Inside Star Trek: The Real Story

[Gary7]

There was a recent thread about the video recorded interviews of Inside Star Trek that was uploaded onto You Tube by 22 stars. Really good stuff.

Well, I finally got around to getting the book, "Inside Star Trek: The Real Story". This was co-authored by Robert Justman (co-producer) and Herbert Solow (executive producer), regarding a lot of the behind-the-scenes details about TOS. I have to say that it's a fascinating book, exposing a lot of things that were definitely left unsaid by everyone else (especially Roddenberry). This is predominantly through the eyes of Solow, as he provides a bit more detail than Justman. But both perspectives are just as valuable.

One thing I didn't particularly care for was that the first half of the book reads a lot like "Solow and Justman, producers during the years of Star Trek", rather than "the production of Star Trek, by Solow and Justman". There are some excruciatingly boring details about other things going on at NBC and Desilu Studios that Justman and Solow had to contend with. True, it had some impact on the Star Trek production, but I really felt like a lot of it could have been trimmed back. Solow and Justman had to juggle other TV obligations at the time, including Bruce Geller's Mission: Impossible. And quite frankly, since the book was titled "Inside Star Trek", you'd figure that details about other productions would be extremely brief. In exchange for that detail, I'd much rather have read more about particulars in the shooting of various episodes. Also, Gene is known for having done a tremendous amount of script rewriting, which annoyed the hell out of hired writers. Yet, we don't really get much detail about what that was... maybe Solow and Justman didn't know much about the details, but they could have at least done some research.

Also, it is common knowledge that Roddenberry had an appetite for women, cheating on his wife with Majel Barrett as well as others. But I really felt like Herb and Bob could have spared us a lot of the episodic details. It accentuated Gene's flaws and feels a bit disrespectful. Was it really necessary to belabor the point? For example, Herb went into quite a bit of detail about two instances where Nichelle was caught wearing practically nothing in Gene's office. I really felt it could have been simply summarized in a few sentences rather than a couple of pages.

It's obvious that Herb and Bob both had chips on their shoulders about Gene. Roddenberry distorted the truth on numerous occasions, in ways to promote himself and steal credit from others. And while he was alive, there would be problems with contradicting it. Once Gene passed away, Herb and Bob were free to write it all... and they certainly did. Even though they went out of their way to mention how much respect and admiration they had for Gene's creativity, they had no hesitation with raising the curtain on Gene's unseemly behavior and exposing it with high magnification. But, we must also assume that Solow and Justman may have very well embellished the truth a little as well. If there aren't any other "eyes" to attest to what they describe, we can't really know for sure that what they say is the absolute truth.

I wonder... if Majel Barrett had any reaction to the book, as it came out 10 years prior to her death. I've not been able to find anything on-line...


Anyway, has anyone else here read the book? If so, what are your thoughts and opinions about it?

 

[number6]

I thought it was a great book.. I disagree about your point about Solow and Justman's work outside of Star Trek during those years. It's all kinda related to their story. I don't think they were disrespectful to GR, just a little more realistic about it. There were a load of things GR distorted over the years, particularly about his dealings with NBC. It was nice to see some other perspective on this other than the usual "GR was a genius and everyone was mean to him" kinds of stuff we've seen.

The companion video was interesting, if not a little disjointed and self serving. It was great to finally hear from other people involved in the original show. I only wish someone had the foresight to film an interview with Gene Coon while he was still alive.

 

[Michael]

Easily the best Star Trek book ever. Period. And I also read it because of suggestions on this board. I like it, because it's different from any other Trek book in that they don't always preach the Trek gospel and don't pretend the show was more to them than just another show all these years ago. It's not about glorifying the mythos but telling the how's and why's of the production. It also helps that both authors have a great sense of humour. I would recommend this book to any Star Trek fan.

 

[Christopher]

One thing I didn't particularly care for was that the first half of the book reads a lot like "Solow and Justman, producers during the years of Star Trek", rather than "the production of Star Trek, by Solow and Justman". There are some excruciatingly boring details about other things going on at NBC and Desilu Studios that Justman and Solow had to contend with. True, it had some impact on the Star Trek production, but I really felt like a lot of it could have been trimmed back. Solow and Justman had to juggle other TV obligations at the time, including Bruce Geller's Mission: Impossible. And quite frankly, since the book was titled "Inside Star Trek", you'd figure that details about other productions would be extremely brief.

I appreciated getting the broader insights into what was going on at Desilu in those years. It helped provide more context, and context is important to understanding a thing. (And I would've loved to see a companion Inside Mission: Impossible book, come to that.)

