That was easily the best part of HE's script, though it failed to wow me quite so much as it wowed you.
Harlan Ellison
- Thread starter TiberiusK
- Start date
Mordock wrote:
In one of Ellison's books he tells the story of a Jack-the-Ripper in America movie he wrote and how the director, despite the copious detail Ellison went into the script as to how sequences should be directed, fucked with Ellison's artistic vision because he went his own direction with staging shots instead of following Ellison's blueprint.
In Hollywood a writer is pretty much powerless. I'm surprised Ellison never went across the pond and set up shop in the UK where writers have a bit more control over the script than in Hollywood. (God, if Ellison had written for Doctor Who during the Troughton era....)
Someone else suggested that Ellison can't write to a budget. On "City" the claims have been inflated a ton over the years, especially on Roddenberry's end. Even Solow and Justman admit that the filmed script went over budget, but nowhere near the degree that Roddenberry claimed. Except, the filmed script wasn't Ellison's product--the rewrites by Coon and Fontana produced a script that still came in over budget, but that's not Ellison's fault and he shouldn't be on the hook for that.
Ellison's screenplays are all like that. Which is a screenwriting 101 no-no. Syd Field would have a field day with an Ellison script.
In one of Ellison's books he tells the story of a Jack-the-Ripper in America movie he wrote and how the director, despite the copious detail Ellison went into the script as to how sequences should be directed, fucked with Ellison's artistic vision because he went his own direction with staging shots instead of following Ellison's blueprint.
In Hollywood a writer is pretty much powerless. I'm surprised Ellison never went across the pond and set up shop in the UK where writers have a bit more control over the script than in Hollywood. (God, if Ellison had written for Doctor Who during the Troughton era....)
Someone else suggested that Ellison can't write to a budget. On "City" the claims have been inflated a ton over the years, especially on Roddenberry's end. Even Solow and Justman admit that the filmed script went over budget, but nowhere near the degree that Roddenberry claimed. Except, the filmed script wasn't Ellison's product--the rewrites by Coon and Fontana produced a script that still came in over budget, but that's not Ellison's fault and he shouldn't be on the hook for that.
I have no doubt that's true, but that's like comparing the painstaking surgery performed in a major medical center to the "Meatball Surgery" the doctors on M*A*S*H performed. You have a limited amount of time and unlimited deadline pressure. Making TV is about making deadlines. (Yes it's about making money, but you won't make any money if you don't make your deadlines) At that time they were turning out 26 episodes a year on a weekly basis. Contrast that to our friends making fan films. The Exeter crew takes years to get one episode out. Even the performance of the crew at Hidden Frontier who have done an incredible of turning out episodes on a regular basis pales beside that record. No knock on the fan projects. I admire the effort that goes into all of them and some of them are quite good, but I would bet that they all agree that they had no idea just how hard putting a show together really is until they tried it.
I'm not going to disagree with anyone argues that Star Trek is not particularly highbrow and not up to the standards of written science fiction. But at it's best it was pretty damn good television and that ought to count for something.
I'm sure "City" could have been done better and more of the original script could have been salvaged, but that's probably true to a greater or lesser extent of every show on every TV series.
Knowing the background of the squabbles and behind the scenes drama of the making of "City" doesn't lessen my enjoyment or admiration of the episode one iota. To me it's simply the nature of that particular beast that however good a show is, it's never going to reach the theoretical maximum because the industry just simply doesn't allow it to happen.
I wouldn't start to compare a fan film to a production series. For one thing, on TOS there were many many writers grinding out scripts and concepts in parallel, then there were staff writers to work on them.
The problem with "City" as aired is that all the writers who took a crack at it tried to put their own stamp on it, so it feels hodgepodge. I know that's not a popular opinion here, but I think the fingerprints show all over it.
The problem with "City" as aired is that all the writers who took a crack at it tried to put their own stamp on it, so it feels hodgepodge. I know that's not a popular opinion here, but I think the fingerprints show all over it.
It counts for a great deal indeed or else we would not be here. Don't misunderstand: I may play Devil's (or Harlan's) Advocate from time to time but I still think that Trek at its best (and that's all I really care about) was one of the best things ever put on the small screen.
He also wrote a lot of teleplays as "Cordwainer Bird", the pseudonym he uses when he's really annoyed about changes made to his submissions.
