Orci and Kurtzman

[BillJ]

You need to lay off the Cushman.

A-frickin'-men!

 

[eyeresist]

Ooh, those darn hipsters, with their skinny jeans and stylish facial hair, bringing Trek back in a way that appeals to the mainstream while also entertaining most Trek fans. Gosh darn them!

 

[Trekkin]

You need to lay off the Cushman.

A-frickin'-men!

Phantom, this is a sincere question - do you actually know why you tend to get the message board equivalent of *audience groans* and instant dismissals whenever you reference those books?

I just realised that you're relatively new, and if you've never read the other threads discussing the books then the near-unanimous negativity about them might seem a bit perplexing.

 

[Phantom]

If anybody involved in creating Star Trek over the last 50 years was a "Hipster" it was Roddenberry. Well, an aging Hipster

On the contrary, TOS in the 60s was widely respected, from schoolchildren to (literal) rocket scientists to even Martin Luthor King. And it got MUCH better ratings than NBC later tried to pass it off as, finishing either first or strong 2nd for it's slot in many episodes.

You need to lay off the Cushman.

Cushman reproduces the statements and letters from respected scientist fans, school kids, et in his books. This is not "speculation", but documentable fact, backed by interviews and archival documents.

And it's Martin Luther King. Luthor is the guy that hates Superman. Was King a Trek fan? Evidence? ( Be cool if it was true, though)

Argument by typo? Really?

King was the one who convinced Nichols to stay with the show (which he had seen and admired). It's discussed in the Cushman books (citing Nichols herself), and has been discussed elsewhere as well.

I'm going to take a swing and say the 'proof' of King being a fan will be Nichols latest account of why she didn't leave the show at the end of S1.

You know - the story that keeps changing over the years, and originated Nichols recounting how she wondered 'What would Doctor King say?'.

If King really was a fan, then he wouldn't have watched too much of the show. He died only a week or so after Season 2 finished its initial run. He certainly wasn't around when it finally got 'big' in the 70's.

So? He apparently did watch and was a fan. I have no reason to call Nichols a liar, and refuse to do so absent a solid reason.

Phantom, this is a sincere question - do you actually know why you tend to get the message board equivalent of *audience groans* and instant dismissals whenever you reference those books?

I just realised that you're relatively new, and if you've never read the other threads discussing the books then the near-unanimous negativity about them might seem a bit perplexing.

I've read them. I don't find them convincing because they run contrary to established facts.

If Cushman talks about, for example, GR's previous soapboxing on "The Lieutenant", and cites knowledgeable insiders who discuss it, then it isn't some "Cushman speculation". He's reporting what reliable sources have told him. If Cushman talks about some of the learned people who appreciated Trek right from the start and produces their letters to NBC (taken from the GR archives) in support, again, it's not "Cushman speculation", but an honest reporting of checkable fact.

Cushman upsets a lot of long-standing apple carts and breaks with the "Trek was a failure" narrative, so he gets pushback from the defenders of that narrative. But if you look at non-Cushman books like "Inside Star Trek", "Star Trek: The Unauthorized History", etc that are non-Cushman materials they talk about the same things and even cite some of the same evidences.

With external support for many of the things he brings up, it's unfair to dismiss Cushman simply because he is mythbusting certain ideas that have been blindly accepted for far too long.

 

[Franklin]

Respected scientists, school children, and a civil rights leader aren't going to provide good enough ratings to keep a TV show on the air.

I also wonder how many respected scientists watched "The Beverly Hillbillies", and "The Andy Griffith Show", too. I wonder if there's any evidence King ever escaped his worries by watching an episode of "Lost in Space"?

 

[Nerys Myk]

@Phantom The spelling correction is just that. A spelling correction
It's not meant as a counter to your assertion Dr. King was a fan. The Luthor spelling keeps cropping up more and more, especially on genre sites. Which I find to be a sad commentary on Dr. King's legacy.

 

[BillJ]

Respected scientists, school children, and a civil rights leader aren't going to provide good enough ratings to keep a TV show on the air.

I also wonder how many respected scientists watched "The Beverly Hillbillies", and "The Andy Griffith Show", too. I wonder if there's any evidence King ever escaped his worries by watching an episode of "Lost in Space"?

This.

Star Trek is great and all but many people watched more than just that. As a kid, I loved the Gilligan's Island coconut car too.

 

[fireproof78]

I've read them. I don't find them convincing because they run contrary to established facts.

If Cushman talks about, for example, GR's previous soapboxing on "The Lieutenant", and cites knowledgeable insiders who discuss it, then it isn't some "Cushman speculation". He's reporting what reliable sources have told him. If Cushman talks about some of the learned people who appreciated Trek right from the start and produces their letters to NBC (taken from the GR archives) in support, again, it's not "Cushman speculation", but an honest reporting of checkable fact.

Cushman upsets a lot of long-standing apple carts and breaks with the "Trek was a failure" narrative, so he gets pushback from the defenders of that narrative. But if you look at non-Cushman books like "Inside Star Trek", "Star Trek: The Unauthorized History", etc that are non-Cushman materials they talk about the same things and even cite some of the same evidences.

