zone, it probably would have had very few changes. Since the script (as written) didn't really follow the Trek format, a great deal of changes were necessary. For the amount of time Ellison allegedly spent on the Paramount lot getting to know the cast and crew, it is disturbing how little of that "research" found its way into any of his scripts.

 

[gottacook]

I agree that Trooper is superfluous. In the very last scene of Ellison's script (I don't have it in front of me, but the version I have is the first published version, included in Six Science Fiction Plays edited by Roger Elwood), a final mention of Trooper is stuck awkwardly into the Kirk-Spock dialogue that's primarily about Edith and how no other woman was almost offered the Universe for love. There is no way not to mention Trooper other than awkwardly in this final scene, yet his importance earlier would make it just as awkward not to somehow acknowledge him at the end. Thus the decision to excise the character -- a correct decision, I believe.

 

[Photoman15]

Why? Who is Trooper? Why would an average television/Trek viewer in 1966-68 care about Trooper? He wasn't a regular character. He wasn't someone in history that people would know about. For the story, it was fine, for the weekly television show "STAR TREK" is was unneeded.

Lets just change the episode and see how this reads:

Why? Who is Kevin Riley? Why would an average television/Trek viewer in 1966-68 care about Riley? He wasn't a regular character. He wasn't someone in history that people would know about. For the story, it was fine, for the weekly television show "STAR TREK"
​

That idea operates on the false premise that the audience doesn't care about anyone but the regular characters, which clearly is not the case.

Kevin Riley was the guest "bad guy", but not in the classical sense. He represented the danger to the ship (and characters) that the hero(es) had to overcome. Viewers didn't really care about Riley. They cared about the danger he put the ship in. The fact that he was not in control of that does not change his place as (one of) the antagonist of the story.

 

[Maurice]

Kevin Riley was the guest "bad guy", but not in the classical sense.

I meant in "The Naked Time": my mistake for not including the title.

He represented the danger to the ship (and characters) that the hero(es) had to overcome. Viewers didn't really care about Riley. They cared about the danger he put the ship in. The fact that he was not in control of that does not change his place as (one of) the antagonist of the story.

Which actually goes to my point. Audiences need not care about characters in order for them to have a function or matter to the story. Likewise, they need not be regulars for audiences to care about them. You proceed from a false assumption.

Trooper functions in TCOTEOF to illustrate how some people "matter" to history and others don't, no matter how noble they might be. There's cruel irony in that. It's like the idea that deeds don't get you into heaven. Trooper lost his legs in service of his country and loses his life to help a stranger, and he doesn't matter as much as the lady who runs the milk kitchen down the street whose very existence changes the course of history.

 

[Photoman15]

Fine, that's his function, but in a one-hour episodic program, it was unneeded and changed the dynamic of the story (for tv). More of their allotted time was used to service the main characters and the main guest (EK).

 

[Noname Given]

Why? Who is Trooper? Why would an average television/Trek viewer in 1966-68 care about Trooper? He wasn't a regular character. He wasn't someone in history that people would know about. For the story, it was fine, for the weekly television show "STAR TREK" is was unneeded.

Lets just change the episode and see how this reads:

Why? Who is Kevin Riley? Why would an average television/Trek viewer in 1966-68 care about Riley? He wasn't a regular character. He wasn't someone in history that people would know about. For the story, it was fine, for the weekly television show "STAR TREK"
​

That idea operates on the false premise that the audience doesn't care about anyone but the regular characters, which clearly is not the case.

Actually, Kevin Riley WAS a pseudo regular through the first 13 episodes of Star Trek (aka TOS) season one. The analogy doesn't quite hold up. Now, if you used Lt. Bailey from The Corbomite Manuever...

 

[Maurice]

Lets just change the episode and see how this reads:

Why? Who is Kevin Riley? Why would an average television/Trek viewer in 1966-68 care about Riley? He wasn't a regular character. He wasn't someone in history that people would know about. For the story, it was fine, for the weekly television show "STAR TREK"

Actually, Kevin Riley WAS a pseudo regular through the first 13 episodes of Star Trek (aka TOS) season one. The analogy doesn't quite hold up. Now, if you used Lt. Bailey from The Corbomite Manuever... ​

Season one was I think 26 episodes. The initial order was a half-season. The distinction is merely a contractual thing.

