At this rate, next year she'll be telling people MLK screamed "DON'T QUIT STAR TREK!!!" as he was doing her doggy-style during a private moment of passion.
Nichols's MLK story - latest re-telling
- Thread starter A beaker full of death
- Start date
- Status
At this rate, next year she'll be telling people MLK screamed "DON'T QUIT STAR TREK!!!" as he was doing her doggy-style during a private moment of passion.
That was not Ricardo Montalban, it was James Doohan (Scotty) who said that of Shatner. It was the sick bay scene where Scotty's nephew dies and Scotty has additional dialog which Shatner felt upstaged him. That is why the scene was not in the theatrical release in 1982, however, it was in the televised version of TWOK. I was at a convension in the mid-to-late 1980s in Baltimore and someone asked Doohan why that scene was not in the theatrical version and that was the reason he gave.
Navigator NCC-2120 USS Entente
/\
In the interest of fairness, I think that scene drags considerably, but I can see why Doohan would think otherwise.
Shatner would have had very little - okay, no - input into the editing of Star Trek II. Decisions about the final shape of the movie - what was cut, what was added in post-production (the "final resting place" of the torpedo in Griffith Park) were made months after the actors had all moved on. So whether Shatner liked the scene or not had little to do with anything - it was shot, edited into the film and eventually trimmed out.
It's a good scene, IMAO, but mainly because it continues on into the brief conversation between Kirk and McCoy alone in sickbay a few moments later - one of my absolute favorite exchanges in any Trek movie, and it didn't even make it into the theatrical release.
It's a good scene, IMAO, but mainly because it continues on into the brief conversation between Kirk and McCoy alone in sickbay a few moments later - one of my absolute favorite exchanges in any Trek movie, and it didn't even make it into the theatrical release.
I suspect any moodiness on Shatner's part had more to do with Meyer riding him like a $20 mule to stop ACTING and just do the scenes normally. A flare up of his tinnitus might have also added to the cranky mixture. And like Dennis said, he would've had no input into the editing of the film.
And, yes, George Takei, that goes for your "getting command of Excelsior" scene, too!
And, yes, George Takei, that goes for your "getting command of Excelsior" scene, too!
The whole Nichols story is really interesting to me. As a 45-year-old, I've watched not just this but any number of Trek fish stories expand over the years.
I've occasionally wondered: what would it feel like if millions of people obsessed over some very minor work I did 20 years ago?
I can think specifically of a company I was with early in my career. I was low man on the totem pole, and it was where I'd make some rookie mistakes I'd never repeat today.
But what if millions of people were stuck on this few years I was with this company? Where I'd continually tell and re-tell the same stories over and over again, literally for decades?
That's got to be just plain weird. Not to mention you probably vary the story over the years to keep it interesting for yourself. Then as people die and aren't around to contradict you, it can veer from reality, and who'd ever know? Hell, after 40 years or so, you might even start to believe the new versions of the stories.
In Nichols' case, everything I've ever read points to one simple fact in TOS:
She got the job because she was one of Roddenberry's mistresses.
Now, it may be that she's a nice person and a talented actress, but that's not why she got the job. She got the job because (among other things) she was once spotted by someone (I believe John D.F. Black) hiding under Roddenberry's desk wearing no pants or underwear.
Now, you tell me what Roddenberry and Nichols were up to. You tell me that it didn't impact her getting the part of Uhura.
(Remember, of course, that at the time Roddenberry was still married to his first wife Eileen. Majel Barrett was Roddenberry's regular mistress, whom he kept at an apartment near the Desilu lot. I don't know what Nichols was ... she couldn't have believed Roddenberry would both divorce Eileen and ditch Majel. If nothing else, it was the 1960s: mixed-race couples were generally derided in public.)
Furthermore, Roddenberry played Nichols, probably to keep getting sex. He kept telling her how her part would be bigger, if only the leads wouldn't get in his way. He even told her he'd intended Trek to be an ensemble show -- something it never, ever was.
(Of course, he did that with all the cast members throughout the 1970s. Roddenberry seemed constitutionally incapable of just saying, "You were a recurring minor character that I could replace any time. Get over yourself.")
What we end up with is complete bullshit on Roddenberry's part about almost every facet of the show. If you want some level of the real story, read Inside Star Trek by Solow and Justman. Then wait for your cherished ideals about Roddenberry and Star Trek to be demolished.
Damned near everything Roddenberry ever said about his job on Trek was exaggerated. Everything. He told stories and outright lies, over and over throughout the years. He took greater direct responsibility for every aspect of the show while at the same time denigrating anyone who contradicted him. The stories and lies changed in the telling, and in Roddenberry's case, only Harlan Ellison consistently called him on it.
(Unfortunately, Ellison's kind of a jackass. He may well have a point about "City," but he's still kind of a jackass.)
