Gene Roddenberry takes credit for everything.

[CorporalCaptain]

^ Have there been any reforms in the industry to prevent that sort of abuse regarding tacked-on lyrics?

 

[EnriqueH]

I started reading it.

It cites Engel's book, which I don't think should be read without reading David Alexander's book for balance.

One focuses on the positives, the other on the negatives.

I found Solow and Justman's book to be more balanced.

Still, anyone interested in Star Trek's history like I am, should read all three of those books.

I haven't read that article in full since I submitted it, but I believe I cited all three of the books you mention. In truth, although I find Engel's biography to be much better written than Alexander's, Engel's prose is sometimes nasty in ways that don't do him any favors, and his book is too short to be authoritative. Unfortunately, a definitive biography of Roddenberry has yet to be written.

In response to your initial question, I would suggest two answers. First, Roddenberry snubbing Bob Justman, D.C. Fontana, and David Gerrold when it came to the "created by" credit for Star Trek: The Next Generation. Fontana co-wrote the first episode. Gerrold wrote the series bible. Justman contributed many important ideas, most notably the character of Worf. Only Roddenberry gets credit.

Second, there's the matter of the credit for the original series theme music. Courage wrote and recorded the theme in January 1965. Roddenberry's lyrics were not written until December of 1966, which (contractually) gave him credit with Courage as the co-writer to the theme music and (more importantly) half the royalties. Courage never should have signed the contract letting Roddenebrry do that, but if you think Roddenberry's behavior in that case couldn't be described as stealing credit from Courage, we'll just have to agree to disagree there.

Yeah, in re-reading my previous post that you quoted, I see I should take a moment to clarify a couple of things:

1) I have not finished reading the document yet.

2) When talking about Engel, Alexander, etc, I wasn't so much criticizing your work, rather I was digressing into a related topic. I saw that Engel was quoted, and then I got off on a related sidebar conversation. If that makes sense. However, I can see how my comments could've easily been misconstrued into a criticism. That was not the intention.

3) I enjoyed both Alexander and Engel's biographies, but there were times throughout Engel's book that he comes off as someone with an axe to grind, which made me wonder about his credibility.

4) I think there's value in all these books, but it would be nice to get a new, fresher take.

 

[Harvey]

3) I enjoyed both Alexander and Engel's biographies, but there were times throughout Engel's book that he comes off as someone with an axe to grind, which made me wonder about his credibility.

For all the flaws in Engel's work, his writing comes off as the work of an experienced author. Alexander comes off as an amateur out of his depth. He quotes so many letters in full that significant portions of the book feel like the collected correspondences of Gene Roddenberry, not a true biography of the man.

4) I think there's value in all these books, but it would be nice to get a new, fresher take.

The fiftieth anniversary of Star Trek would be a welcome time for a new Roddenberry biography (or a Bob Justman biography), but as far as I know none are in the works. Engel and Alexander interviewed many of the major players, but not all of them. No one has ever interviewed Roddenberry's ex-wife, Eileen, for example, although it's entirely possible that she may not want to speak on the matter.

Most of Roddenberry's career outside of Star Trek remains undocumented or at least under-documented, and that is doubly so when it comes to Justman.

 

[EnriqueH]

For all the flaws in Engel's work, his writing comes off as the work of an experienced author. Alexander comes off as an amateur out of his depth. He quotes so many letters in full that significant portions of the book feel like the collected correspondences of Gene Roddenberry, not a true biography of the man.

Yeah, I can see that. That was the major problem I had with the book, but I also found a lot of value there. It was definitely fun to read.

The fiftieth anniversary of Star Trek would be a welcome time for a new Roddenberry biography (or a Bob Justman biography), but as far as I know none are in the works. Engel and Alexander interviewed many of the major players, but not all of them. No one has ever interviewed Roddenberry's ex-wife, Eileen, for example, although it's entirely possible that she may not want to speak on the matter.

Most of Roddenberry's career outside of Star Trek remains undocumented or at least under-documented, and that is doubly so when it comes to Justman.

Is Eileen still alive? I created a post about her months ago because I was wondering about her, but nobody really had any idea. Do you have any info on her?

 

[Lance]

The original version of the story, entitled 'Love Beyond Time And Space', provided many of the same story beats, but truly was unusable, as the characters had no consistency at all, and there were too many holes in the story. Writer Tracy Torme managed to breathe new life into the story, and made it work the way that it does.

It seems we dodged a bullet, 'Haven' could have been even worse.

Wait...the original story had even more potholes? What we saw was already Swiss cheese!

1) A human family following Betazoid customs....while also taking offense to Betazoid customs.
2) Everybody (the Enterprise, Lwaxana, the Millers, the Tarellians) all just happen to show up at Haven at the same time.
3) How exactly Arianna communicated with Wyatt
4) Tasha's hair....

How many more potholes can there be?

