New Book about TOS: These Are The Voyages
- Thread starter neoworx
- Start date
- Status
I don't think so. But, 99% sure isn't 100%. Let me check.
EDIT: The passage about Barrymore not showing up, on pages 200-201 of Inside Star Trek: The Real Story, doesn't mention MacLachlan. She's also not in the book's index, although that portion of it isn't perfect (it doesn't, for example, list 'The Alternative Factor.')
EDIT: The passage about Barrymore not showing up, on pages 200-201 of Inside Star Trek: The Real Story, doesn't mention MacLachlan. She's also not in the book's index, although that portion of it isn't perfect (it doesn't, for example, list 'The Alternative Factor.')
The book quotes from a Roddenberry memo (which I've seen at UCLA) which says exactly that. But, Cushman determines that Roddenberry meant for the subplot to be taken out of 'Space Seed,' not 'The Alternative Factor,' because 'The Alternative Factor' was scheduled to film first.
Well, the Roddenberry memo doesn't actually say which episode should be changed (and is stored, as I remember, in the files for 'The Alternative Factor').
Cushman's conclusion really looks to me like a case of fitting the facts to an argument, rather than fitting an argument to the facts.
Well, the Roddenberry memo doesn't actually say which episode should be changed (and is stored, as I remember, in the files for 'The Alternative Factor').
Cushman's conclusion really looks to me like a case of fitting the facts to an argument, rather than fitting an argument to the facts.
Well, maybe not with the cast but in "The Galileo Seven" section the actor who played Commissioner Ferries describes how he had never been on a set like Star Trek. He said that Shatner basically told him were to stand and what to do and even Shatner was the one yelling "Cut" in the middle of scenes. He was shocked at the control Shatner had and says that the director just went along which surprised him because he had worked with the director before. It's also why I believe the director of "Shore Leave" (Sparr) was not asked back because he didn't put up with Shatner's B.S. even though Justman thought that Sparr did a great job under trying circumstances (and I agree)
As I recall, that's not the only passage in the book that isn't complementary to Shatner asserting control of the set, although I don't have any page numbers in my notes.
I have to say, one of the most annoying things about the book is that it has no index. Although the chapters are mostly organized by episode, this still makes it pretty difficult to effectively use as a reference book (and, say, quickly look up pages where Shatner is mentioned).
I have to say, one of the most annoying things about the book is that it has no index. Although the chapters are mostly organized by episode, this still makes it pretty difficult to effectively use as a reference book (and, say, quickly look up pages where Shatner is mentioned).
The book does mention the first scene in the bar in "Court Martial" where Shatner called "Cut!" because he felt he looked small next to the character 'Timothy.' He complained about this to director Marc Daniels, who then changed the set up to have 'Timothy' sitting down.
Another interesting heretofore unknown tidbit: The actor who played 'Timothy' says he was told by Daniels that he was a fellow starship captain--a peer, not a subordinate (despite the fact he was costumed in red and with only one stripe; how did Daniels not notice that?)--to Kirk. He thus played the scene as if he were an equal who's trying to intimidate Kirk. Only years later did he discover he was supposed to be a lieutenant. The actor was subsequently quoted as saying "lieutenants don't talk to captains like that!"
(RE: Maurice)
No doubt, although I'd happily exchange the book's quotations, summaries, and dull "assessments," which take up at least two pages for every episode (that's 58 pages of text) for an index. Especially for a book that uses the back cover to bill itself as both "the definitive history of the first Star Trek" and "the bible to Star Trek."
No doubt, although I'd happily exchange the book's quotations, summaries, and dull "assessments," which take up at least two pages for every episode (that's 58 pages of text) for an index. Especially for a book that uses the back cover to bill itself as both "the definitive history of the first Star Trek" and "the bible to Star Trek."
It's as if Shatner saw himself, unofficially of course, as part of the production team--not truly unthinkable, as he was the only actor getting a share of the (non-existent at the time) profits.
