Starship, the proposed 1970s Series

[Maurice]

P.P.S. Re "M'Benga"'s creation. The earliest use of the name we've found to-date was in Hartman’s August 23, 1967 first draft script pf “Shol”, i.e. "junior officer, M’BENGA, seated at Command Post”. He has 3 lines.

In a memo dated August 29, 1967 re "Shol" Justman asks Coon “Who is M’Benga?”

I don't see Hartman's 2nd Draft teleplay but from one memo I can tell it was submitted. As such, we can't at this moment address what Hartman did not did not do with the character next.

FWIW. In short, it seems likely the name got repurposed for the Dr. we know but he's a wholly different character and apparently GR's invention for "A Private Little War". I've found the name M'Benga in print as far back as 1916, so it's clearly not something either made up.

 

[Christopher]

Mbenga or Bambenga is the name of a Pygmy tribe, apparently. It's also used as a surname. I wouldn't be surprised if "M'Benga" was just an African name that Americans in the '60s were aware of from some kind of nature documentary or nonfiction book or something, or maybe the name of a figure in relatively recent world news, and that both Roddenberry and Hartman independently used because it was one of the only African names they knew -- like how Roddenberry kept naming Indian characters "Singh" in multiple projects, or how he named Sulu after a sea in the Philippines even though it's not a personal name.

 

[Doctor Jeffrey]

Perhaps you are right, Maurice, Roddenberry was known for departing from the truth, and much of what he said at the Ohio State presentation was later shown to have been . . . inaccurate. I never thought the Mudd series had much legs. But, I do recall a couple of articles in the late 60s stating that Dr. M'Benga was in more than one TOS episode to prime the pump for a hospital ship spin off, and in the 70s I had high school friends who remembered reading the same article. It might have been Roddenberry's wishful thinking in the 60s and blowing smoke in the 80s. I shared the memories because I think it could have been a good series, and it did cover a production problem between NBC and Desilu (and later with Paramount). The production problem solution gave the possibility the ring of truth. Perhaps it was needing to share credit and money with Ms. Hartman that put an end to the project. That has the ring of truth, too. These are good points, Maurice. However, it is unlikely that the newspaper and magazine articles from the 60s would have been posted on the internet. But, who knows? While I agree that the Mudd series did not make much sense, ASSIGNMENT: EARTH was riddled with plot holes, and the basic premise and tone are at odds with the Trek perspective. Although I still enjoy watching that episode from time to time (mainly for the multiple cats. Yes, there only appears to have been one cat, but there were at least 4 cats [each with a specialty] and 2 women [visual and vocal] playing that one role), if ASSIGNMENT: EARTH had gone into production, it would have been dogged by the plot holes and the inversion of the Trek perspective. Thanks, Maurice, I like what you had to say.

 

[Christopher]

if ASSIGNMENT: EARTH had gone into production, it would have been dogged by the plot holes and the inversion of the Trek perspective.

It wasn't meant to be a Trek-like show in the first place; Roddenberry just made a Trek episode out of it because it was the only way he could get a pilot made once his original standalone pitch for it as a half-hour show had been rejected. As with many spinoffs back then, if it had gone to series, it probably would've functioned pretty independently of its parent show. The series pitch document by Roddenberry and Art Wallace talks about preparing a demo film for networks which would include footage from the episode but eliminate all Star Trek elements and references from it, presenting it as a separate, standalone entity. It's possible they would've approached an actual series the same way, downplaying its Trek connections or retconning them out altogether. The show would've been so different in approach that I doubt it would've been compared much to Trek at all.

Remember, Trek wasn't the iconic touchstone then that it is to us. It was just a struggling show, visually impressive and somewhat prestigious but not a breakout hit or a template for What Science Fiction Should Be. So a show with a totally different approach wouldn't have been seen by most viewers as some kind of failure for not being Trekkish enough. If anything, a more Earthbound, grounded show might've gone over better with mainstream audiences, and it certainly would've cost less and thus would've had an easier time staying on the air.

 

[Maurice]

Perhaps you are right, Maurice, Roddenberry was known for departing from the truth, and much of what he said at the Ohio State presentation was later shown to have been . . . inaccurate.

And how...

I never thought the Mudd series had much legs.

It had no legs. I don't think it was anything more than the hot air Gene was famous for. "I've got a great part for you," was his schtick in trade.

But, I do recall a couple of articles in the late 60s stating that Dr. M'Benga was in more than one TOS episode to prime the pump for a hospital ship spin off, and in the 70s I had high school friends who remembered reading the same article.

Newspaper articles? Magazines? Or fanzines? If anything I suspect the latter.