Harlan was a guest of honour here in Sydney for a SF convention in about 1983. A lot of us ST fans attended, but dreading Harlan would slam GR and ST. To our surprise, he was speaking about ST quite positively and fondly that weekend - and he was also a judge in the costume parade, awarding a friend and I - in Andorian costume - first prize as "Best Couple"! He must have been in a good mood that night, or maybe he thought he had a chance with my blue partner?
Mind you, he reminded us all of the typical "angry young man" who was now an angry middle-aged man. He used four-letter words a lot and he really seemed to enjoy being feisty for the sake of being feisty.
There are two commercially-available publications of his original ST script. One in "Six Science Fiction Plays" by Pocket Books (well before Pocket bought the ST tie-in license), and the exhaustive White Wolf edition, where he goes through every agonizing detail about his (ill) treatment by Roddenberry, and written after he'd already supposedly buried the hatchet with GR. Both versions of CotEoF won awards: his original screenplay, and the episode as aired.
But Ellison also had much worse arguments with other TV and film producers. At the convention, for example, he was full of vitriole about Glen A. Larson, whom he called "Glen Larceny".
Regardless of whether one is on HE's side of this argument, or on GR/GC's side of it; regardless of whether one thinks his written version is superior, or the aired version is superior; the fact that after all these years this is still such a hotly debated topic for all concerned says something powerful about Star Trek in general, and about this episode in particular.
Ideas with timeless value, and timeless things to say go on being discussed(and argued) for decades and longer.
Things that are "crap" are typically forgotten quickly, and are only brought up when you need to deride them (like bringing up "The Flying Nun", for example.)
I don't post this to take one side or the other. I heard GR's rants about this when he was doing his "World of ST" lecture tour in the 70's, which I was fortunate to attend once, and I also have read Ellison's book about this.
In reality, there is probably a bit of truth to both versions of the story. There were at least two(maybe more) very big egos involved, and a lot of money(at the time) at stake.
I think there are good points in Ellison's script, and good points in the aired ep as well.
Regardless of who is really right and wrong in this case, I think we, as fans, got the best end product that was possible to get under those very difficult circumstances.
TV is a very imperfect story-telling medium, even at its best.
Ideas with timeless value, and timeless things to say go on being discussed(and argued) for decades and longer.
Things that are "crap" are typically forgotten quickly, and are only brought up when you need to deride them (like bringing up "The Flying Nun", for example.)
I don't post this to take one side or the other. I heard GR's rants about this when he was doing his "World of ST" lecture tour in the 70's, which I was fortunate to attend once, and I also have read Ellison's book about this.
In reality, there is probably a bit of truth to both versions of the story. There were at least two(maybe more) very big egos involved, and a lot of money(at the time) at stake.
I think there are good points in Ellison's script, and good points in the aired ep as well.
Regardless of who is really right and wrong in this case, I think we, as fans, got the best end product that was possible to get under those very difficult circumstances.
TV is a very imperfect story-telling medium, even at its best.
Yeah, but Field couldn't write an Ellison script.
A lot of successful scriptwriters do violate the "rules." Many "rules for commercial writers" - whether for tv drama, movies, science fiction or mystery or whatnot - are hoops that neophytes have to pay very strict attention to and that professionals who are in demand get to ignore to a greater or lesser extent (depending on their degree of success). It's not so much true in the movies, but at any given time there are a number of bestselling novelists who are absolutely uneditable; if a publisher wants the privilege of publishing their work, it's take-it-or-leave-it. In the case of science fiction in particular - well, a short story or novel from a newcomer may be rejected or sent back for rewrite on any number of plausibility or factual issues that an in-demand writer can ignore without question (see: Heinlein, Robert A.).
Neither part of that is necessarily a bad thing. New writers often need discipline and a powerful outside voice in order to master commercial demands; once someone has demonstrated the ability to attract and entertain a large audience then everything else is mere bookkeeping.
Quite true. I don't think that Ellison was ever able to accept that.
Well, actually I said that he wouldn't, in this and several other cases.
True.
Frank was more likely to punch HE in the mouth, than to have him fitted for "concrete galooshes."
Frank was more likely to punch HE in the mouth, than to have him fitted for "concrete galooshes."
I read that story and all it told me was that Sinatra was a colossal asswipe. (Good actor, though, and a great singer.)
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
You mean Ellison verbally abusing me at a West LA booksigning circa 1996? One of my most profound life regrets is that I didn't beat the living shit out of that disgusting little oxidized cockroach right there in that Santa Monica Barnes & Noble. As for the subject of this thread, I would have been exactly as much a fan of TOS had TCOTEOF never happened. Fuck him.
TGT