Nichols is engaging in the same kind of story-telling as Roddenberry, only not on his scale. It's unfortunate, because beyond a certain very few facts, there's really very little about the Star Trek production lore is known to be accurate. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but all the stories and outright lies told by the principals over the years hasn't helped.
Want a wonderful example? Since "The Cage", Roddenberry has claimed that NBC said he needed to get rid of Number One (Barrett) because no one would believe a woman in command of anything.
It turns out that this was utter nonsense, probably concocted by Roddenberry to avoid unpleasant awkwardness with Majel. According to Inside Star Trek, Herb Solow (Roddenberry's superior at Desilu) screened "The Cage" with or at least met with NBC executives following the screening.
NBC execs universally thought that Barrett wasn't a very good actress and wanted her replaced. They didn't want Number One replaced, and in fact Solow says that given the network's stance on equal rights would probably have welcomed a strong female character.
NBC just didn't want Majel Barrett playing her.
However, one of the execs made an off-hand remark wondering how Barrett got the part probably being due to her being "kept" by someone. Solow's reaction was an internal, "Brother, if you only knew."
So Barrett was to get the axe, one way or another. That's probably when Roddenberry thought up the, "It's the stupid network!" excuse.
Remember, Roddenberry had to fire her. But he couldn't tell his actress mistress the truth, that NBC thought she sucked. She might well come to the conclusion that she'd hitched her wagon to a falling star and find some other producer to sleep with.
So he lied to her. Then he lied to the staff. He couldn't tell the truth after Trek hit it big in syndication because he'd started to make a living off talking about Star Trek on college campuses.
So he maintained the lie, always criticizing NBC and making college crowds laugh at how stupid they are. For 40 years.
Who knows what's true, if Roddenberry said it?
Dakota Smith
I've occasionally wondered: what would it feel like if millions of people obsessed over some very minor work I did 20 years ago?
I can think specifically of a company I was with early in my career. I was low man on the totem pole, and it was where I'd make some rookie mistakes I'd never repeat today.
But what if millions of people were stuck on this few years I was with this company? Where I'd continually tell and re-tell the same stories over and over again, literally for decades?
That's got to be just plain weird. Not to mention you probably vary the story over the years to keep it interesting for yourself. Then as people die and aren't around to contradict you, it can veer from reality, and who'd ever know? Hell, after 40 years or so, you might even start to believe the new versions of the stories.
In Nichols' case, everything I've ever read points to one simple fact in TOS:
She got the job because she was one of Roddenberry's mistresses.
Now, it may be that she's a nice person and a talented actress, but that's not why she got the job. She got the job because (among other things) she was once spotted by someone (I believe John D.F. Black) hiding under Roddenberry's desk wearing no pants or underwear.
Now, you tell me what Roddenberry and Nichols were up to. You tell me that it didn't impact her getting the part of Uhura.
(Remember, of course, that at the time Roddenberry was still married to his first wife Eileen. Majel Barrett was Roddenberry's regular mistress, whom he kept at an apartment near the Desilu lot. I don't know what Nichols was ... she couldn't have believed Roddenberry would both divorce Eileen and ditch Majel. If nothing else, it was the 1960s: mixed-race couples were generally derided in public.)
Furthermore, Roddenberry played Nichols, probably to keep getting sex. He kept telling her how her part would be bigger, if only the leads wouldn't get in his way. He even told her he'd intended Trek to be an ensemble show -- something it never, ever was.
(Of course, he did that with all the cast members throughout the 1970s. Roddenberry seemed constitutionally incapable of just saying, "You were a recurring minor character that I could replace any time. Get over yourself.")
What we end up with is complete bullshit on Roddenberry's part about almost every facet of the show. If you want some level of the real story, read Inside Star Trek by Solow and Justman. Then wait for your cherished ideals about Roddenberry and Star Trek to be demolished.
Damned near everything Roddenberry ever said about his job on Trek was exaggerated. Everything. He told stories and outright lies, over and over throughout the years. He took greater direct responsibility for every aspect of the show while at the same time denigrating anyone who contradicted him. The stories and lies changed in the telling, and in Roddenberry's case, only Harlan Ellison consistently called him on it.
(Unfortunately, Ellison's kind of a jackass. He may well have a point about "City," but he's still kind of a jackass.)
Nichols is engaging in the same kind of story-telling as Roddenberry, only not on his scale. It's unfortunate, because beyond a certain very few facts, there's really very little about the Star Trek production lore is known to be accurate. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but all the stories and outright lies told by the principals over the years hasn't helped.
Want a wonderful example? Since "The Cage", Roddenberry has claimed that NBC said he needed to get rid of Number One (Barrett) because no one would believe a woman in command of anything.
It turns out that this was utter nonsense, probably concocted by Roddenberry to avoid unpleasant awkwardness with Majel. According to Inside Star Trek, Herb Solow (Roddenberry's superior at Desilu) screened "The Cage" with or at least met with NBC executives following the screening.