Tasha's quasi-mullet-quasi-punkette hairdo is maybe the most awesome thing about that episode, possibly the most awesome thing in all of TNG's seven seasons.

Just let me just summarise a little bit more...

The teaser in the original version takes place on the Miller's ship (although they're named the Flambeaus in this version), with the son, Victor, receiving a wet dream fantasy sequence with his mystery woman. And that's the teaser, no Enterprise or her crew.

The main plot begins with the Enterprise approaching a planet which sounds suspiciously like a proto-version of Edo from "Justice", and Picard records his Captain's Log while having a bath (I shit you not, it's all right here in front of me). It turns out that Victor Flambeau, the soon-to-be-betrothed to Deanna Troi, is on his way and that he's also Captain Picard's God-son. Small universe eh? Anyway, the visit to proto-Edo will have to wait, because of the impending marriage ceremony.

Tasha (still refered to in this treatment as Mascha Hernadez), Geordi and Data are sharing a meal in the mess hall. Geordi and Mascha are eating, Data simply there for the interaction. The banter includes 'Mascha' refering to Data as "a beautiful android", but the scene means nothing to the plot and literally goes nowhere.

Riker and Troi discuss the oncoming nuptuals in a corridor. Deanna confirms that she has been destined the marry Victor (who is Picard's God-son, remember) since they were children. "I joined Starfleet because he had a God-father who was a legend" she admits. "I wanted to please him, to show him I'd share his loves, live his dreams. It was an act of faith. When I was assigned to Enterprise, I couldn't believe my good fortune."

(Yes, this is all real dialogue. Pass the sick bucket.)

I could go on, but this thread isn't really the place for it. Needless to say, yes, 'Love Beyond Time And Space' is significantly worse than "Haven".

Like I said, one of these days I might start a thread quoting the early draft synopsies. It's a fascinating book.

You totally should! It would be a really interesting "What If...." scenario!

I just might work on this...

 

[tafkats]

See, in the newspaper business, we'd put our names on top when we were the last person to work on it.

We would? I was a newspaper reporter and editor for close to 15 years and this is the first I've heard of anyone having a byline policy like that.

 

[Harvey]

Is Eileen still alive? I created a post about her months ago because I was wondering about her, but nobody really had any idea. Do you have any info on her?

As far as I know she's still alive, but I don't have any special information about her, I'm afraid.

 

[EnriqueH]

See, in the newspaper business, we'd put our names on top when we were the last person to work on it.

We would? I was a newspaper reporter and editor for close to 15 years and this is the first I've heard of anyone having a byline policy like that.

I remember we did, but maybe it was an in-house thing? Or an understanding among a certain group of reporters? It has been over 10 years since I left the business, so we're talking a while back anyway. How does the byline policy work at your place?

 

[Misfit Toy]

Enrique, for your reading pleasure: http://www.academia.edu/2967654/Sta...re_The_Creation_of_an_Early_Television_Auteur

You'll find almost everything stated about Gene in this thread will be in that document. I'm not sure how you felt toward unauthorized biographies and such, so here's an academic paper for your perusal.

Thanks.

I started reading it.

It cites Engel's book, which I don't think should be read without reading David Alexander's book for balance.

Just curious - how heavily did Alexander's book rely on Richard Arnold as a source?

 

[EnriqueH]

You're quoting me, so I'm assuming you're asking me personally?

I have no idea. What have you heard?

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

See, in the newspaper business, we'd put our names on top when we were the last person to work on it.

We would? I was a newspaper reporter and editor for close to 15 years and this is the first I've heard of anyone having a byline policy like that.

I remember we did, but maybe it was an in-house thing? Or an understanding among a certain group of reporters? It has been over 10 years since I left the business, so we're talking a while back anyway. How does the byline policy work at your place?

I'm going to add my two pieces of Latinum here. I've been a journo for the majority of my nearly 20 year writing career, and I've never heard of a byline rule like that in which the last person to do the rewrite got top billing. I've worked in both TV news and papers.

I've shared bylines as a newspaper reporter. The credit just happened to be alphabetical order, but there was no hard fast rule on it.

If it wasn't a shared byline case, where another reporter contributed some material to the story (a quote or document), that person would get a contributing credit at the end of the story: John Doe contributed to this story.

If a story was rewritten, either be the EIC or Managing Editor, the reporter who did the actual interviewing and reporting would still get credit. I've never had someone who did a rewrite jump credit on my reporting while I was a newspaper reporter.

And I've never heard of a "rewrite man" getting credit or jumping credit on reporter who gathered the actual information or quotes. That just seems wrong, as the reporter who did the legwork should stand by what he/she gathered and credit shouldn't fall to the "rewrite man."

But every paper's policy is different, but the policy of the last person to rewrite getting top billing is odd to me. Here's more on bylines from the Poytner Institute of Journalism:
http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/11797/datelines-bylines-other-lines/

 

[EnriqueH]

In the circumstances in which we swapped bylines, there was an equal amount of interviews done by myself and the other reporter, and the assignment was "assigned" to us. In other words, the story wasn't my idea or hers. So we just kept going back and forth until we felt it was ready to turn in.