To your analogy re pseudo regular: if someone is constipated 1 out of 6 times, does that make them constipated or sorta regular? (And let's not forget that the character wasn't originally Riley in both episodes, it's just when they cast the same actor again someone pointed out the fact and they switched the name). But now you're just trying to use a technicality to pick on my example. ​

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Kirk's exchanges with "Trooper" were among the best things about this particular script.

Some of what was done to the script after the early drafts was motivated by bringing it into line with budgets and production realities. Much of the rewriting, however, simply rendered the script more banal, less human diminished its overall quality. And some of it - the rewritten version of Edith Keeler's "supper" speech, most notably - was tone-deaf, leaden and dumb. That is, it was pure Roddenberry.

Despite his self-dramatizing flair, Ellison is on the right side of this fight as well as many others. You know that Star Trek as a Franchise is certainly sufficiently middle-brow and pre-chewed to survive without the constant protection of fans against every perceived criticism, so trekkies should just relax and let this particularly undeserved defense of the Great Bird go.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Nope. Sorry. I was all set to dig into Ellison's script and luxuriate in it's vast superiority to the filmed version--I'd been an avid HE fan for years and I had first-hand experience of a dim-witted fellow fan spreading the "Scotty selling drugs" canard. I alternately smiled and ground my teeth through the White Wolf edition's introductory screed, all set to be blown away.

Um, I wasn't. With the sole exception of Edith Keeler's leaden pep talk, everything in the filmed version struck me as superior to HE's script*. This isn't reflexive GR defending; as I said, I was foursquare on Ellison's side. I just didn't like it. At all. Indeed, the situation was the exact inverse of how I reacted to Trek XI, a movie I fully intended to hate but instead liked a great deal.

*A partial laundry list of what I hated in HE's script: the cut-rate Gandalfs that were his Guardians of Forever, the snarky tricorder that spoke in Ren Faire pseudo-poetry, the silly dissolve of Kirk's face becoming a star in a star-field, the completely unnecessary punishment of Beckwith leading into the sappy coda with Spock's groan-inducing line "No woman was ever offered the universe for love" or some such shit--as opposed to the much more emotionally poignant and abrupt "Let's get the hell out of here" of the filmed episode. Additionally, Kirk's falling in love with Edith is handled a dozen times better in the filmed episode than in HE's script and, though I know it's supposed to be oh-so-much-braver in the original script to have Kirk wimp out at the crucial moment, I much prefer Kirk's tragic actions in the filmed version. He does what is required of him but he is not heroic.

 

[Ward Fowler]

I was foursquare on Ellison's side. I just didn't like it.

This is much as I felt.

Additionally, Kirk's falling in love with Edith is handled a dozen times better in the filmed episode than in HE's script and, though I know it's supposed to be oh-so-much-braver in the original script to have Kirk wimp out at the crucial moment, I much prefer Kirk's tragic actions in the filmed version. He does what is required of him but he is not heroic.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

I was one of the guys who was at the bookstore the day Ellison's book came out. I read it the same day I bought it and then wondered what the fuss was about. There is no doubt that that Ellison's version is the best written and most literate version. However, it was not a Star Trek episode. Ellison got the characters wrong as well as the show sensibilities. Considering that I thought what was aired was superior to his version.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

There is no doubt that that Ellison's version is the best written and most literate version. However, it was not a Star Trek episode.

Sure, and as far as I'm concerned the former is what's important and the latter is nearly trivial - Star Trek did have an opportunity, here, to evolve into something more than it was at the end of the first season (and at that point it was quite remarkable). GR and company booted the chance and the series would rarely ever be excellent again; it settled down into a more gently entertaining formula for a while in season two and just slowly declined.

Not coincidentally, the few flashes of brilliance that Trek would see in season two also came from the pens of experienced sf prose writers - Sturgeon and Spinrad and arguably Bixby - and none from the somewhat larcenous imagination of Gene Roddenberry.

I was reminded this week during the SCIFI channel's latest "Twilight Zone" marathon how wildly inconsistent that series could be in tone, approach and overall quality - and as much as a consequence of permitting that inconstancy in the spirit of storytelling freedom as in spite of it, The Twilight Zone"remains the high-water mark for the genre on American commercial television. Star Trek doesn't touch it.

 

[RobertScorpio]

There is no doubt that that Ellison's version is the best written and most literate version. However, it was not a Star Trek episode.

