• 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!

Nichols's MLK story - latest re-telling

Status
Not open for further replies.
MLK practically begging her to stay on the only show Coretta Scott King allowed him and the kids to watch?

Well, then they should have checked TV Guide a little more closely. Uhura was a minor character at best. She never took command or featured in the series as a whole in any really important capacity. They hired guest yeomen instead of putting her on landing party duties. I'm all for Star Trek being a focal point in Civil Rights history, but a full year before Trek hit the air, I Spy did a hell of a lot more for racial equality than Star Trek ever dreamed of. Bill Cosby was over there with Bob Culp as co-lead on a weekly series. Not background, minor, or subservient, but an equal partner who was brilliant, funny, likeable, and deadly. The first episode aired focused on Cosby and the guest cast - all minorities. And for three straight years, Cosby brought home the Emmy awards. You can't tell me King missed all that going on, and concentrated on Background Decoration Uhura.

Honestly, Star Trek said "blacks will be working for white people in the future." I Spy was saying "blacks can be equal right now." So was Mission Impossible, which showcased racial equality more than Star Trek. Greg Morris was a main and popular character and an integral part of the team for seven straight years. Yet, for some reason, Nichelle gets all the press. She's a little lower on the milestone ladder than these other two. Now if Spock was played by Ivan Dixon, or if Uhura was the second lead, then absolutely, that's breaking some barriers. But Star Trek's part in Civil Rights history has been over inflated, thanks in no small part to Nichelle Nichols.
 
apparently the Making of Star Trek book from the sixties does mention the 23rd Century. At least that's what I've been told.

Hearsay seems to be your line. To my knowledge the first edition was in 1973.

Nope, 1968. This is why there are only two seasons of episodes listed in the back of the book. Season three had yet to be embarked on. Plus the cancellation and the third season were never mentioned.

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Making_of_Star_Trek
 
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. died in April 1968 and The Making of Star Trek was released in September 1968.

Even if the book were released before his assassination, I severely doubt Dr. King would've purcahsed it. He had (much) more important things on his mind.
 
Well, then they should have checked TV Guide a little more closely. Uhura was a minor character at best. She never took command or featured in the series as a whole in any really important capacity. They hired guest yeomen instead of putting her on landing party duties. I'm all for Star Trek being a focal point in Civil Rights history, but a full year before Trek hit the air, I Spy did a hell of a lot more for racial equality than Star Trek ever dreamed of. Bill Cosby was over there with Bob Culp as co-lead on a weekly series. Not background, minor, or subservient, but an equal partner who was brilliant, funny, likeable, and deadly. The first episode aired focused on Cosby and the guest cast - all minorities. And for three straight years, Cosby brought home the Emmy awards. You can't tell me King missed all that going on, and concentrated on Background Decoration Uhura.

^^^
This. Also, there was The Bill Cosby Show for two season (1969-71) where he was the lead and played a very non-sterotyped character
 
apparently the Making of Star Trek book from the sixties does mention the 23rd Century. At least that's what I've been told.

Hearsay seems to be your line. To my knowledge the first edition was in 1973.

Nope, 1968. This is why there are only two seasons of episodes listed in the back of the book. Season three had yet to be embarked on. Plus the cancellation and the third season were never mentioned.

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Making_of_Star_Trek

My (and Amazon's) error.

Hober, depending on the month of publication, King may indeed have had time to line up for a copy of the book fresh off the press (especially if he camped out outside the publishing house), rush over to Nichols's house with the book still warm in his coat pocket to beg and plead with her to stay on the show, and still make it to Memphis in time for his date with James Earl Ray. It all fits!

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. died in April 1968 and The Making of Star Trek was released in September 1968.

Damn!! back to Square 1!!
 
I am so tired of this kind of "Ooh, look at us! We're politically relevant!" crap. I was just a tee-vee show, folks. One I happen to enjoy a great deal but, in the end, just a tee-vee show.
So are you saying a television writer never has relevant things to say?

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.
My recollection from Justman & Solow's book (where this incident is mentioned) is that she was already on the show before that happened. Roddenberry & Nichols knew each other from his previous show, "The Lieutenant".
 
Nichols claims in her autobiography that her relationship with Roddenberry had been over long before he called her to star in Star Trek. Of course, I don't know if that's true or not. But I don't know if any of your sources is right, either.
 
apparently the Making of Star Trek book from the sixties does mention the 23rd Century. At least that's what I've been told.

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.

Which would have been even more of an accomplishment since he died in 1968.
 
Hearsay seems to be your line. To my knowledge the first edition was in 1973.

Nope, 1968. This is why there are only two seasons of episodes listed in the back of the book. Season three had yet to be embarked on. Plus the cancellation and the third season were never mentioned.

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Making_of_Star_Trek

My (and Amazon's) error.

