• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

New Book about TOS: These Are The Voyages

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skimming the sample, the text still calls MGM "the biggest studio in Hollywood" in '63, and also hasn't fixed the erroneous credits it assigns Bob Justman. Seems less like it is "revised and expaned" than "properly proofread this time!" -- although I don't have the book in front of me at the moment to compare.
 
It would be nice if I could download that to read on my iPad.

You should be able to read it through the Kindle iPad app. :techman:
Wow. I didn't even know there was such a thing. I thought I could only have an ebook through the iBook app. Thanks, I'll look it up.

I prefer it to iBook. Not sure why. Our library has kindle ebooks and they download and work very smoothly on the app.
 
Skimming the sample, the text still calls MGM "the biggest studio in Hollywood" in '63, and also hasn't fixed the erroneous credits it assigns Bob Justman. Seems less like it is "revised and expaned" than "properly proofread this time!" -- although I don't have the book in front of me at the moment to compare.

Reading the sample pages, many of the the editorial choices remain peculiar, like the weird non sequitur about about Bill Gates, the pointless reference to Theiss being gay (what does that have to do with the subject, even if Fontana said it...or does it become an issue later?), and the unchallenged quotes of actors re Spock for the first pilot being an unemotional character when clearly he was not written as such until the second. Also, there's the statement about Lucy when she was told Star Trek wasn't about a USO show, "Lucy was speechless." Really? Says who? It's not treated as a quote. Did Solow say that? Or is the author inferring/imagining...again?

Also, untrue hyperbole and unsupported statements like the gem that Roddenberry would "change the course of network television". Um...how? Networks did not change their approach because of Star Trek, and no Star Trek series ever ran on a network again until UPN, which went kaput. Seriously, man, this is very poor work for a supposed historical text.

The Author's Note does address the photo crediting issue somewhat obliquely, but doesn't indicate if they ever got permission to use said photos from those who restored them.
 
Last edited:
Downloaded the app and the book. Should be interesting as I've never read a book on my iPad before. If nothing else the pictures look better. :lol: The price is also a lot more appealing.

That said I can see getting certain kinds of books this way, but other books I would still prefer the old-fashioned in-hand kind printed on paper.
 
Did they correct the mistake on the back cover that stated the episode "Sarek" was the first TNG episode to include a character from TOS, which they claimed linked the two series together?
 
I hope not! He's been telling me to get this book since it's release. He's been a huge cheerleader for it! :)
 
Slow day at work today, so I read through the sample pages more carefully. Some comments.

On the few instances when two fan sites either claimed credit for the restoration of an image or legal justification to contribute the image to this work, both sites have been listed.

As far as I know, the sample pages don't contain any of the images taken from Star Trek History. I would be interested to know which images now credit the site, and if any images have been removed from the second edition.

Of course, "few instances" underplays the whole issue, and makes it clear that Cushman knows about it. Happy to be corrected on this point, but as far as I know the publisher still hasn't sought permission from the two sources that were not "The Collector."

Some errors were also found in regard to copy editing.

More underplaying of the issue, although this revised edition appears to have been properly proofread.

Even before any of the lovers went public, the rumors were rampant and quite a few made it back to the network. It was a touchy subject in 1963, so much so that executives at MGM and NBC were nervously not seeing, not hearing and, except behind close doors, not speaking about these matters. Regardless, Roddenberry was assumed guilty with 'one strike' against him.

I'd like to know how Cushman knows what happened behind closed doors at MGM and NBC.

In 20 years of broadcasting, the network [NBC] had never aired anything even remotely resembling science fiction.

Cushman's point, that a sf program like Star Trek was pretty far afield from what NBC was broadcasting in the mid-1960s, is spot on, but this statement is far from accurate. Science fiction programs NBC aired include:

Tom Corbett, Space Cadet (January to September, 1951 and December 1954 to June 1955)
Atom Squad (July 1953 to January 1954)
Commander Cody (a 1953 theatrical serial, was syndicated to television on NBC in 1955)
Operation Neptune (June to August, 1953)
Fireball XL5 (1963 - September 1965)

James Goldstone, a well-regarded TV director, was offered the job...But Goldstone had a 'scheduling conflict.' A man with no reputation could find one at Star Trek. An established reputation, however, could be ruined with a job like this. The search continued.