With external support for many of the things he brings up, it's unfair to dismiss Cushman simply because he is mythbusting certain ideas that have been blindly accepted for far too long.

"Trek was a failure" narrative?

I've read "I am Spock" "Star Trek Memories" and other books by Kirk, as well as "Inside Star Trek" by Justman and Solow. None of those treated Trek as a failure so much as the long, and complicated, road that the show took in its ups and downs. It wasn't a failure so much as a long time struggle by multiple parties to try and keep it afloat. GR's successes were just as impressive as his failures.

I'm not one to question people's sources, but when there is some conflict in the narrative, then I get skeptical. There are others on here who will no doubt have more experience with Cushman than I, but he may cite same sources and the like, but his conclusions on matters have been call in to question.

I have no dog in this fight (or whatever metaphor you prefer) but there is so much information out there that I have reviewed that makes me think we may never know the full story.

Also, not sure what this has to do with Orci and Kurtzman.

I'm sure someone will clarify this for me.

 

[Franklin]

I've read them. I don't find them convincing because they run contrary to established facts.

If Cushman talks about, for example, GR's previous soapboxing on "The Lieutenant", and cites knowledgeable insiders who discuss it, then it isn't some "Cushman speculation". He's reporting what reliable sources have told him. If Cushman talks about some of the learned people who appreciated Trek right from the start and produces their letters to NBC (taken from the GR archives) in support, again, it's not "Cushman speculation", but an honest reporting of checkable fact.

Cushman upsets a lot of long-standing apple carts and breaks with the "Trek was a failure" narrative, so he gets pushback from the defenders of that narrative. But if you look at non-Cushman books like "Inside Star Trek", "Star Trek: The Unauthorized History", etc that are non-Cushman materials they talk about the same things and even cite some of the same evidences.

With external support for many of the things he brings up, it's unfair to dismiss Cushman simply because he is mythbusting certain ideas that have been blindly accepted for far too long.

"Trek was a failure" narrative?

I've read "I am Spock" "Star Trek Memories" and other books by Kirk, as well as "Inside Star Trek" by Justman and Solow. None of those treated Trek as a failure so much as the long, and complicated, road that the show took in its ups and downs. It wasn't a failure so much as a long time struggle by multiple parties to try and keep it afloat. GR's successes were just as impressive as his failures.

I'm not one to question people's sources, but when there is some conflict in the narrative, then I get skeptical. There are others on here who will no doubt have more experience with Cushman than I, but he may cite same sources and the like, but his conclusions on matters have been call in to question.

I have no dog in this fight (or whatever metaphor you prefer) but there is so much information out there that I have reviewed that makes me think we may never know the full story.

Also, not sure what this has to do with Orci and Kurtzman.

I'm sure someone will clarify this for me.

*AHEM* I'll take a stab at that. I think it's the idea that they dumbed-down and bastardized something that was special, perfect as it was, and still totally serviceable as it was.

They essentially drew a moustache on the Mona Lisa. It gets a lot of attention, but it defaced it, too.

The counter argument is Trek is a commercial product like anything else, and from time to time it needs to be restructured to fit a new culture and time. Those who support Orci and Kurtzman say they achieved this without denuding Trek of what was truly essential to it.

At least I think that's what this has to do with Orci and Kurtzman.

Also, you bring up an interesting point about TOS as a "failure." In terms of ratings on prime time TV in the era of three networks, it was. I've always thought it was ahead of its time in the sense that if more independent networks existed, or any of the other ways TV gets to people today were around in 1966, it could've ended up a big hit for that context. In fact, in the closest thing that existed in the day, syndication, it did. It was the proto-typical niche show in an era that couldn't support shows like that. (Other interpretations may be just as valid as that. I'm not going to go to the ramparts for that viewpoint.)

 

[Mach5]

Is this legit?

 

[BillJ]

Is this legit?

I don't even know who that is?

 

[Mach5]

I don't even know who that is?

A creepy old asshole who tricked some people into thinking he can write.

 

[Franklin]

Is this legit?

Wow! I didn't know Santa could be that vicious. No wonder I didn't get the model Enterprise I asked for last Christmas.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Is this legit?

I don't even know who that is?

I don't know for sure, but we are apparently still waiting on him to release his review of Star Trek: Into Darkness. He says it is 'almost finished.'

 

[M'Sharak]

Is this legit?

Sure looks that way, but you really didn't need me to do the footwork for you. In fact it's taking me a lot longer to write this and provide links than it took to go from Googling "George R.R. Martin blog" to here to here to that blog entry.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I do believe that Roddenberry anticipated such an event, and that each generation would have its own version of "Star Trek." I wish I could find that quote because it really provides such an interesting insight in to GR and his view on Trek in culture.