Sure, and as far as I'm concerned the former is what's important and the latter is nearly trivial - Star Trek did have an opportunity, here, to evolve into something more than it was at the end of the first season (and at that point it was quite remarkable). GR and company booted the chance and the series would rarely ever be excellent again; it settled down into a more gently entertaining formula for a while in season two and just slowly declined.

Not coincidentally, the few flashes of brilliance that Trek would see in season two also came from the pens of experienced sf prose writers - Sturgeon and Spinrad and arguably Bixby - and none from the somewhat larcenous imagination of Gene Roddenberry.

I was reminded this week during the SCIFI channel's latest "Twilight Zone" marathon how wildly inconsistent that series could be in tone, approach and overall quality - and as much as a consequence of permitting that inconstancy in the spirit of storytelling freedom as in spite of it, The Twilight Zone"remains the high-water mark for the genre on American commercial television. Star Trek doesn't touch it.

And I couldn't disagree more. The better version of the story is the one that aired. The drama is far better served having Kirk let her die rather than having Spock do it. I have been asking my NON-trek fans this question for YEARS and most agree; Kirk letting her die was 'sadder'.

I have read Ellison's version and find it lacking in pace. It meanders around too much.

So...I side with GR on this one. Something I rarely do. But Roddenberry made it better.



Rob

 

[Ward Fowler]

Star Trek did have an opportunity, here, to evolve into something more than it was at the end of the first season (and at that point it was quite remarkable). GR and company booted the chance and the series would rarely ever be excellent again; it settled down into a more gently entertaining formula for a while in season two and just slowly declined.

Not coincidentally, the few flashes of brilliance that Trek would see in season two also came from the pens of experienced sf prose writers - Sturgeon and Spinrad and arguably Bixby - and none from the somewhat larcenous imagination of Gene Roddenberry.

I was reminded this week during the SCIFI channel's latest "Twilight Zone" marathon how wildly inconsistent that series could be in tone, approach and overall quality - and as much as a consequence of permitting that inconstancy in the spirit of storytelling freedom as in spite of it, The Twilight Zone"remains the high-water mark for the genre on American commercial television. Star Trek doesn't touch it.

I largely agree with what your saying here Dennis, but as you well know, TWZ was an anthology. It could more afford to be inconsistent in tone and even quality. That also brings up production quality. Considering how ambitious Ellison's original story was, did the producer's have the budget to make it?

 

[Photoman15]

There is no doubt that that Ellison's version is the best written and most literate version. However, it was not a Star Trek episode.

Sure, and as far as I'm concerned the former is what's important and the latter is nearly trivial - Star Trek did have an opportunity, here, to evolve into something more than it was at the end of the first season (and at that point it was quite remarkable). GR and company booted the chance and the series would rarely ever be excellent again; it settled down into a more gently entertaining formula for a while in season two and just slowly declined.

Not coincidentally, the few flashes of brilliance that Trek would see in season two also came from the pens of experienced sf prose writers - Sturgeon and Spinrad and arguably Bixby - and none from the somewhat larcenous imagination of Gene Roddenberry.

I was reminded this week during the SCIFI channel's latest "Twilight Zone" marathon how wildly inconsistent that series could be in tone, approach and overall quality - and as much as a consequence of permitting that inconstancy in the spirit of storytelling freedom as in spite of it, The Twilight Zone"remains the high-water mark for the genre on American commercial television. Star Trek doesn't touch it.

And I couldn't disagree more. The better version of the story is the one that aired. The drama is far better served having Kirk let her die rather than having Spock do it. I have been asking my NON-trek fans this question for YEARS and most agree; Kirk letting her die was 'sadder'.

I have read Ellison's version and find it lacking in pace. It meanders around too much.

So...I side with GR on this one. Something I rarely do. But Roddenberry made it better.



Rob

It wouldn't have been anywhere near as powerful if it wasn't Kirk that did it. The aired version was STAR TREK, the original(s) were not quite.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

So...I side with GR on this one. Something I rarely do. But Roddenberry made it better.



Rob

Actually, it was far more likey Coon and Fontana who made it better. The one thing that absolutely screams GR--Edith's futurism--is the episode's one weak spot.

 

[Captain Robert April]

One thing to keep in mind: The one published early draft is a very early draft, before they'd even started regular production (note the landing party still has the capability to remotely beam themselves up; no need to request a beam up), and included an item that Ellison put in at Roddenberry's insistence, namely, the space pirates. At the most, we've only seen snippets from later rewrites, so we don't know how close the later versions came to the final filmed version.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Ugh, I'd forgotten the space pirates.