[...]and it did cover a production problem between NBC and Desilu (and later with Paramount). The production problem solution gave the possibility the ring of truth.

I'd be curious what sort of "production problem" such a show could address. Got any recollection what this supposed issue was?

Perhaps it was needing to share credit and money with Ms. Hartman that put an end to the project. That has the ring of truth, too.

Honestly, and from the memos, it seems neither Fontana or Justman thought she had screenwriting chops (nor do I after having read her "Shol" first draft script), so why Roddenberry would be so invested in her makes little professional sense.

However, it is unlikely that the newspaper and magazine articles from the 60s would have been posted on the internet.

You would be surprised. @Harvey and I searched through hundreds of newspapers via Newspapers.com and the like and found all kinds of stuff you'd be surprised to see.

ASSIGNMENT: EARTH was riddled with plot holes, and the basic premise and tone are at odds with the Trek perspective.

What everyone saw was a last-ditch effort to make a pilot by jamming it awkwardly into Star Trek. The actual script for the pre-Trekified pilot is floating out there. You'd have to read it to really decide how good or plot-holey the thing would've been.

Thanks, Maurice, I like what you had to say.

Sure. Happy to share information. I try to be useful as well as ornamental.

 

[Doctor Jeffrey]

Hi Maurice. They were newspapers and magazine articles that I read in the 60s about the hospital ship. I've never been much for fanzines, and the first one I ever read was Starlog 8 or 9 years after TOS ended its run.

I agree with you, Christopher, I think Assignment: Earth was shoehorned into TOS because it was the only way that Roddenberry could finance the pilot. Norman Lear did something similar a few years later to get MAUDE greenlighted by retro-actively making it a "spin-off" of ALL IN THE FAMILY. Maude only became Edith's cousin after Lear needed to introduce the character on ALL IN THE FAMILY.

Yes, ASSIGNMENT: EARTH would have functioned independently as a non-Trek series, but Teri Garr would not have been willing to continue working on it, and there were still many plot holes. TOS started gaining high ratings in 1970, after it had been in syndication for a few months, and by 73 or 74 had become the second highest rated show in syndication. A big part of the appeal was that the show said, "we, as a species, are not just going to survive our current political problems, and pollution and the nuclear threat. We are going to flourish and learn to live in harmony with each other (not with Klingons and Romulans, but with each other)." It was an optimism that was craved at the time and gave a temporary sense of relief to many who watched the show each night. ASSIGNMENT: EARTH said: "We are no good on our own and need cosmic caretakers to keep us out of trouble." TOS had an inherent optimism that was welcomed at the time. A: E had an inherent pessimism that reminded us of the nightly news. However, the multiple specialty cats were a great idea, and Barbara Babcock was a real trooper in that episode. Thanks Maurice. Thanks Christopher. Muchly appreciated.

 

[Christopher]

The actual script for the pre-Trekified pilot is floating out there. You'd have to read it to really decide how good or plot-holey the thing would've been.

I've read it. It's surprisingly like a bad sitcom, with shades of My Favorite Martian and Bewitched. But the later version developed with Art Wallace and described in the 1967 prospectus was more serious.

Yes, ASSIGNMENT: EARTH would have functioned independently as a non-Trek series, but Teri Garr would not have been willing to continue working on it

Not a problem; if Star Trek was able to recast nearly all its leads from pilot to series, A:E could easily have replaced Roberta with a new assistant character.

ASSIGNMENT: EARTH said: "We are no good on our own and need cosmic caretakers to keep us out of trouble." TOS had an inherent optimism that was welcomed at the time. A: E had an inherent pessimism that reminded us of the nightly news.

I think, rather, that A:E said that the "caretakers" recognized that humanity had great potential and was worth helping through its turbulent adolescence so that it would survive to achieve that potential. Is it any more pessimistic than, say, Superman showing an alien from Krypton helping us, or Wonder Woman showing a divinely empowered Amazon doing it?

 

[Doctor Jeffrey]

Good point, Christopher. I think A: E was more pessimistic than Superman or Wonder Woman because those 2 had a respect for most of humanity. Gary 7 did showed distain and scorn. However, that might have been a set up and the series might have been about him learning to like humanity. I like your point of view and will use it the next time I watch the episode.

I agree that they could have replaced Teri Garr, and the Roberta character was a big part of the plot holes. Replacing her with a more workable situation for relationship with a 20th century Earth denizen would have helped. I like that they wanted Roberta to have been a Baby Boomer/ quasi-hippy. I would have enjoyed a more full blown hippy for the Earth person liaison. But, most shows back then with hippy regular/weekly characters did not succeed (The Governor and J.J.). Yes, exchanging Roberta would have helped with the important plot holes. Given some tweaking, replacement of Roberta to a more thought through character, and focusing the perspective on what Christopher suggested above, it could have been and O.K. show. Thanks, Christopher.

