Fact-Checking Inside Star Trek: The Real Story

[Kevin EK]

Going back on topic, Michael and I have updated the article for "The Alternative Factor" to include the notes about the background players and to take into account some material found in the Star Trek: Lost Scenes book.

I'm hoping to have further information soon regarding some 2nd season episodes, particularly to make a definitive correction to Cushman's scrambled timeline for production of "I, Mudd" and "The Trouble with Tribbles".

There is one item that I'm glad Michael has addressed in the past on his blog - that being the changing of the producer guard from Gene Coon to John Meredyth Lucas midway through the second season. Marc Cushman's book posits that Coon somehow stuck around for an additional month and was somehow the actual producer for "Journey to Babel", when the actual documents say something very different. Cushman also goes to great lengths to say that Lucas should not have been credited for "Babel", which is also in error.

John Meredyth Lucas' deal memo makes clear that he is being paid at an inflated rate to be the listed producer for episodes 15, 17 and 19, and then to be paid on a regular producer rate for episodes 20 and onward. (There are typos on the deal memo but the intention is clear - he's being given the higher rate for the first three that will have his name in the credits.) Episode 15 was "Babel". The reasoning for this is pretty clear if one is experienced in television production. Gene Coon was contracted for eps 1-16 of the second season but left at the end of ep 13 ("Tribbles") and before 14 ("Bread & Circuses") could start filming after the Labor Day break. The production company could have simply terminated Coon's contract at that point, since he'd left. But they didn't want to burn him, and they were hoping to get more scripts from him in the future - and he'd already taken eps 14-16 through most of the process short of filming them. Another option would have been to go without a showrunner for three eps and just pay Lucas starting at ep 17. But that would be irresponsible, given that they needed to keep the development process going and they needed a hand at the till. So they settled for a compromise. Lucas would be paid that higher rate and credited for ep 15, and would be in the office and potentially on set as needed when they shot ep 14. Same thing for ep 17, so that he'd be around when they did 16. And it looks like the intention was to shift Coon's remaining credit to ep 18, which wound up being "Obsession", but in the end, they gave the credit on that one to Lucas. Coon would wind up getting his last 2nd season credit on "A Piece of the Action" for doing a full rewrite of the script, but not as a producer for it.

I honestly have no idea why Cushman thought there was a problem with crediting Lucas with Episode 15, as he had access to that deal memo in the UCLA files. It's just another in a long, long string of such errors in the books. Many of the other mistakes can be attributed to him simply not understanding television production, but the error with Lucas and Coon is a complete invention on his part.

 

[Phaser Two]

Good heavens, thank you for returning this thread to topic (not to mention that great additional info).

 

[Maurice]

I honestly have no idea why Cushman thought there was a problem with crediting Lucas with Episode 15, as he had access to that deal memo in the UCLA files. It's just another in a long, long string of such errors in the books. Many of the other mistakes can be attributed to him simply not understanding television production, but the error with Lucas and Coon is a complete invention on his part.

Why? The why is that Cushman is the worst kind of wanna-be historian, who can't be bothered to learn his subject so when confronted by something he doesn't understand invents narrative leaps to explain them and then has to rationalize his erroneous conclusions.

 

[Kevin EK]

I have said in the past that Cushman could have done everyone a bigger favor by simply transcribing the memos from the UCLA Archive and presenting those - as they provide the real information about what was happening on the show. He gets into trouble repeatedly when he misquotes the memos and gets information backwards.

There's a point in the second book where he opines that Justman and Fontana were becoming suspicious that Roddenberry was handing their memos over to John Meredyth Lucas during his first writing assignment with them - and he misses that there was another, earlier memo in the same file from Roddenberry to the gang to openly state he was going to do so. He was telling them to go easy on the snarky comments as the memos were going to be handed directly to the writer as Roddenberry was going out of town at that moment. Cushman's added flavor is a complete invention - they weren't suspicious of anything; instead, they were following Roddenberry's instructions.

