• 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!

Chekov's hair

Just read the synopsis. Reminds me of Sondheim's Merrily We Roll Along.

Inspiration for Annual #3 (Series I) was the playwright Harold Pinter:

PAD said:

"I knew what I wanted to do for Star Trek Annual #3. I wanted to do a romance story, featuring a look at the long-lost, secret love of Mr. Scott’s life.

"And I wanted to tell the story backward.

“'Backward?' asked editor Bob Greenberger.

“'Backward,' I said. I had just seen a play on Broadway by Harold Pinter: a story in which we see the history of a romantic triangle, except the sequence of events is told in reverse order. The play had, in fact, bored me stiff. During Pinter’s trademark lengthy pauses, I kept wanting to scream, 'Somebody say something!'

"But the format of the play intrigued me, and I wanted to adapt it to the long form of the
Star Trek Annual. Although I did insist on putting 'Based on a concept by Harold Pinter,' in the credit box. For all I knew, Pinter himself had seen someone else do the same thing and got it from that person, but my first exposure had been from Pinter’s work, and that’s whom I credited. Although it did prompt some befuddled fans to ask, 'Harold Pinter is doing work for DC now?...'

"... That
Star Trek Annual remains one of my favorite single-issue comics. With a lesser artists or even simply a different one, the story would simply not have worked. I wrote that issue full script, panel-by-panel breakdown, full dialogue for every panel described ahead of time, because that was the way Curt wanted to do it. He was more comfortable with the full-script format, because that was the way all comics were done when he first started in the business. He was a gracious and wonderful individual, highly flattering and praising of the script. His likenesses of the Star Trek actors were meticulous, and he was able to render convincingly the characters at all ages. We showed Scotty as young as 12 years old, and the face was convincingly that of the future Montgomery Scott. And I would later find out that Scotty’s lifelong love, Glynn, shared her name with James Doohan’s genuine childhood sweetheart, with whom he hooked up (albeit not romantically) in later years.

"I wound up buying a couple of pages from that annual at an art auction at the Chicago Comicon a year or two later. I faced virtually no competition for it: Seeking out full-page drawings from the latest hot artists, the audience had zero interest in a two-page, meticulously rendered sequence wherein Mr. Scott informs his wife that he’s going to be returning to service on the Enterprise. I later caught up with Curt at a convention and he signed them to me."


http://www.peterdavid.net/2012/01/09/thank-yous/
 
Hmm. The original "straight play" version of Merrily was by George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart, from 1934; Sondheim's version (book by George Furth) was from 1981, and was a flop in its original production (with more previews than performances), but revised versions have been seen, from Broadway and the West End to high school productions (which is how I saw it, and liked it). No Harold Pinter in sight, and not knowing any of Pinter's works, I haven't a clue which one PAD could have been referring to.
 
Hmm. The original "straight play" version of Merrily was by George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart, from 1934; Sondheim's version (book by George Furth) was from 1981, and was a flop in its original production (with more previews than performances), but revised versions have been seen, from Broadway and the West End to high school productions (which is how I saw it, and liked it). No Harold Pinter in sight, and not knowing any of Pinter's works, I haven't a clue which one PAD could have been referring to.
I don't know anything about Pinter either, but I do know how to type "harold pinter backwards play" into Google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayal_(play)
 
I was giving you PAD's Harold Pinter anecdote, not claiming that the Annual's story was inspired by "Merrily We Roll Along."
Nor did I mean to say that you were making such a claim (and apologize if I led anybody to believe I did). Simply noting that if it was Pinter to which he was referring, it had to be something else (and we've established that the "something else" was Betrayal.)

Never knew that reverse chronology was such a popular format.
 
Last edited:
That Wikipedia article was interesting (though some of its examples were dubious). I forgot about that Seinfeld episode; I saw that when I was a kid.