It's obvious that Herb and Bob both had chips on their shoulders about Gene. Roddenberry distorted the truth on numerous occasions, in ways to promote himself and steal credit from others. And while he was alive, there would be problems with contradicting it. Once Gene passed away, Herb and Bob were free to write it all... and they certainly did. Even though they went out of their way to mention how much respect and admiration they had for Gene's creativity, they had no hesitation with raising the curtain on Gene's unseemly behavior and exposing it with high magnification.

I felt it was a fair portrayal of a very human creator, gifted but fallible. I didn't feel it was a hatchet job. I think it's just that there was so much legend and misinformation out there (largely thanks to Roddenberry himself) that they felt an obligation to deconstruct the myths for the sake of balance. I didn't feel they were being judgmental about his personal life, just trying to paint a clear portrait. After all, it's not like sleeping around was unusual for a Hollywood producer of the era.

But, we must also assume that Solow and Justman may have very well embellished the truth a little as well. If there aren't any other "eyes" to attest to what they describe, we can't really know for sure that what they say is the absolute truth.

Well, of course. It's a given that no personal account ever represents "the absolute truth." It's a basic tenet of scholarship, of historiography and criticism, that every account has some degree of bias and filtering, no matter how objective the observer is trying to be. The "absolute truth" is unknowable; all we can know is what has been observed and recorded, and that's always filtered through the observer's interpretation.

But I felt that Solow and Justman did an excellent job providing documentation to support their interpretation of events, such as actual network memos and correspondence. As for the more subjective accounts, there may be no way of knowing which version is closest to the truth, but in oral or anecdotal history, it is good to have a multiplicity of viewpoints available, even if -- perhaps particularly if -- they disagree. The more perspectives you have on an event, the better your parallax.

 

[jayrath]

It's an excellent book, and the backstage look at Desilu is important for many reasons -- the place was unique in early television history.

On the other hand, the authors seemed to go way out of their way to denigrate some on the production team, including cast members. Why go on carrying hurts? Why make clownish fun of people, 30 years later?

I personally don't mind -- as with The Making of Star Trek and other accounts, we need to read all the sources we can, read between the lines and judge for ourselves. TV is by definition a collaborative medium, and everyone will have a different (and entirely honest) recollection and interpretation.

Was Gene an ass? You bet. Was he also brilliant? Yes to that, too. But digs at the fan movement that saved Star Trek's second and third seasons? And at the toupees worn by at least three cast members? (Heck, TMOS told about the padded bras worn by actresses, and yet we still get worked up over toupees?) . . . Well, excuse me, but the authors didn't have to cash their Desilu checks if they felt so dirty.

That said, Solow is revealed as a tremendous force in early television. We all know that Justman was incredibly important, too. I'm very happy if the book earns them more widespread and long-deserved recognition.

 

[Christopher]

On the other hand, the authors seemed to go way out of their way to denigrate some on the production team, including cast members. Why go on carrying hurts? Why make clownish fun of people, 30 years later?

I didn't see denigration. Just because it wasn't a whitewash, that doesn't mean there was hostility behind it. If you depict any group of people honestly, there are going to be some negative elements in the portrait.

But digs at the fan movement that saved Star Trek's second and third seasons?

It's not a "dig" if you can demonstrate that an assumption is unsupported by the facts. The very claim that the fan movement singlehandedly "saved" ST is based on a lot of exaggerations by Roddenberry, and IST provided evidence that showed the situation was more complicated, that there were other factors behind the show's renewal. That is not in any way, shape, or form a "dig" at fandom. It's simply being accurate. Nobody's saying there wasn't a fan movement, but it wasn't entirely spontaneous. Nobody's saying there weren't a lot of letters, but the claim of a million letters is ludicrously exaggerated. Nobody's saying that fan devotion didn't help, but it's not like a letter campaign alone is enough to save a money-losing show.

And at the toupees worn by at least three cast members? (Heck, TMOS told about the padded bras worn by actresses, and yet we still get worked up over toupees?) . . . Well, excuse me, but the authors didn't have to cash their Desilu checks if they felt so dirty.

Huh?? "Dirty?" We're talking about toupees. What's so "dirty" about that? It's not like it's a scandal. I just don't see the hostility in portraying people as less than perfect.

 

[Gary7]

I didn't mean to suggest that I'd rather not hear any details about other things Solow and Justman had to contend with outside of Star Trek. I just would have preferred a little less of it. Of course, one can skim over what one doesn't find interesting... which is what I did.

I'm really glad Solow and Justman wrote this book. It provides an incredible insight into a beloved series and helps you appreciate what they went through even more. What a ride it must have been.