She and I worked on several stories together.

No issues were ever brought up by our editors.

Like I said, it might've been an in-house thing and there was equal reporting.

But again, I might be misremembering something since it has been over 10 years since I left the business.

Poynter Institute. Wow. Brings back memories.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Is Eileen still alive? I created a post about her months ago because I was wondering about her, but nobody really had any idea. Do you have any info on her?

As far as I know she's still alive, but I don't have any special information about her, I'm afraid.

One of the daughters was disinherited, supposedly, due to a clause in Roddenberry's will about court challenges, and the other daughter died in a car accident, IIRC.

Eileen was mentioned as alive in 1996:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Deep-Space-For-1st-Wife-of-Trek-Creator-2984928.php

 

[Sir Rhosis]

Eileen "seems" to have been alive at least a late as March 2014, as this ancestry site states it is withholding her personal information since she is living (so I gather from my reading of it).

http://www.brumm.com/genealogy/getp...ne&PHPSESSID=6fa339d8f38939ec24871c068cd588e9

Sir Rhosis

 

[tafkats]

We would? I was a newspaper reporter and editor for close to 15 years and this is the first I've heard of anyone having a byline policy like that.

I remember we did, but maybe it was an in-house thing? Or an understanding among a certain group of reporters? It has been over 10 years since I left the business, so we're talking a while back anyway. How does the byline policy work at your place?

I'm going to add my two pieces of Latinum here. I've been a journo for the majority of my nearly 20 year writing career, and I've never heard of a byline rule like that in which the last person to do the rewrite got top billing. I've worked in both TV news and papers.

I've shared bylines as a newspaper reporter. The credit just happened to be alphabetical order, but there was no hard fast rule on it.

If it wasn't a shared byline case, where another reporter contributed some material to the story (a quote or document), that person would get a contributing credit at the end of the story: John Doe contributed to this story.

If a story was rewritten, either be the EIC or Managing Editor, the reporter who did the actual interviewing and reporting would still get credit. I've never had someone who did a rewrite jump credit on my reporting while I was a newspaper reporter.

And I've never heard of a "rewrite man" getting credit or jumping credit on reporter who gathered the actual information or quotes. That just seems wrong, as the reporter who did the legwork should stand by what he/she gathered and credit shouldn't fall to the "rewrite man."

But every paper's policy is different, but the policy of the last person to rewrite getting top billing is odd to me. Here's more on bylines from the Poytner Institute of Journalism:
http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/11797/datelines-bylines-other-lines/

In general, this is how it's worked at most places I've been:

Two or more people both do a significant amount of reporting (even if one does most of the final writing) = shared byline.

One person does the majority of the reporting and writing, but another person helps them out with a quick phone call or something else that adds a little extra information reporter = main reporter gets the byline, second person gets an italicized "So-and-so contributed to this report" tag at the end.

One person reports and writes the story, but it sucks so much that a copy editor ends up rewriting the shit out of it = byline still goes to the reporter.

Things were a bit looser at the college newspaper I advised for a few years, and I can imagine a rewrite leading to byline credit there, but still not with anything like a "last person to touch the story has their name go first" policy.

 

[Maurice]

Such a last-touched = top billing policy would lead to abuses where people would rewrite each other just to get their names first.

 

[EnriqueH]

WHOA, WHOA, WHOA.

Waitasecond.

I think we've been misunderstanding each other on this byline thing.

Yes, if I contributed slightly to the store, YES, *just* a contribution line at the bottom. That's what we would do too.

HOWEVER...

I'm talking about significant reporting by myself AND my colleague. Shared byline at the top.

*BUT*...

A few colleagues and myself went by and forth on the rewrite thing. So if Tafkats was the last one to touch the story, the byline would read: "By Tafkats and EnriqueH". Or if I was the last one, "By EnriqueH and Tafkats".

That's what I've been referring to.

 

[Misfit Toy]

You're quoting me, so I'm assuming you're asking me personally?

I have no idea. What have you heard?

Sorry - I thought you had ready access to the book. My copy is currently an hour away.

I seem to remember (and I realize this is only anecdotal) that Arnold was a primary resource for much of Alexander's Trek coverage in the bio. Arnold's input alone would cause me to doubt the accuracy of the information.

 

[EnriqueH]

You're quoting me, so I'm assuming you're asking me personally?

I have no idea. What have you heard?

Sorry - I thought you had ready access to the book. My copy is currently an hour away.

I seem to remember (and I realize this is only anecdotal) that Arnold was a primary resource for much of Alexander's Trek coverage in the bio. Arnold's input alone would cause me to doubt the accuracy of the information.

I'm visiting my folks at the moment, I should be able to doublecheck tonight!

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Anything that Arnold is a source for I tend to take with several truckloads' worth of salt.