The one thing that I do appreciate from at least the first two books is that Cushman, in citing the memos when he gets them right, shows just how much hard work Bob Justman did in producing the original series. And how much work Roddenberry did in shaping the series into what he wanted it to be. Where people like Joel Engel would like their readers to think Roddenberry was some kind of lazy hack freeloader, the memos clearly show he was in command of his ship and was paying closer attention during the first two seasons than people thought. In the third season, I don't think anyone disputes that he ran away from it. But the first two seasons show everyone, including Roddenberry, pulling on the oars to make what has become a classic series.

 

[Tallguy]

I have said in the past that Cushman could have done everyone a bigger favor by simply transcribing the memos from the UCLA Archive and presenting those - as they provide the real information about what was happening on the show. He gets into trouble repeatedly when he misquotes the memos and gets information backwards.

He gets into trouble when he makes stupid guesses. (Or thinks he knows the answer or whatever.)

As many here might know, my biggest obsession in Star Trek is the music. And Cushman just makes idiotic (but not uncommon) statements. He goes in whole hog on the "Courage quit Star Trek over Roddenberry's lyrics" myth. Which is bad enough on its own. But then when he gets to music that Courage actually wrote in the second season (in A Private Little War) not only does he attribute the music to Steiner but he claims that it was specially written for the episode! The only way that he could have come to that conclusion would be to take a guess and make it up!

That's all well and good but when your whole calling card is "I've researched this from the REAL DOCUMENTATION", well it just calls into question the whole work. And rightly so.

 

[Ssosmcin]

The TOS books are masterpieces compared to his Irwin Allen books. At least Trek has a zillion memos and script drafts and things to mine for information. It was enough to fill multiple volumes.

His Lost in Space books are hugely inflated with anecdotes and unrelated info, while his Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea first volume is in large print (like double the size), spends the first third discussing Irwin Allen’s early years and then quotes websites for his episode assessments. You wanna know what he thinks about an episode? Just google Mike Baileys Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea zone. At least he’s keeping the late Bailey’s work alive...

Worse, most of the fans I’ve spoken to love the books.

He’s the go-to writer for these reference books now, apparently. I miss the days of Marc Scott Zicree and David Schow. They at least obviously loved the shows they wrote about. These are all obvious cash grabs now.

Pun sadly intended.

 

[Harvey]

At least Trek has a zillion memos and script drafts and things to mine for information. It was enough to fill multiple volumes.

I can't speak to Cushman's Irwin Allen volumes, but having seen the actual Irwin Allen papers at UCLA, there's a wealth of material there. There aren't the same number of memos (Allen wasn't into story memos like Roddenberry, Coon, Justman, and Fontana), but there's a ton of documentation about the making of the show, and more of it is preserved on a per episode basis than what you'll find in the Star Trek collections. The finding aid doesn't do the collection justice.

Sadly, based on your report, it seems that Cushman's books don't do the collection justice, either.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Ugh really? Must I fly out there and write the damned books myself?

 

[Harvey]

Ugh really? Must I fly out there and write the damned books myself?

Hey, I'd read them. And I've never even seen an episode of Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (or any of Allen's televised works, for that matter, save for a half-dozen episodes of Lost in Space).

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Ugh really? Must I fly out there and write the damned books myself?

You seem to be a serious Irwin Allen fan, so if you wrote a "making of" Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea and Land of the Giants, I would be there.

Honestly, if you ever take the leap into IA's sci-fi show historian, you might start with John Gregory Dunne's 1967 book The Studio, where he was pretty much set loose on the 20th Century Fox lot, interviewing almost every major player from their then-well known productions.

 

[Maurice]

You seem to be a serious Irwin Allen fan, so if you wrote a "making of" Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea and Land of the Giants, I would be there.

Honestly, if you ever take the leap into IA's sci-fi show historian, you might start with John Gregory Dunne's 1967 book The Studio, where he was pretty much set loose on the 20th Century Fox lot, interviewing almost every major player from their then-well known productions.

The Studio is a great back-to-back read with The Devil's Candy.

 

[plynch]

Y'know, all, I've urged Harvey before, and I'll do it in general here. If you can word-process, you can self-publish a book through CreateSpace, a division of Amazon for free.