 

[Winterwind]

Three cast members wore toupees? I'd heard about Shatner wearing one because his hair was apparently very fine and didn't show up well but who were the other two? Aside from Koenig's early appearances in the Beatle wig.

As for GR... I've never considered him brilliant. Self-absorbed and lucky are how I see him.

 

[Botany Bay]

Easily the best Star Trek book ever. Period.

Agreed 100%

Must-read stuff for all TOS lovers.

The inclusion of loads of private memos and production documents are what sets this one apart from other behind the scenes accounts. I think this is as close to 'how it all happened' as we're ever going to get.

Sadly, there is little coverage of the second half of the series, after Paramount took over Desilu. Solow had moved on by this point, but Justman hung around into the third season. From memory, Justman hints that last season was not a happy time for anyone.

I will always wonder how it would have turned out with him as producer.

 

[Stoek]

The very claim that the fan movement singlehandedly "saved" ST is based on a lot of exaggerations by Roddenberry, and IST provided evidence that showed the situation was more complicated, that there were other factors behind the show's renewal. That is not in any way, shape, or form a "dig" at fandom. It's simply being accurate. Nobody's saying there wasn't a fan movement, but it wasn't entirely spontaneous. Nobody's saying there weren't a lot of letters, but the claim of a million letters is ludicrously exaggerated. Nobody's saying that fan devotion didn't help, but it's not like a letter campaign alone is enough to save a money-losing show.

Personally this is a bit of myth that I am more than happy to see deconstructed and hopefully destroyed for all time. Now I'm not saying that fans should not do their best to make their support known for a show. And I'm not saying that that show of support is never taken into consideration by TPTB. But the Legend of fans "saving" Star Trek has resulted in increasingly illogical acts. Such as a group of fans of the show Angel raising money to take out an ad (my fuzzy memory is saying either it was a billboard or it was an ad in Daily Variety) an AD! All of that money could have been given to charity in the shows name, or something much more worthwhile than a billboard for a show that by the time they made this futile gesture had already been cancelled all but officially.

 

[Bishop76]

^ Definitely agree with that. Aside from raising awareness that a show does have fans, letter writing campaigns do very little. If a show is losing money, the network WILL cancel it regardless of how many letters it gets. This was always such a huge pile of BS to me.

After reading all these positive things about this book I'll definitely have to pick it up.

 

[Captain Robert April]

A note about the letter writing campaign: While the actual number of letters NBC received was about two decimal places lower than Roddenberry always touted (more like 10,000 than a million), it was still about three times the amount of mail any other show had ever generated, and therefore did have some impact, but the main myth that needs to be put to rest is that NBC sought to kill off Star Trek. They gave the show more chances than most other shows in that position would've gotten, when they could've easily pulled the plug after thirteen weeks.

Hell, we've all seen shows that didn't even make it that far.

 

[jayrath]

IF NBC was unswayed by the fan campaign, why was there an on-air announcement promising a second season?

Let's not let the pendulum swing too far the other way. It may have not been what Gene claimed. It also may have been orchestrated. But it also was unprecedented, and it worked.

 

[Christopher]

IF NBC was unswayed by the fan campaign, why was there an on-air announcement promising a second season?

Because life isn't about black-and-white, all-or-nothing extremes. They were aware of the fan support, it was probably a contributing factor, but it wasn't enough by itself to make the difference. (And I only recall an announcement about the third season, and that was mainly to get the letter-writers to stop bugging them. That only proves it was big enough to be a distraction, not that it was big enough to alter network policy in and of itself.)

Let's not let the pendulum swing too far the other way. It may have not been what Gene claimed. It also may have been orchestrated. But it also was unprecedented, and it worked.

But it wouldn't have worked if there weren't other factors in play. Consumer surveys showed that Star Trek encouraged people to buy color TVs. The patent on color TV was owned by RCA, the parent company of NBC. So even though Star Trek cost NBC money, it made RCA money, and thus RCA had an economic motive to keep it on the air.

Commercial television is not a charity. No matter how much TV executives may want to keep a show on the air, they can't do so unless they can afford to. Talk about letter-writing campaigns saving shows sounds nice and romantic and quixotic, but it's just ignoring the overriding financial realities of the business. A network show needs millions of viewers to thrive -- probably tens of millions back then, when there were far fewer channels to slice up the pie. And despite Roddenberry's claims, there's no evidence that the "Save Star Trek" campaign brought in anywhere near a million letters. Such a campaign can demonstrate that a show has a devoted cult following, but that still isn't enough by itself to make a show profitable. There have to be other factors in play.