Does Inside Star Trek: The Real Story have anything to say about Goldstone's "scheduling conflict" being a lie? That rings false to me.
 
Last edited:
The Kindle version is now available. You can preview several pages in the front of the book.
http://www.amazon.com/These-Are-Voyages-TOS-Season-ebook/dp/B00H2RPG8U/

Ahh much better price than before!

Half the price I paid two weeks ago. Oh well.

Talk to Amazon, sometimes if the price drops drastically within a short time after a purchase (I think typically one month) they'll refund the difference.
 
Thanks guys for staying on top of these issues. I've been curious about this book and just lurking in the thread, with nothing really to add, but I fully support putting the spotlight on this sort of thing.

Right now I have only this to say, which cuts across a lot of fields.

Monetizing other people's work without attribution and without prior agreement is unethical, especially when there is no mystery behind who has added what to the product and when the manner of the monetization is known to be occurring over the objections of some of those contributors. The restoration of degraded images represents value-added work. While failures in proper attribution or in securing prior agreements might occur innocently for all sorts of reasons, how one comports oneself when made aware of the situation is itself a reflection of personal ethics. Downplaying such an issue, in order to portray a false version of it in print, is deliberate misrepresentation, which is itself unethical.
 
Downplaying such an issue, in order to portray a false version of it in print, is deliberate misrepresentation, which is itself unethical.

While I really want to see what is in that book, I'm still not willing to spend money supporting something that is openly taking others work and monetizing it without permission and/or compensation.
 
)

Jerry Goldstone, a well-regarded TV director, was offered the job...But Goldstone had a 'scheduling conflict.' A man with no reputation could find one at Star Trek. An established reputation, however, could be ruined with a job like this. The search continued.
Does Inside Star Trek: The Real Story have anything to say about Goldstone's "scheduling conflict" being a lie? That rings false to me.

Holdonasec ... don't they mean JAMES Goldstone? Is this another typo, or are they talking about a director I've never heard of?
 
Thanks guys for staying on top of these issues. I've been curious about this book and just lurking in the thread, with nothing really to add, but I fully support putting the spotlight on this sort of thing.

Right now I have only this to say, which cuts across a lot of fields.

Monetizing other people's work without attribution and without prior agreement is unethical, especially when there is no mystery behind who has added what to the product and when the manner of the monetization is known to be occurring over the objections of some of those contributors. The restoration of degraded images represents value-added work. While failures in proper attribution or in securing prior agreements might occur innocently for all sorts of reasons, how one comports oneself when made aware of the situation is itself a reflection of personal ethics. Downplaying such an issue, in order to portray a false version of it in print, is deliberate misrepresentation, which is itself unethical.

I agree with the sentiment entirely and furthermore greatly admire the language employed. (that's my trekbbs equivalent to the facebook 'like' function, I guess ... I'm only just now figuring out vagaries of social media.)
 
More mushy history:
Desi had a better idea. He had watched the way live sitcoms from New York, such as The Honeymooners, were being shot before studio audiences...His idea was to use the same approach but substitute film cameras...
...I Love Lucy went on the air in October 1951.
The Honeymooners wasn't a sitcom in 1951, it was a recurring sketch on the DuMont network's Cavalcade of Stars and then on CBS's The Jackie Gleason Show. It only became a stand alone half hour comedy 5 years later.

Furthermore, it first appeared as a sketch on October 5, 1951, only 10 days before Lucy premiered.

As such, it couldn't have been a model for anything re Lucy.

Sure, maybe he meant to use The Honeymooners as an example of three camera video production, but the way he's written this it reads like that show was a model for Desi.

He also writes the title of the Desilu produced series The Lineup as Line Up

Sloppy, Sloppy. Sloppy.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top