Make a ton of dough? probs not. But gain a somewhat wider audience for your thoughts? probably. And Ssosmcin, get the facts out about a work you love.

AND -- a new thought -- there is something more weighty or valid in people's minds about a print book; I'm thinking as a means to counter the crap. It's going to win, because it's in a reputable-looking book, with endorsements. It's been quoted in a Ph.D. dissertation linked on BBS months ago. It wins unless there's another book for researchers to quote.

Just urgin'.

OH - and - I just started this - there is Patreon, a pledge website where people pledge even $1 a month to support you in your endeavors. Even if you don't aim for a print book, Harvey, I know some people here would pledge a buck or two to support you in your work. My endeavor is up to $60/month after just a few days of asking/publicizing. This is a lot more than 0/month I was gettin', obviously! Again, just some unsolicited advice, but people like to help and feel like they're participating -- in this case -- in fighting the crap vicariously. Love and peace to you all.

 

[Tallguy]

I'm afraid I would have to sign up for that.

 

[Kevin EK]

I can now say that, thanks to some folks here, I have seen a few more call sheets for the second season of Star Trek, which demolish some Cushman claims. A call sheet for 8-14-67 for "I, Mudd" which confirms Michael's tracking of that episode's shoot and matches with its shooting schedule, showing the company shooting the Mudd Planet Anteroom and Throne Room that day, and not the maybe 2 pgs of leftover material from the prior Friday that was instead dialed into later days in the 6 day schedule. Callsheets from "Journey to Babel" clearly showing John Meredyth Lucas as the producer for the episode on a day-by-day basis, where Cushman claims that he was credited in error. (Of course, we already knew this from his deal memo, but this is another massive nail in the coffin that obviates any discussion of this part of the deal memo somehow being a typo.) I'm hoping I'll get a chance to see more of those call sheets and if I'm really lucky sometime, I'll be able to see the PRs, which hold the real trove of information I need to reconstruct the eps. But looking at the sheets I've seen just confirms for me that Cushman simply didn't have these documents when he invented his narratives. He has lied to his readers about having this information and having any "exclusive access" - and the actual documents continue to bear that out.

Regarding "The Studio", I have a BIG problem with that book. Dunne repeated a vicious gossip story about my grandfather, Henry Koster, that presented him as a desperate has-been and played a movie pitch situation with him and Richard Zanuck as a pitiful scene with my grandfather supposedly covered in flop-sweat and Zanuck politely enduring this embarrassing pitch, showing everyone out and then muttering "Jesus". There were rumors about this, which Dunne happily included in his book for extra sauce while trying to pretend he was personally affronted by them. But the reality around the story was a bit different, taking place at a much earlier time before Dunne was on the lot and under very different circumstances.

 

[Maurice]

Anytime a writer reprints a rumor without doing some due diligence to find out if it's even likely is failing at their job.

 

[plynch]

That's how so much of research goes. They reprint the idea with citation. It's assumed to be reputable writing or well-designed -designed science. But just because something has been published ... Well, you get it. That's why it might be nice to get better Trek knowledge in book form. Online writing is of course citable, but doesn't have the cache of published book, even a self-published one.

My hunch is Cashman's are ending up in university libraries.

 

[Ssosmcin]

The average non-TrekBBS fan loves them. They swallow it all and having Trek writers, actors and staff say it’s “the real story” is only helping to cement them as fact.

 

[Kevin EK]

Cushman's self-published books have already done what he wanted - he's made some money from them and he's gotten people to think he's an expert on a subject he really doesn't understand.

But I don't think his books will be remembered much in 10 years, other than as a minor footnote.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Cushman's self-published books have already done what he wanted - he's made some money from them and he's gotten people to think he's an expert on a subject he really doesn't understand.

But I don't think his books will be remembered much in 10 years, other than as a minor footnote.

People will still cite them in poorly researched articles on the internet pretending to be journalism.

 

[Kevin EK]

True. But they'll usually get debunked or ignored.
The fun of people being able to check this stuff online is that when someone posts bogus information, if anyone is paying attention, they'll pop up to say "Au Contraire"...