• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Nichols's MLK story - latest re-telling

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vance said:
Navigator_NCC2120 said:
I was at a convension in the mid-to-late 1980s in Baltimore and someone asked Doohan why that scene was not in the theatrical version and that was the reason he gave.
Click to expand...

Which is really odd, considering that the remainder of the scene that was cut is an extended (and stilted) dialog between Kirk and McCoy - Scott's already returning to engineering.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but Doohan didn't seem to understand the context of the scene. It wasn't Scotty's moment in the film. It was Kirk's. The death of Peter Preston and Scotty's reaction served to show Kirk the consequences of his mistake, drive in the spike so to speak.
 
Captain Robert April said:
"Lying" implies that she's deliberately misspeaking, and memory is a very tricky thing. She doesn't have to be an Alzheimer's sufferer for her to honestly believe that she's being truthful.

Let's start from the bedrock, kids. Is there any way to confirm if there was a NAACP event in '67 that Nichelle Nichols attended? If so, was MLK in attendance?
Click to expand...

If someone were to track down the entire history of the story, from the supposed actual meeting or phone call, to various recitations by Nichols, it would make interesting reading. However, I'm not about to do the legwork, and it would seem cruel, anyway.

Doug
 
I think DakotaSmith got right to the point. Read his posting for an excellent response on this topic.


When Star Trek regained its footing in the movie industry years after it was canceled as a TV series, Shatner and Nimoy embraced it despite several years of running away from it (fear of being typecast). Certainly this was a lucrative acting venue; you don't cast something like that aside. Yet, Shatner and Nimoy were able to move onto other things. What of the 2nd string actors like Nichelle Nichols? Her whole acting career basically was Star Trek. Yes, she had some other minor roles, but outside of Star Trek she was an unknown. And so, anything she has connected with it becomes something important for her to highlight... even exaggerate.

It's a fact that early interviews with Nichelle Nichols had her stating that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. inspired her to stay with the show. There was no mention of him directly contacting her. If he had, you'd bet anything that this would be the first thing she'd have said! With something of that magnitude, would you hold it back to reveal many years later? I actually wonder if the real situation was Dr. King making a comment about her role as a representation of what equal rights is striving for. And then when Nichelle heard this reference to her role, that influenced her.

So, it seems it's quite easy to see Nichelle has exaggerated the account, by virtue of earlier omission. But anybody responsible for Dr. King's publicity and image would certainly welcome what she says now. It's a positive thing for all concerned, if it did indeed happen. So with no resistance, Nichelle has been unfettered with making embellishments. But how far is it going to go? Her latest says they kept in touch frequently. What's next?

I know it's difficult to resist calling out somebody who is being an opportunist, exaggerating the truth for their own glorification. In the end, there's really no harm done. Unless there are further exaggerations which really start stretching the fabric of believability, like MLK quoted as saying that she was the most important person on the show. Let's hope she doesn't take it too far. ;)
 
Hey, what's the prob? Nichelle Nichols is an entertainer. Therefore, I assume her desire is to keep her audience entertained. And the Magical, Ever-Changing MLK Story certainly does that! :D
 
*shakes head in a mixture of disbelief and amusement*

Next she'll say she was meant to be the first officer, and NBC made GR change it. 8)
 
Grant said:
It was NEVER established to be the 23rd century until TWOK.

So by mentioning the fact it was set in the 23rd century----it is clear that Dr King was psychic on top of his other virtues.

He was psychic and she is psycho.
Click to expand...

Dennis said:
So, now MLK is apparently credited with coining the term "Trekker."
Click to expand...

I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that she is paraphrasing on those. Maybe MLK said in the future or big Trek fan or whatever and she's simply relating the gist of what he told her. Not too say that there isn't a whole lot of hooey in there but I'll give her these.
 
Vance said:
Captain Robert April said:
A few historical notes, Shatner's father died during the filming of "The Devil In the Dark", his marriage started disintegrating during the third season, and, although it hasn't been confirmed, due to failing memories, I suspect that the tinnitus was the result of the explosion in the teaser for "Requiem For Methuselah", again, third season.
Click to expand...

Shatner and Nimoy personally both cite "Arena" for their tinnitis. Notably, the explosions that go off awfully close to them in the beginning of the episode. Given that they're the ones who were there and started suffering for it, I see no reason to correct them.
Click to expand...