NBC execs universally thought that Barrett wasn't a very good actress and wanted her replaced. They didn't want Number One replaced, and in fact Solow says that given the network's stance on equal rights would probably have welcomed a strong female character.
NBC just didn't want Majel Barrett playing her.
However, one of the execs made an off-hand remark wondering how Barrett got the part probably being due to her being "kept" by someone. Solow's reaction was an internal, "Brother, if you only knew."
So Barrett was to get the axe, one way or another. That's probably when Roddenberry thought up the, "It's the stupid network!" excuse.
Remember, Roddenberry had to fire her. But he couldn't tell his actress mistress the truth, that NBC thought she sucked. She might well come to the conclusion that she'd hitched her wagon to a falling star and find some other producer to sleep with.
So he lied to her. Then he lied to the staff. He couldn't tell the truth after Trek hit it big in syndication because he'd started to make a living off talking about Star Trek on college campuses.
So he maintained the lie, always criticizing NBC and making college crowds laugh at how stupid they are. For 40 years.
Who knows what's true, if Roddenberry said it?
Dakota Smith
Last edited:
^^^^
As someone who's abiout your age (47) and followed Star Trek lore - all I can say is good summaation. Also, GR liked to claim that "A second pilot request was unheard of...yet Star Trek got one..."
And PRIOR to Star Trek, so did:
Gilligan's Island (the Professor and Movie Star parts were recast; and the 'Secretary' was recast and changed to the "Mary Ann - Farmgirl")
Lost In Space - The original Pilot had no Doctor Smith; the original concept was just 'Swiss family Robinson is Space' - but it was felt an internal foil of a character was needed - and Doctor Smith was added.
Also, (like Star Trek) some footage shot for these two pilots was included in the show in some capacity later.
^^^^^
But again, it just goes to show that yes, GR WAS a good 'pitchman' (and that's an aspect you needed to make it in Hollywood in the 1960ies and today).
Agreed. It is interesting to note that most of those same posters would never say such awful things to her face.^ I am aching for the moment when Nichelle Nichols joins this board and gets half of the membership banned...
I agree with those who say that older folks often embellish the past and believe it to be true themselves. Divorced people do it all the time... often with lawyers involved.
Dakota and No Name, all quite true. A lot of credit attributed to Roddenberry should've been attributed to the other Gene: Gene L. Coon.
Absolutely. At the very least, he wrote some of the show's best episodes. "Devil In the Dark," "Errand Of Mercy" (first appearance of the Klingons!), "Space Seed" (KHAAAAAAAAAAAN!), "Arena" (the Gorn) ... not to mention his line producer duties that had him overseeing episodes like "Tribbles."
However, the credit Roddenberry claimed didn't just trample all over Coon. There are ample examples in Inside Star Trek of dramatic conventions invented by Bob Justman and even Herb Solow. In fact, according to Solow, it was he who came up with the concept of the "Captain's Log" to introduce and pace stories -- and that's just one in a lengthy list of examples.
While the book is kind to Roddenberry, the reader cannot walk away with anything other than the impression that he was a fairly ruthless self-aggrandizing womanizer.
Dakota Smith
It's like how when Ronald Reagan was president he used to talk about his days in the military, forgetting that it was just a role in played in a movie.
Not necessarily. While nothing about the 23rd Century was mentioned in the show (and there's lots of on-air evidence of the show taking place in the 22nd Century), apparently the Making of Star Trek book from the sixties does mention the 23rd Century. At least that's what I've been told. The earliest printed reference I've actually seen, however, was from something Roddenberry wrote in the mid-70s about Trek, which mentioned the 23rd Century more than once. That still predates WoK by several years.
Last edited:
In other words, he was a creative genius, but also a real son of a bitch. That describes a whole lot of famous artists and writers.
Agreed. It is interesting to note that most of those same posters would never say such awful things to her face.^ I am aching for the moment when Nichelle Nichols joins this board and gets half of the membership banned...
It's the same mentality that keeps me from telling my Grandmother that her story about meeting FDR is bunk yet allows me to have a laugh about it among my siblings.
I'm no expert on Dr. King's reading habits, but somehow I doubt he had picked up a "making of Star Trek" book from the 60s AND remembered it well enough to make a point about the 23rd century to Nichelle Nichols.
Agreed. It is interesting to note that most of those same posters would never say such awful things to her face.^ I am aching for the moment when Nichelle Nichols joins this board and gets half of the membership banned...
banned for what? Who said anything awful?
Might want to work on your research skills. Reagan enlisted in the reserves in 1937 and was brought to active duty when the US joined the war. He remained on active duty until the war ended.
Hearsay seems to be your line. To my knowledge the first edition was in 1973.
But of course, MLK was such a trekie that he undoubtedly would have been the first in line to buy it. After all, it was the only tv show his wife would let him watch.
Also, some of the pre-release posters for Star Trek: The Motion Picture described it portentously (not to say pretentiously) as "A 23rd Century Odyssey Today."
- Status