That's just Cogley's style.Considering his speech is a cobbled edit of multiple takes because apparently he had trouble with his lines, it's great. But his expression changes with every take.
Shouldn’t Areel Shaw have been disqualified?
- Thread starter FredH
- Start date
He's the guy Herb Solow hired to adapt and produce from the 1968 satirical novel by Francis Pollini. It's not like he invented it.
And Roddenberry was the second writer to take a stab at adapting the novel to film, just as Roger Vadim was the second director attached to the project. (I'd forgotten Solow was involved, though, if I ever knew it.)
But XCV330 has a point that Pretty Maids was very much a couple of horny middle-aged guys' interpretation of feminism and the Sexual Revolution, assuming it meant that hot young women were now freely sexually available and willing. It was based on a novel, yes (basically a hardcore porn novel that the movie was greatly toned down from), but it does pretty clearly reflect Roddenberry's sensibilities and attitudes, and Rock Hudson's character feels like an authorial self-insertion, which makes me suspect that Roddenberry was ambivalent about the morality of his own libertine tendencies. I think he tried to be feminist and inclusive, but his own habits, preconceptions, and character flaws got in the way.
As long as there's been feminism, there've been guys portraying themselves as feminists for a variety of good and bad reasons, including to get laid. You have to look at their actions. Herb Solow — not exactly a hostile witness to Roddenberry — reported that WNMHGB director Jimmy Goldstone overheard Gene say, "I'm hiring her [Andrea Dromm for Yeoman Smith] because I want to score with her." GR was 44; Dromm was 24. Serial philandering, power imbalances, and what we could now call grooming are all pretty hard to reconcile with feminism. Or more broadly, even just being a decent person.
Or who sincerely believe themselves to be feminists but don't quite get it, or fall short of their ideals. I think Roddenberry was in that category. A lot of prejudice persists because people don't even recognize that they have it. They think they're enlightened because they don't realize that some of their attitudes are discriminatory.
Roddenberry was scum. He knew what he was. He was married and cheating on his wife. We do know that.
I'm still a Star Trek fan, but I have no interest in defending Roddenberry.
Hard disagree. I think you are giving Roddenberry way too much credit.
Well, neither of us knew him, so we can't actually know. In such a case, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. If I assume the best about someone and they fall short, that's their failing. If I assume the worst and they don't deserve it, then the failing is mine. Giving other people the benefit of the doubt is about keeping our own ethics in order.
He's pretty uncharitable to Roddenberry throughout Inside Star Trek. I suspect there was a falling out at some point.
Just watched this episode again. It’s boilerplate 60s legal drama with a dash of sci-fi. And leaving aside the sci-fi, it’s no more or less realistic than a typical drama of the era.
But for this nearly 60 year old fan, it’s pure comfort food. The acting, production values, the score…always happy to revisit this one.
But for this nearly 60 year old fan, it’s pure comfort food. The acting, production values, the score…always happy to revisit this one.
In accord with your point that "sailor" is a more correct word than "soldier," Starfleet is probably properly considered a naval, rather than military organization (which nicely squares with Forrest's line in "The Expanse").
Sociologically and functionally, the two are actually very different (a longstanding problem for the DoD).
Agreed completely! Not every legal drama has numerous moments of high-level courtroom realism like, say, Philadelphia, A Few Good Men, Judgment at Nuremberg or The Caine Mutiny.
For me, the more interesting criticisms of "CM" lie in some of the plotting—allowing the Enterprise's orbit to decay seems like a pretty bad Kirk/Spock gambit, for example. But yes, as you said, the acting, production, and the score, as well as some excellent dialogue, all win out and it's a fun watch. Shatner and Nimoy really sell the high stakes, too.
Last edited:
Not to mention that most orbits don't decay if you turn off the engines. The Moon doesn't need engines to avoid falling out of the sky. A stable orbit persists with no engines needed; in fact, you'd need to use engine thrust to decelerate out of orbit, so it's the exact opposite of how TOS tended to show it. (Other episodes like "The Naked Time" had the same problem.)
It is possible, perhaps, that the ship was maintaining a forced, powered orbit, perhaps to remain within transporter range of Starbase 11 and maintain synchronous position far below natural synchronous altitude. In that case, the orbit would decay if power went out.
Perfectly stated. (Although in my case I'd have to tweak it to "just past 60.")
Skylab would like a word.
This. Though it took more than an hour to start falling.
Indeed! The accelerated time frame was what made it, um, melodramatic if not overly melodramatic, not the fact it was happening at all.
All this and besides, Stone specifically asks Kirk if he objects to Shaw as prosecutor or himself as head of the board and Kirk says he does not. If he had, Stone might have been replaced by one of the extras on the board.
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. It's possible Starfleet in TOS was an organization like NASA that wasn't the military itself but primarily drew it's members from whatever military organizations there were in the Federation members: United Earth Starfleet/UESPA/Vulcan Science Academy (USS Intrepid), Andorian (Imperial Guard) etc.
Similar threads
