Turns out that very lengthy Forbidden Planet essay was just the first half of the analysis! Here's part 2:
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=38365
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=38365
Fact-Checking Inside Star Trek: The Real Story
- Thread starter Harvey
- Start date
New post today!
http://startrekfactcheck.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-most-interesting-article-in-world.html?m=1
Thanks to @Myko for getting me to fully pursue this one and actually write up my findings.
http://startrekfactcheck.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-most-interesting-article-in-world.html?m=1
Thanks to @Myko for getting me to fully pursue this one and actually write up my findings.
Thank you! I am familiar enough with Jonathan Lippe in that era that I never thought it was him. Seeing the memo, I have to wonder: Did nobody find it odd that OS guests Mars and Moss not only (supposedly) appeared uncredited in another episode, but the same one?
Copy editor question: "sixth actor on this list"? His name is second on the memo excerpt.
Great work, thanks again!
Very nice post, glad I could nudge you in that direction.
Pretty crazy how viral it became.
Holy crap that fellow meanders. For instance, he goes on for pages about the hyperdrive, which is basically a throwaway in the film. I skipped over tons of it.
Well, keep in mind that it's a science blog focused largely on exoplanet astronomy and potential technologies for interstellar travel. If they're going to post an article about a movie, naturally it's going to focus heavily on the scientific ideas the movie touches on.
Is "meander" the right word, though? It means to wander aimlessly, like the bends in a river. This was more like extensive in-depth concentration on each subject in turn. Which isn't that different from what Harvey does on his Fact Check blog, just with more of it packed in per post.
Wanders, if you like.
If I were in Harvey's place I'd be insulted by that comparison. His pieces pick a subject, e.g. Is X so? and then methodically goes through the evidence for and against. That's a far cry from this guy's overlong, unfocused walk through the film wherien he angles off into any and all the topics it makes him think about. But I suppose that's de rigueur for writing on the internet: information density at the expense of focus.
YMMV.
If I were in Harvey's place I'd be insulted by that comparison.
His pieces pick a subject, e.g. Is X so? and then methodically goes through the evidence for and against. That's a far cry from this guy's overlong, unfocused walk through the film wherien he angles off into any and all the topics it makes him think about. But I suppose that's de rigueur for writing on the internet: information density at the expense of focus.YMMV.
@Maurice Bless you for suggesting my indulgent, long-winded ramblings are "methodical." 
Fixed! (And, also, if you're not careful, you'll be drafted into this position).
Fixed! (And, also, if you're not careful, you'll be drafted into this position).
I did find it quite long, but I wouldn't say it was unfocused, just in-depth. Again, this was published on a blog for scientists and science aficionados. The author, Larry Klaes, is a science journalist and SETI researcher. So this wasn't just some ordinary media-blog movie review, it was a detailed scholarly analysis from a scientific and historical perspective.
Nah, you have higher standards than that. One time on my college paper I left the typo "dong" in a headline instead of "doing."
Long winded, yes. Rambling? No. They are exhaustive and occasionally exhausting. But I can't say I ever came away thinking "Yeah, but did he cover THIS part?" There is no stone left unturned in a given area of stones. A valuable asset to Star Trek history.@Maurice Bless you for suggesting my indulgent, long-winded ramblings are "methodical."
BTW, that kind of blows my mind that this particular piece of incorrect folklore came from the updated Concordance. Of course it was the original Concordance that gave us the Enterprise as a Constellation Class Starship. That wound its way around books and whatnot through much of the 80's.
Also "Joseph Boyce" instead of Philip.
The revised Concordance introduced a number of new errors. The most frustrating one for me was that it arbitrarily credited James Doohan with every uncredited male voice role in the animated series, even though many of those voices were very clearly not Doohan. That's an error that persists on Memory Alpha and other reference sites to this day.
Also, the revised Concordance was incoherently organized. Instead of putting its lexicon in straight-up alphabetical order like the original, it lumped things together in weird categories that made it really hard to find anything -- for instance, planets and astronomical phenomena were sorted under the constellations they were actually or conjecturally associated with, and sometimes those associations were entirely arbitrary on the compilers' part, which made it impossible to know where to find the entry for certain things unless you read through the whole section until you stumbled across them.
What a virtuoso piece of Star Trek research. Talk about unraveling something. Bravo, Harvey!
I'm glad I bought the first edition of the Concordance in 1976. I also think the first edition of Asherman's Compendium was better than its successor.
I'm glad I bought the first edition of the Concordance in 1976. I also think the first edition of Asherman's Compendium was better than its successor.
A new post, written by our own @Sir Rhosis, details Jerry Sohl's first draft story outline for "The Corbomite Maneuver," which at this stage was known as "Danger Zone." Plenty of similarities to the final version, but also a number of differences.
This iteration has a troublesome Commodore second-guessing Kirk at every stage, not unlike similar first season characters in "The Galileo Seven" and "A Taste of Armageddon." Also, Balok is not the child-like alien he would become in subsequent drafts (this version would have been much more expensive). For more on these and other differences, read on:
http://startrekfactcheck.blogspot.com/2018/03/unseen-trek-danger-zone-story-outline.html
For reference, this is what everyone's favorite historian has to say about this iteration of the story:
I bring this up because...this version of the outline doesn't have the cube in space at all (it's described as a "dish-type antenna and bears odd nodules and sensing devices..."). Like much of the story material on file at UCLA, it's obvious Cushman either didn't read it or did not take any substantial notes.
This iteration has a troublesome Commodore second-guessing Kirk at every stage, not unlike similar first season characters in "The Galileo Seven" and "A Taste of Armageddon." Also, Balok is not the child-like alien he would become in subsequent drafts (this version would have been much more expensive). For more on these and other differences, read on:
http://startrekfactcheck.blogspot.com/2018/03/unseen-trek-danger-zone-story-outline.html
For reference, this is what everyone's favorite historian has to say about this iteration of the story:
Cash Markman said:
I bring this up because...this version of the outline doesn't have the cube in space at all (it's described as a "dish-type antenna and bears odd nodules and sensing devices..."). Like much of the story material on file at UCLA, it's obvious Cushman either didn't read it or did not take any substantial notes.
Similar threads
