• 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!

Ellison is pissed

Steve Roby said:
Yup. The people saying that aren't revealing anything about Ellison, they're revealing the depths of their own ignorance. However, some of the posts here are so obtuse and wrongheaded I suspect we're seeing a bit of performance art.
Click to expand...

Seem to be standard procedure hereabouts.

Say anything at all complimentary on these forums about Ellison, JMS, or anybody else who's said anything even remotely less than worshipful about Trek, and the frothing is launched.

For fans of a show that tauted tolerance, acceptance, diversity, IDIC, et. al., it suprisingly closed-minded, IMO.
 
it would be interesting to see in court whether or not the guardian was a character or not.
or is it considered more like an object.

but if they want it might be easier and in the long run cheaper to pay harlan unless they are afraid payment for what they may see a talking computer might itself set a standard if it isnt already set.
though with all the ways of time travel why do they need the guardian.
 
It had scripted dialog, which an actor "performed", so it'd be difficult to call it anything but a character.
 
I believe there already are legal distinctions between characters, story elements, simple mechanisms of plot and window-dressing. The Guardian is clearly one of the first two--but that case can't easily be made for the computer voice--so Ellison must be entitled to something.
 
ok i am serious about this.
are the guidelines in print online someplace.

i still dont see a lot of distinction between the computer voice and the guardian.
unless the voice in tomorrow is yesterday is seen differently since it did have a personality.
 
chardman said:
It had scripted dialog, which an actor "performed", so it'd be difficult to call it anything but a character.
Click to expand...

It also referred to itself as "I" and "me." It was as much a life form as it was a machine--in the same class as Nomad and Data (hence the little joke up-thread).

Will the adjudicators see it this way? Depends on how geeky they are.
 
I do think of the Guardian as a character, due to the excellent vocal work by Bartell LaRue and later Jimmy Doohan (when it appeared in TAS, where he did pretty much every male voice besides the top 5).

If the rumors about it being in the movie are true, I think the question could be answered by whether or not Harlan got paid for the Time Donut's appearance in TAS. If he did, then he clearly had the right kind of contract to get paid for it's use in later filmed works.
 
^ Well he sure didn't sound like LaRue, but considering he had to do his voice for the show like Mel Blanc on Crank, I'm not going to fault him for average work.
 
Re: JMS

Mysterion said:
Steve Roby said:
Yup. The people saying that aren't revealing anything about Ellison, they're revealing the depths of their own ignorance. However, some of the posts here are so obtuse and wrongheaded I suspect we're seeing a bit of performance art.
Click to expand...

Seem to be standard procedure hereabouts.

Say anything at all complimentary on these forums about Ellison, JMS, or anybody else who's said anything even remotely less than worshipful about Trek, and the frothing is launched.

For fans of a show that tauted tolerance, acceptance, diversity, IDIC, et. al., it suprisingly closed-minded, IMO.
Click to expand...

Don't get me started on "JMS"! :mad:
 
Brutal Strudel said:
Okay, I just didn't care for the spoooooooky old man thing. I wish he'd gone for stentorian instead.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have to agree there. He did sound more like a Scooby Doo Villain than the Guardian.

STCityForever.jpg

[Voice of Guardian] I agree, old chum!
 
Re: Peter "PAD" David

Brutal Strudel said:
David cgc said:
Therin of Andor said:
MadBaggins said:
Peter David is the real villain in all this
Click to expand...

Saying, "Hey mate, have you heard the latest wacky Star Trek rumor?" makes you a "villain" these days?

What was Peter David supposed to do, and why should he?
Click to expand...

I vote that he respects the fact that Harlan Ellison has burned his bridges with Star Trek and wants nothing more to do with it, even if Harlan Ellison won't respect the fact that Harlan Ellison has burned his bridges with Star Trek and wants nothing more to do with it.
Click to expand...

There isn't enough kerosene in Madison County to negate a contractual obligation.
Click to expand...

And another thing: Ellison put out the White Wolf edition of his original script for two reasons, both quite valid.

1. He wanted to make some o' dat Star Trek money. Doesn't matter whether or not he liked Trek anymore, he was largely responsible for keeping it on the air its first year, for drumming up support before it even hit the screen among the already well-established ranks of SF fandom and providing the bedrock of the episode that is still considered by many to be Trek's finest, the episode many Trek haters respect and admire. Why should he cut off his financial nose to spite Paramount's face? Especially when, as the Art Buchwald case from years ago attests, Paramount loves to screw even established writers out of what's coming to them.

2. To set the record straight concerning the lies Roddenberry repeatedly told about him which, as he put it, impuned his professional competence. I can remember, a year or two before the book came out, talking to a rather stupid fellow Trekkie at work one day and saying I really wish I could read his original script since it was rumored by many to be superior to the filmed episode. Her response? "Why bother? He had Scotty dealing drugs!"

:rolleyes:

But no, Peter David shouldn't tell Ellison when Trek is going to re-use one of his ideas--and quite possibly "forget" to compensate him--in what looks to be the most stupendous piece of fan-wank since, well, pick a Peter David novel.
 
Re: Peter "PAD" David

You know, I really don't have any problem with Ellison getting paid his royalties. The only thing I dislike is how he goes on and on about it. Can you think of any other writer who's let out that kind of bile on this subject? Was there some kind of tremendous, hate-filled rant by the executor of Theodore Sturgeon's estate at the beginning of Enterprise's fourth season?

Repeatedly saying that he deserves his compensation (which I agree with) does not change anyone else's contention that the way he's spent years switching between ranting about the aired version of CotEoF was a piece of crap that is utterly divorced from the brilliance that he set down on paper to ranting about how he will sue this, that, and the other into oblivion when they mention elements from the aired version of CotEoF makes him look like a schizophrenic jackass. Apparently, Ellison recognizes that inherent contradiction, since his message on this subject refers to elements as they appeared in his original script. Specifically, "the City, the Guardians, [and] Sister Edith Keeler." Trouble is, neither the City nor the Guardians were in the actual episode. There was some rubble, but no "City." There was a time portal called the Guardian (singular) but no "Guardians." There was a Sister Edith Keeler, but she's probably not going to be in the movie.

So now we've got the sad case of Ellison saying he should be paid for the use of things that were not, and have never been, used in Star Trek. And the way he simultaneously claims and disclaims ownership makes him look like a huge jackass. That has no bearing on whether he should or will be paid, because his old contract doubtless didn't engage in the passive-aggressive language of referring to each element introduced in CotEoF in the precise way it existed in the original script, and not the way it was used in the episode or any other subsequent work.

Were that it did, and Ellison had to put his money where his mouth was.
 
Re: Peter "PAD" David

I dunno, if I come up with two guys in my first draft, we'll call them Zim and Zam, and you revise them into a giant talking sticky bun named Zimzam who serves exactly the same plot function in the second draft, you still owe me for the idea. I may hate what you did to it but it's still mine and I'll claim credit where it's due.
 
Re: Peter "PAD" David

What if they called the giant, talking sticky bun Zinamen? That sounds much more tasty! :drool:

(c) 2007 The Zinamen Movie Project (tm)(r)
Patent 170147421966 Pending
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top