There's a really neat short story by Mari Ness called "Twittering the Stars," which is in the form of tweets sent from a spaceship. Because Twitter pages start with the most recent and go back, that's how the story is formatted, and it does pretty cool things with the form to unfold a story in reverse. I thought it was gonna be a dumb gimmick, but I really enjoyed it.
 
Never cared for Seinfeld. Somehow, "a [self described] show about nothing," in which most or all of the characters were the sort who live down to their basest inclinations, just doesn't do it for me; I like shows about nice people. And I had even less enthusiasm, the one time I saw Curb Your Enthusiasm. And don't get me started on the monuments to Kitman's Law that pass for sitcoms these days.
 
I can get what you mean about Seinfeld and Curb to a degree, James (I get tired of that sort of thing too at times, though it comes and goes for me), but I'd suggest you check out Parks and Rec. It's a great modern sitcom, and it's one of the most optimistic and cheery shows I've ever seen. And some of the healthiest relationships (both platonic and romantic) that I've seen in a sitcom too.

Though you might want to skip to season 2; season 1 isn't that great, and it's basically nothing like the way the show ends up going.
 
Hmm. I'll admit that the P&R DVD sets I've seen on the shelf at Best Buy did give me a bit of morbid curiosity.

But I don't think there are many sitcoms from the past 20 years that could hold a candle to Get Smart, Mork & Mindy, Night Court, or Barney Miller. Sure, there were monuments to Kitman's Law in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and also in the 40s and 50s, for that matter. But like music, we tend to forget the garbage, and remember the gems. Unfortunately, lately, there's been far too much garbage, and too few gems. (I classify The Middle and The Goldbergs to be barely tolerable, but not even close to being "gems.")

But to get back to Chekov's hair, well, the real world explanation was thatWalter's hair was deemed too short and out-of-style when filming his first episode or two, and the wig bought time for his hair to grow out to a length that would be acceptable to the "young" demographic for whom he'd been written in. In-universe is somewhat simpler: he got a haircut.
 
"James Kirk's hair had gone darker with age instead of lighter, as had his temperament." (Best Destiny by Diane Carey)
Oh my God... REALLY? That's junior high school bad.
Either "Strike Zone" or "A Rock and a Hard Place" began with Riker having just returned from vacation with his new beard, there being a joke about him having more hair on his chin than Picard's whole head.
Yep. I remember that bit. Riker grew it as a mild revenge for Picard forcing him to take shore leave (Early Riker was less of a hedonist than he later became).
This is a society that can reknit broken bones, and mend skin wounds instantly. Devices to hasten hair growth are probably as ubiquitous as hair dryers and curling irons are today.
In John Byrne's recent "The Mirror, Crack'd" comic from IDW, McCoy uses a hair growth stimulator to regrow Mirror Spock's goatee (which helps us tell the two Spocks apart for the rest of the story).
No Harold Pinter in sight, and not knowing any of Pinter's works, I haven't a clue which one PAD could have been referring to.
Yep, it's Betrayal. I saw it ages ago as a teenager. The main thing I remember about it is that it was about an extramarital affair, we see the couple's bitter end in the first scene, and the final scene is the start of their affair. It was an interesting way to tell the story. The final scene had a real foreboding quality, since we knew exactly how badly the affair would end.
That's really embarrassing; I work for DC Comics.
I'm envious. I've done some freelance illustration jobs for their licensing department and applied for a few positions there when they were still in NYC (The last time was in 2014. It was a position in their collected editions department, helping them get ahead on deadlines before their move out to CA). I never got hired there on a regular basis, though.
 
Well, presumably he was either new on board, or at least new to the Bridge crew, and wherever he came from (either directly from the Academy, or from another ship, or from the lower decks) was a bit looser about standards of grooming.
 
My understanding is that the picture was not far from what George Takei actually looked like, at one point. As I recall, David Gerrold's The World of Star Trek had a picture of George with rather long hair. Longer than Chekov's wig.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top