I also believe that when Nimoy's character started to grab the lions share of attention regarding the cast, Shatner dug his heels in and decided to reinforce his leading star status. That led him to do things like count lines--and push for reassignments and deletions--such as Norman Spinrad described for the shooting of The Doomsday Machine.
It must have hurt Shatner's ego significantly to hear people (non-viewers) describe Star Trek as 'the show with the guy with the pointy ears!'
Well, that settles it for me. I avoid reference books with no index. If they're not important enough for an author to include them, their books aren't important enough for me to buy.
One mistake jumped out at me while reading the "Balance Of Terror" section. A reference is made to the 1957 film The Enemy Below starring Burt Lancaster. WRONG!
Burt Lancaster (with Clark Gable) starred in Run Silent, Run Deep filmed sometime before. Robert Mitchum starred in The Enemy Below.
I'm nearing the halfway point in the book. Reading this materiel now some forty years after the fact is interesting. The content on the pages gives you a sense of uncertainty in the air and a lot of people working really hard to make the show work and to get picked up for the rest of the season. Of course, we know how things will eventually play out over the years and decades, but imagine if we had been able to read this stuff back in the 1970s after having read The Making Of Star Trek. One could be left to wonder if anyone would ever again even consider in trying to resurrect Star Trek with all the headaches that ensued.
I'm somewhat impressed with Stan Robertson, the NBC guy. He doesn't come across as any kind of heavy out to make the lives of the Star Trek crew difficult. While some of his suggestions and observations can understandably be ignored he often offers valid input. He comes across as genuinely liking the show and it's potential and really seems interested in making it work and making it distinctive from what else was being done or had been done before.
If there is one myth really busted by this book it's the one about NBC not really liking or understanding the show.
Burt Lancaster (with Clark Gable) starred in Run Silent, Run Deep filmed sometime before. Robert Mitchum starred in The Enemy Below.
I'm nearing the halfway point in the book. Reading this materiel now some forty years after the fact is interesting. The content on the pages gives you a sense of uncertainty in the air and a lot of people working really hard to make the show work and to get picked up for the rest of the season. Of course, we know how things will eventually play out over the years and decades, but imagine if we had been able to read this stuff back in the 1970s after having read The Making Of Star Trek. One could be left to wonder if anyone would ever again even consider in trying to resurrect Star Trek with all the headaches that ensued.
I'm somewhat impressed with Stan Robertson, the NBC guy. He doesn't come across as any kind of heavy out to make the lives of the Star Trek crew difficult. While some of his suggestions and observations can understandably be ignored he often offers valid input. He comes across as genuinely liking the show and it's potential and really seems interested in making it work and making it distinctive from what else was being done or had been done before.
If there is one myth really busted by this book it's the one about NBC not really liking or understanding the show.
Especially interesting given that the Solow and Justman book painted him in such an unflattering light.
Well, understandably it could be a matter of perspective. If you're on the inside you mightn't be objective and feel you're doing your best to work things out and someone from the outside is trying to give you input you might not think much of.
I wish this book had been more thoroughly reviewed. While mistakes like the one above don't effect the book's true purpose--bringing to light historical pre-, trans- and post-production information most of us have never seen before--it does detract from the overall reading enjoyment.
And, based on some of the comments in this thread, it gives ammunition to some who are looking for a reason to not like it and/or not buy it.
^Granted, but I have yet to see a post here that incontrovertibly proves any of the information presented by the author in the sections regarding pre-, during and post-production are, in fact, wrong (e.g., the Justman memo says this, not that). That's what would make me doubt the sections of the book that speak to why I bought it.
Last edited:
Authors or publishers hire an indexer. Here is a page from their prof. association. http://www.asindexing.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageID=3407
From what I'm seeing in this thread, it sounds like Shatner's acts of control on the set only made the show better. Kirk was supposed be the hero who always came off looking good. Shatner understood that, and if good TV happened to be aligned with his ego instead of against it, well that's tough. He did a great job.
- Status
Similar threads