So yes, the campaign was an important moment in ST fandom. That is certainly true. It was a benchmark moment in the organization and activism of Trek fandom, and paved the way for future developments like the rise of Trek conventions, the renaming of the space shuttle prototype, and the fan culture that thrives to this day. So it certainly has a lot of importance as far as the history of fandom goes. But that doesn't mean it saved the show all by itself. That part of the story is unsupported by the evidence.

 

[AshGL1914]

Three cast members wore toupees? I'd heard about Shatner wearing one because his hair was apparently very fine and didn't show up well but who were the other two?

For everything you ever wanted to know about Bill's hair and then some check out...

http://shatnerstoupee.blogspot.com/

Not only is it a REALLY fun site, but it also gave us a wonderful gift a few months ago...a look at Bill Shatner today if he started wearing the "Jim kirk Lace" again. It's jaring enough to bring any Kirk fan to tears, and actually had a great story as to why people react so positivly to the image. It looks so good one wonders why Bill doesn't adopt the look in perhaps grey. You know what, just look.

The original story is here...
http://shatnerstoupee.blogspot.com/2010/08/amazing-lace.html

Enjoy!
John

 

[Harvey]

IF NBC was unswayed by the fan campaign, why was there an on-air announcement promising a second season?

I recall that the fan campaign, even in the limited numbers without exaggeration reported by Solow and Justman, resulted in NBC having to hire extra help in the mail room.

Let's not let the pendulum swing too far the other way. It may have not been what Gene claimed. It also may have been orchestrated. But it also was unprecedented, and it worked.

Actually, the evidence of the letter writing campaing having much effect at all is pretty limited. This analysis (thanks to stj for posting it in another thread) is a good one.

The position that it was unprecedented is also a bit of an exaggeration on Gene Roddenberry's part (he liked to claim that Star Trek did a lot of things first when, in fact, it didn't). This article from the same website as the last link explains some notable examples that predate the original series.

 

[Christopher]

Actually, the evidence of the letter writing campaing having much effect at all is pretty limited. This analysis (thanks to stj for posting it in another thread) is a good one.

Wow. All these years and there's still new stuff to learn about ST. So there was never any real evidence that it was in danger of cancellation at all that year, just rumors and a retracted news report. Fascinating.

 

[Harvey]

Speaking of learning new things, since seeing FORBIDDEN PLANET for the first time over a year ago, it seemed pretty clear to me that Roddenberry was heavily influenced by it in the creation of STAR TREK, but this memo I uncovered indicates that not only did it influence Roddenberry, but he screened it at least once while he was writing "The Cage."

This may have been printed elsewhere, but it's new to me.

Desilu Productions Inc.
Inter-Departmental Communication
To: Herb Solow
CC: P. Guzman
From: Gene Roddenberry
Date: August 10, 1964
Subject: FORBIDDEN PLANET

You may recall we saw MGM’s “FORBIDDEN PLANET” with Oscar Katz some weeks ago. I think it would be interesting for Pato Guzman to take another very hard look at the spaceship, its configurations, controls, instrumentations, etc. while we are still sketching and planning our own. Can you suggest the best way? Run the film again, or would it be ethical to get a print of the film and have our people make stills from some of the appropriate frames? This latter would be the most helpful. Please understand, we have no intention of copying either interior or exterior of that ship. But a detailed look at it again would do much to stimulate our own thinking.

Also, would much appreciate it if you could provide me with a credit list on that picture, specifically the director, art director, special effects men, etc. Thank you.

GENE RODDENBERRY

Box 35, Folder 16 in the Roddenberry papers held at UCLA.

 

[Christopher]

Also, would much appreciate it if you could provide me with a credit list on that picture, specifically the director, art director, special effects men, etc. Thank you.

GENE RODDENBERRY

Ooh, interesting. He was hoping to recruit talent from the film to work on ST.

Didn't seem to pan out, though. None of those FP staffers ever worked on ST -- largely because the director, one of the art directors, and one of the main FX guys were dead by 1965. And Robert Kinoshita, Robbie the Robot's designer, went to work on Lost in Space instead.

 

[Botany Bay]

Actually, the evidence of the letter writing campaing having much effect at all is pretty limited. This analysis (thanks to stj for posting it in another thread) is a good one.

Wow. All these years and there's still new stuff to learn about ST. So there was never any real evidence that it was in danger of cancellation at all that year, just rumors and a retracted news report. Fascinating.

Right about now I wish I had my copy of Inside Star Trek handy, and not buried away in a storage box, but I seem to recall the threat of a mid-season cancellation being very serious.

If anyone has a copy check out S&J's section on the making of The Deadly Years - I'm pretty sure they write about how everyone was sure this would be the last episode.