It was an interview in which he almost apologized for his stubbornness re ST II and the Bennett/Meyer contribution. GR talked about how he had come to realize that Star Trek had become "modern mythology" and he acknowledged that future writers and actors would be reinterpreting Trek for new generations.

 

[Mach5]

Sure looks that way[/URL], but you really didn't need me to do the footwork for you. In fact it's taking me a lot longer to write this and provide links than it took to go from Googling "George R.R. Martin blog" to here to here to that blog entry.

I'd bet you didn't "do the footwork" for me, you were curious and wanted to check for yourself.

I suppose I was too lazy to do it myself. Never doubt my google-fu, I'm a master.

 

[Amaris]

Actually, I didn't recognize who it was, and was curious myself. In such a case, I usually just take a sentence or two of the text, and plug it into Google. That usually finds the source. That being said, my general response to it would be "meh." I don't like Game of Thrones, neither the books or the series. Doesn't make his opinion, or mine, carry any more weight in that regard. It's all a matter of personal taste.

 

[Phantom]

@Phantom The spelling correction is just that. A spelling correction
It's not meant as a counter to your assertion Dr. King was a fan. The Luthor spelling keeps cropping up more and more, especially on genre sites. Which I find to be a sad commentary on Dr. King's legacy.

Fair enough. It could also be that I lean on my spellchecker too much and it missed it.

I've read them. I don't find them convincing because they run contrary to established facts.

If Cushman talks about, for example, GR's previous soapboxing on "The Lieutenant", and cites knowledgeable insiders who discuss it, then it isn't some "Cushman speculation". He's reporting what reliable sources have told him. If Cushman talks about some of the learned people who appreciated Trek right from the start and produces their letters to NBC (taken from the GR archives) in support, again, it's not "Cushman speculation", but an honest reporting of checkable fact.

Cushman upsets a lot of long-standing apple carts and breaks with the "Trek was a failure" narrative, so he gets pushback from the defenders of that narrative. But if you look at non-Cushman books like "Inside Star Trek", "Star Trek: The Unauthorized History", etc that are non-Cushman materials they talk about the same things and even cite some of the same evidences.

With external support for many of the things he brings up, it's unfair to dismiss Cushman simply because he is mythbusting certain ideas that have been blindly accepted for far too long.

"Trek was a failure" narrative?

I've read "I am Spock" "Star Trek Memories" and other books by Kirk, as well as "Inside Star Trek" by Justman and Solow. None of those treated Trek as a failure so much as the long, and complicated, road that the show took in its ups and downs. It wasn't a failure so much as a long time struggle by multiple parties to try and keep it afloat. GR's successes were just as impressive as his failures.

I'm not one to question people's sources, but when there is some conflict in the narrative, then I get skeptical. There are others on here who will no doubt have more experience with Cushman than I, but he may cite same sources and the like, but his conclusions on matters have been call in to question.

I have no dog in this fight (or whatever metaphor you prefer) but there is so much information out there that I have reviewed that makes me think we may never know the full story.

Also, not sure what this has to do with Orci and Kurtzman.

I'm sure someone will clarify this for me.

*AHEM* I'll take a stab at that. I think it's the idea that they dumbed-down and bastardized something that was special, perfect as it was, and still totally serviceable as it was.

They essentially drew a moustache on the Mona Lisa. It gets a lot of attention, but it defaced it, too.

The counter argument is Trek is a commercial product like anything else, and from time to time it needs to be restructured to fit a new culture and time. Those who support Orci and Kurtzman say they achieved this without denuding Trek of what was truly essential to it.

At least I think that's what this has to do with Orci and Kurtzman.

Also, you bring up an interesting point about TOS as a "failure." In terms of ratings on prime time TV in the era of three networks, it was. I've always thought it was ahead of its time in the sense that if more independent networks existed, or any of the other ways TV gets to people today were around in 1966, it could've ended up a big hit for that context. In fact, in the closest thing that existed in the day, syndication, it did. It was the proto-typical niche show in an era that couldn't support shows like that. (Other interpretations may be just as valid as that. I'm not going to go to the ramparts for that viewpoint.)

The absolute ratings on TOS are a matter for debate (and have been and will be ad infinitum I suspect).

That the demographics showed that Trek was a hit with the most desired demo is something even most of the "Trek failed" crowd will admit.

I don't even know who that is?

A creepy old asshole who tricked some people into thinking he can write.

For the most part. He's also a real jerk to anyone who doesn't agree with him.

Add to that his participation in the "burn the Hugos in order to save it" BS at this years WorldCon, and you get the jack-a-nape trifecta

 

[Phantom]

I do believe that Roddenberry anticipated such an event, and that each generation would have its own version of "Star Trek." I wish I could find that quote because it really provides such an interesting insight in to GR and his view on Trek in culture.

It was an interview in which he almost apologized for his stubbornness re ST II and the Bennett/Meyer contribution. GR talked about how he had come to realize that Star Trek had become "modern mythology" and he acknowledged that future writers and actors would be reinterpreting Trek for new generations.

Didn't he say something similar on the Inside Star Trek album?