I don`t agree with how they see Into Darkness, though-I liked the film myself, and own it on Blu-Ray. I`m sorry I wasn`t able to explain myself etter.
David Gerrold finally speaking out about TNG behind-the-scenes
- Thread starter Phantom
- Start date
No, that's not what he said, nor did he slam ID. Reread his post sans kneejerk reaction.
So it had nothing to do with the conversation other than being a drive-by slam at another part of the franchise. "Blood and Fire" was actually part of the discussion. Thanks for playing though.
Re: David Gerrald finally speaking out about TNG behind-the-scenes
That's true. The surprising thing about that letter is how hush-hush the subject of Maizlish and the turmoil surrounding TNG's early days was within fandom. I can remember coming to this forum years ago and so many seeming to be in the dark about it. It's amazing that 20 plus years later, a documentary comes out and this seems to be new to so many fans. It's always been there.
That's true. The surprising thing about that letter is how hush-hush the subject of Maizlish and the turmoil surrounding TNG's early days was within fandom. I can remember coming to this forum years ago and so many seeming to be in the dark about it. It's amazing that 20 plus years later, a documentary comes out and this seems to be new to so many fans. It's always been there.
Gerrold talks about it a bit in his second interview in the Mission Logs Supplementals. ("Another one with David Gerrold" or some such silly title.)
Basically, Carlos Pedraza, who had written a ton of scripts for the Star Trek Hidden Frontier fan film series, wrote a draft of Blood and Fire for the Phase II fan film group. Gerrold got wind of it from James Cawley, and from the way Gerrold explains it, it was something of an equal divide of Cawley pressing for Gerrold to read it/give his seal of approval, and Gerrold initially only making one change to the script before doing, effectively, a page-one rewrite on the entire thing.
The titles on the fan film say that Pedraza wrote the script, but Gerrold rewrote the entire thing once he was given the chance, and says as much in that podcast interview. (The same one I was railing about earlier in this thread.)
There's no denying it. He said it himself. He rewrote the thing, and Blood and Fire was an awful, awful fan film in large part because of the awful, awful script (re)written by David Gerrold.
Are you asking for a source for the information that Pedraza wrote the script? If so, it's in the podcast. He also gets credit on the fan film for writing it.
If you're asking for a source for the actual script that Pedraza wrote, my guess would be to ask Carlos Pedraza for it as I don't think he's wasting his time with fan films anymore nor do I know of his draft being available publicly.
If you're asking for a source for the actual script that Pedraza wrote, my guess would be to ask Carlos Pedraza for it as I don't think he's wasting his time with fan films anymore nor do I know of his draft being available publicly.
I've read the "Star Wolf" version of the story, and in a lot of ways it's much better than the "New Voyages/Phase II" two-parter.
I guess something got lost in the translation.
A bit.
The novel has a better quandary for the captain and it's handle in a much more satisfying and dramatic way. It's clearly obvious in the novel that the captain is putting her career at risk, whereas with Kirk there's some lip service and then the crew just goes along with everything. There's more character conflict on whether to stay and save the "mission team" (or landing party).
The tragedy isn't as melodramatic in the book as it is in the PII/NV episode. And the way they get the mission team to the other side of the ship is quite frankly genius and I wish we'd seen it in the fan film version.
I'm not a huge fan of Gerrold's work, but I did enjoy two of the four "Star Wolf" books — "Voyage of the Star Wolf" and "Blood and Fire."
Last edited:
There's a fourth Star Wolf book? Or are you counting Yesterday's Children?
Yep, counting "Yesterday's Children" (AKA "Starhunt"), since it's the first book to feature Jon Korie.
As I see it, Voyage of the Star Wolf is a loose reboot of Yesterday's Children. They don't quite fit in the same continuity, and are basically telling the same story in divergent ways. And of course Starhunt is an earlier "reboot" of YC, adding more chapters at the end to reverse the outcome and exonerate Korie. (Personally I prefer the original version with the bleaker ending. The revised ending feels like a copout to me. My edition is the revised version, though still under the YC title, but I prefer just to stop reading when I hit the original ending.)
And of course, YC started out as an adaptation of Gerrold's rejected pitch for a Star Trek 2-parter before veering off in a totally different direction -- which is why the hero's initials are JTK. And Gerrold later wrote a Bantam Trek novel, The Galactic Whirlpool, based on that 2-parter idea. So he basically got four novels -- Yesterday's Children, Starhunt, The Galactic Whirlpool, and Voyage of the Star Wolf -- out of the same single idea.
And of course, YC started out as an adaptation of Gerrold's rejected pitch for a Star Trek 2-parter before veering off in a totally different direction -- which is why the hero's initials are JTK. And Gerrold later wrote a Bantam Trek novel, The Galactic Whirlpool, based on that 2-parter idea. So he basically got four novels -- Yesterday's Children, Starhunt, The Galactic Whirlpool, and Voyage of the Star Wolf -- out of the same single idea.
Gerrold was great at repurposing his ideas. For simplicity's sake, I still consider them part of the same series even if they don't fit continuity wise.
YC and "Star Hunt" are "The Cage" of the Star Wolf universe. Or "The Gathering" (B5), where everything changes a bit when you get to the series.
More like M.A.N.T.I.S., I'd say, where the series used the same premise and main character as the pilot movie but rebooted the story from scratch.
^It's more obscure, but it's also a better analogy. I also considered the analogy of the Raimi Spider-Man films vs. the Webb films, or the Tim Story Fantastic Four films vs. the new reboot, but those both carry implications about quality that didn't seem appropriate here. (Although, come to think of it, the M.A.N.T.I.S. series was atrociously bad, so maybe that's a poor analogy too.)
Similar threads