Hober, depending on the month of publication, King may indeed have had time to line up for a copy of the book fresh off the press (especially if he camped out outside the publishing house), rush over to Nichols's house with the book still warm in his coat pocket to beg and plead with her to stay on the show, and still make it to Memphis in time for his date with James Earl Ray. It all fits!

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. died in April 1968 and The Making of Star Trek was released in September 1968.

Damn!! back to Square 1!!

I still have my copy of the Making of Star Trek and the paperback version that I have does mention the season 2 cancellation and the third season "miracle."

The book is very much an "authorized" and very much cleaned up version of the events that went into making the show. However, if you want to know the inside scoop of Roddenberry's sex life and asshole tendencies you'll have to look elsewhere. The one thing I do like about "The Making of" is that it's made before all the legends got completely out of hand and overblown. There are a lot of blank spaces, but there is a lot of intersting stuff about how a show gets made and the amount of work that goes into it. It's not the last word, not even close. However, it is a fairly dispassionate, albeit sketchy look (as we now know) into how a TV show gets made.
 
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.

What became The Dick Van Dyke Show also had a rejected first pilot, with Carl Reiner playing Rob Petrie.

I Spy did a hell of a lot more for racial equality than Star Trek ever dreamed of. Bill Cosby was over there with Bob Culp as co-lead on a weekly series. Not background, minor, or subservient, but an equal partner who was brilliant, funny, likeable, and deadly. The first episode aired focused on Cosby and the guest cast - all minorities. And for three straight years, Cosby brought home the Emmy awards. You can't tell me King missed all that going on, and concentrated on Background Decoration Uhura.

Honestly, Star Trek said "blacks will be working for white people in the future." I Spy was saying "blacks can be equal right now." So was Mission Impossible, which showcased racial equality more than Star Trek. Greg Morris was a main and popular character and an integral part of the team for seven straight years. Yet, for some reason, Nichelle gets all the press. She's a little lower on the milestone ladder than these other two. Now if Spock was played by Ivan Dixon, or if Uhura was the second lead, then absolutely, that's breaking some barriers. But Star Trek's part in Civil Rights history has been over inflated, thanks in no small part to Nichelle Nichols.

It's really amazing how much myths like these have held on over the years, when they are so easily disproven with things like the IMDB and YouTube.
 
. . . 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.
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.

Not just artists and writers -- a lot of people in general, unfortunately.

It's why my criticism of the man shouldn't be misinterpreted as anything other than wanting to know some level of truth about how Star Trek was made.

Having pretty much grown up as he became a campus figure in the 1970s and then a producer on the first movie, I heard a lot about him, but it was all from his own lips. Aside from Harlan Ellison, nobody ever really challenged him about it. Simultaneously, Ellison has undercut his own credibility by being such a famously rude asshole.

So it wasn't until much later that a lot of the truth of production lore came out. It was fascinating to find out how much Coon and Bob Justman had contributed. It was a complete shock to discover Herb Solow's level of involvement, as Roddenberry pretty much portrayed him as just a friendly studio boss.

It was just plain fascinating to discover that Fred Freiberger, while probably no genius, walked into a hideous political situation when he took over as executive producer.

Fans had blamed Freiberger over the years for ruining Star Trek. It turns out the work environment and politics of the production were so twisted by then that nobody could have done the job.

He was beset on all sides by competing political and emotional interests, forced into uncomfortable confrontations that could only make things worse, while at the same time trying to figure out exactly what the hell Star Trek was and how to make it every week.

The only real fault I can find with Freiberger he made the exact same professional mistake on Space: 1999. You'd've thought he learned better. ;)

Again, it's just wanting to know the truth. If I really fault Roddenberry for anything, it's that he obscured that truth for so long. The reason for the obfuscation is an altogether too common trait. There are several of the Seven Deadly Sins involved, which tells you just how timeless they are.

I wonder if the time isn't ripe for a docu-drama about the making of the series. It would certainly be consistent with a lot of the soapy dramas and reality shows that are so popular.

Furthermore, if they wanted to be really cute about it, they'd cast the entire cast of the 2009 film to play the actors who played the characters originally. I.e. Chris Pine as Shatner, Zach Quinto as Nimoy, Zoe Saldana as Nichols, that nameless blonde chick with a really short nurse's minidress and one line as Majel ...

Wow, actually now that I think about it, I can imagine a scene with Simon Pegg as Doohan where he gets mad at Shatner. While it's in no way supported by anything anyone's ever said over the years, I can just imagine:

Shatner (Pine) turns away from Doohan (Pegg). Cut to a medium shot of Doohan. There is a beat and then Doohan raises his right hand and flips off Shatner. Except that it's his right hand -- the one missing the middle finger.

I can just see the expression on Pegg's face as he flips off Pine with his CGI-doctored missing middle finger. It would be perfect Pegg material.

Hm ... maybe not ... some of the principals in all this are still alive, and I don't see Paramount alienating them that way.