Whenever I've heard them discuss it, particularly on the "Mind Meld" DVD, they don't recall the episode. However, the details (De Kelley was also in the scene close to the explosion, and it was inside a soundstage, neither of which are even close to the situation on "Arena"), plus the fact that those oh-so-close explosions on the Cestus III set weren't explosions, they were relatively harmless gas jets shooting up colored fuller's earth, all argue against "Arena". If either of them has cited "Arena", it's most likely because so many fans have told them that was the episode.

The only scene that matches up with the details, however, is "Requiem For Methuselah". All three men are there, with a full blown fireball going off right behind them, and it's on the soundstage.
 
Last edited:
Potemkin_Prod said:
*shakes head in a mixture of disbelief and amusement*

Next she'll say she was meant to be the first officer, and NBC made GR change it. 8)
Click to expand...


She HAS claimed that she received more fan mail then William Shatner during the show's original run; but claims the studio 'burned it all' (her source: "Someone in the Desilu mailroom.")

As to the 'expansion' of her MLK story over the years, personally, I'm amazed she hasn't added:

"And I also had MLK's 'love-child', but we kept that hidden from Hoover and the FBI...";)
 
Was watching Trek on "MeTV", and saw her brief version of the story told in a "bumper", which let me to google the terms "Nichelle Nichols" + "MLK"; one hit led me here, and I just read through the thread. A couple points:

1. It was a side discussion, but regarding the time setting of Star Trek, the very beginning of Chapter 3 in the Making of Star Trek (published in 1968) starts out "INTOLERANCE IN THE 23RD CENTURY? IMPROBABLE!" (caps not mine).

2. I watched the fairly recent 12 minute long version of the story on emmylegends.org (via youtube) and it struck me that she was making it up a bit as she went along. Especially the bit about the broadway show she was to headline. MOST details were similar in her autobiography Beyond Uhura, though then the impetus behind her leaving Trek was racism and other indignities she felt she was suffering on the set. That book was first published in 1994. So the story has been fairly consistent for the last 20 years, with the exception of WHY she was leaving the show.

3. I seem to recall the story going back to the 70s, and I do have a bunch of old "Best of Trek" paperbacks from the early 80s, wouldn't doubt I might find a reference there if I was inclined to spend the time to look through them (I'm not). I do recall essentially the same story being told about her meeting Dr. King in person going back at least to my high school years (I graduated in 1984), and likely going back even further than that. I don't recall ever reading a "phone call" or "letter" version, and without evidence, give zero credence to any claim that she ever told a version where she didn't have the interaction with Dr. King in person. At least one person in this thread had it DEAD WRONG that the 23rd century setting began with TWOK in 1982. And another claims the version in her autobiography was "radically different" than the one she tells not. And you are giving an 83 year old a hard time about her memory?!

4. My guess is it did happen, and she has changed some minor details in the retelling (and retelling). Having Dr. King referring to the 23rd century is a very minor deviation. I can see her wanting to change the part about her leaving the show over "unpleasantry" at this point in her life, and anyway the juxtaposition of such ugliness as she described in her autobiography as being the reason for her leaving and Dr. King's message makes it a less positive story.

So to conclude, I can forgive this lovely octogenarian changing a few details she'd prefer not to remember, some other details that really make no difference whatsoever (like Dr.K mentioning the 23rd century), or even choosing to remember her role in breaking color barriers as being more significant than some of you choose to acknowledge.
 
alensatemybuick said:
Was watching Trek on "MeTV", and saw her brief version of the story told in a "bumper", which let me to google the terms "Nichelle Nichols" + "MLK"; one hit led me here, and I just read through the thread...
Click to expand...
Greetings, alensatemybuick. It's not entirely obvious here, but the moderators on this board are keen that we do not revivify dead threads. In short, if the thread has been inactive for six months, consider starting a new thread on the same topic, and if the thread has been dead for more than a year, absolutely start a new topic. The last post on this topic was just over 5 years ago, so it should be left to RIP. :D
 
^ I think a good way to do it would be to start a new thread with a link to the old one. That way those interested could see what you are referring to without bringing a thread back from the dead and replies would continue in the new thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top