On the other hand, the scene with Saldana under Roddenberry's desk with no pants or underwear would generate a lot of ticket sales.

I volunteer my services to play Roddenberry.

(It's been a while since I've worked professionally, so Paramount can get me cheap. Hell, I'd do this one for free if SAG would let me; since they won't, I'll do it for scale. :drool: )

Edit: just had a brilliant idea for the docu-drama.

You don't use the 2009 cast, you use the New Voyages/Phase II cast. Plus, they come with their own bridge set that can't be beat in terms of faithfulness to the original.

However, the caveat is that if I'm to play Roddenberry, I want my choice of Nichelles and Majels. They've used a couple of actresses, and I think it's part of the Roddenberry character that I should get my choice.

:D
 
Last edited:
GR was a competent tv writer with a fair grasp on science fiction concepts of his day. This is not criticism. He knew how to write. That was not uncommon in tv back then.
He had a good idea and a certain amount of artistic integrity. He was no genius, but he had a good idea.
He was also pushy and self-aggrandizing. Most successful people are. People gave Shatner shit for years for those same qualities; the fact is he became the lead on a tv show for a reason.

Anyone ever notice how obnoxious the celebrities on Celebrity Jeopardy seem to be? How they keep trying to grab the spotlight?
Sadly, this is how people get ahead.
Being a good student and doing as you're told doesn't get you ahead. Promoting yourself does.
 
. . . I wonder if the time isn't ripe for a docu-drama about the making of the series. It would certainly be consistent with a lot of the soapy dramas and reality shows that are so popular.
I've already brought up that idea, though the discussion didn't get very far.

http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=116673

On the other hand, the scene with Saldana under Roddenberry's desk with no pants or underwear would generate a lot of ticket sales.
I'd watch it for that scene alone!
 
Just for the Hell of it, does anyone have a published or transcribed account of the story she told back in the '70s available online?

I'd love to compare Nichelle Nichols' word-for-word recollection of the story directly to... Nichelle Nichols'.
 
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.

What became The Dick Van Dyke Show also had a rejected first pilot, with Carl Reiner playing Rob Petrie.
You are confusing changes after a pilot, normal for most series, with having to do a second pilot, which is what Star Trek did. Star Trek had to attempt to sell the show on the merits of their second episode as well, which those other shows didn't have to do.
 
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.

What became The Dick Van Dyke Show also had a rejected first pilot, with Carl Reiner playing Rob Petrie.
You are confusing changes after a pilot, normal for most series, with having to do a second pilot, which is what Star Trek did. Star Trek had to attempt to sell the show on the merits of their second episode as well, which those other shows didn't have to do.

No, I'm not confusing anything. A second pilot IS a second pilot, and usually changes are involved. Neither GI or LIS were 'sold' until the changes (and a second pilot) were made and audience tested. It's GR who played the situation up into something it honestly wasn't. Second pilot requests are indeed rare, but they're hardly 'unheard of'.
 
Lost in Space did not have a second pilot. Sure, they had to implement changes, but they didn't have to make a second episode and then wait and try again. (Audience testing is audience testing; you do that regardless). The order for the first season was in place as long as the changes were implemented. "The Reluctant Stowaway" was the first episode of the production season, same as any weekly episode. I'll admit I'm not as familiar with Gilligan's Island, but I suspect it was similar (make these changes, then you get your first season.) Star Trek had to make changes, and make changes again after the second pilot which is where the difference lies, and is why the production was in 1964, 1965, and the first season wasn't until 1966.
 
Lost in Space did not have a second pilot. Sure, they had to implement changes, but they didn't have to make a second episode and then wait and try again. (Audience testing is audience testing; you do that regardless). The order for the first season was in place as long as the changes were implemented. "The Reluctant Stowaway" was the first episode of the production season, same as any weekly episode. I'll admit I'm not as familiar with Gilligan's Island, but I suspect it was similar (make these changes, then you get your first season.) Star Trek had to make changes, and make changes again after the second pilot which is where the difference lies, and is why the production was in 1964, 1965, and the first season wasn't until 1966.

JoeD80,

Here is a link to the unaired original "Lost In Space" pilot, titled "No Place To Hide", which is available to watch online. It eventually aired some time in the 1990's on the Sci-Fi Channel. This original pilot does not have the robot or Dr. Smith (who was added later by 20th Century Fox as an antagonist). Much of the original footage was re-used in the first four televised episodes.


Navigator NCC-2120 USS Entente
/\
 
Yes, that one is *THE* Lost in Space pilot. As I said, "The Reluctant Stowaway" was *not a pilot*. I don't know in how many ways I can say the same thing. Pilots are used for selling. CBS bought the show after the one above and requested their changes. NBC did *NOT* buy Trek after "The Cage." They only ordered a second pilot and didn't order the series until after "Where No Man Has Gone Before." This is perhaps confused by the use of the term "pilot" as interchangeable with "first episode" which is not the way I am using it here.
 
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