 

[Christopher]

Good point, Christopher. I think A: E was more pessimistic than Superman or Wonder Woman because those 2 had a respect for most of humanity. Gary 7 did showed distain and scorn.

No more than Spock did. And of course Gary was human, just enhanced and specially trained.

 

[Doctor Jeffrey]

Gary 7 had more disdain than Spock, and since he was very much the lead (if you skip the scenes with Kirk and Spock), that disdain came through much more than it did with Spock, whose disdain was mitigated by the responses of Kirk and McCoy. And while Spock showed contempt often, Gary 7 showed is prominently. However, I think you are right that this would have changed had the pilot gone to series. That change would have to had to happen in order to attract a steady audience. As I said, I enjoyed the pilot and thought that if Gary 7 learned to embrace his human heritage and mission, and if the plot holes could be filled, then the show could have been a lot of fun. Casting April Tatro, a stunt woman and contortionist, for the very brief moment as the human form Isis, could have led to some fun discoveries and performances as the series developed.

 

[Harvey]

As for HOPESHIP, I was in the 60s and remember articles about Roddenberry wanted to create a hospital ship series with Dr. M'Benga and lots of aliens.

I wasn't alive in the sixties, but I've reviewed hundreds of articles about Star Trek from 1964-1979, online and in archival settings, and never once have I seen a Dr. M'Benga spin-off mentioned. Searches for "M'Benga" and "Hopeship" come up empty on the Newspapers.com and ProQuest databases.

If you do happen to turn up one of those articles, though, especially if one of them was written during the run of the series, that would be a pretty unique and valuable document.

But my first instinct is that what has been reported in Cushman and Memory Alpha didn't happen. Roddenberry wasn't seriously discussing spin-off ideas at length with a novice writer.

 

[Doctor Jeffrey]

As I recall, the articles were largely interviews with Roddenberry. There was one article from the early 70s where he was part of an interview with 5 or 6 other producers and the subject turned to spin-offs and projects that never came to fruition. It was not a fanzine, but a mainstream outlet. It might have been TV Guide. He might not even have mentioned M'Benga in that article. I remember him talking about a doctor that was a guest star on a couple of Trek episodes who specialized in Vulcan's and other aliens. If the name was not mentioned in that article, then a search for M'Benga would have come up empty, but M'Benga is the only one who fits that description. I also remember that in that preface of that article, all the other producers had several successful shows listed after their names, and Roddenberry only had Star Trek after his name. I suppose they did not list The Lieutenant since it only lasted one season. So, Roddenberry might have been exaggerating how close the hospital ship idea actually came to becoming a series. He did not give it a name, and I did not hear the title Hopeship until many, many years later. He did not mention that tile at Ohio State. During the run of Trek, NBC kept pushing for new worlds and new sets each week to demonstrate the worth of owning a color TV (made by NBC parent company RCA). In a hospital ship series, they could have stayed on the ship interior sets most weeks and created colorful visuals with new alien make ups and costumes, and recycling and modifying costumes is less expensive than remodeling scenery. But, I can only tell you what he said in those few articles and at Ohio State.

 

[Doctor Jeffrey]

No more than Spock did. And of course Gary was human, just enhanced and specially trained.

Oh, and Christopher, I've know a couple of actors who had worked with Robert Lansing and they said that he was a wonderful guy and they really liked him. He comes off as a bit cold on screen, but when the cameras were not rolling, he was endearing. So, I think you are right that if there had been a series and if it had experienced a good run, then the disdain and contempt would have softened and Gary 7 would have become an endearing guardian and guide. I like your perspective and it would have been a good fit for Lansing. Thanks.

 

[Harvey]

Oh, and Christopher, I've know a couple of actors who had worked with Robert Lansing and they said that he was a wonderful guy and they really liked him.

Quinn Martin (who fired Lansing from Twelve O'Clock High) apparently tells a different story in his memoir, but apparently Martin saw himself as a "benevolent dictator," so, consider the source.

 

[Harvey]

As I recall, the articles were largely interviews with Roddenberry. There was one article from the early 70s where he was part of an interview with 5 or 6 other producers and the subject turned to spin-offs and projects that never came to fruition. It was not a fanzine, but a mainstream outlet. It might have been TV Guide.

Old issues of TV Guide aren't well-indexed online, so I'll have to keep that in mind. There are some clippings from it in the Roddenberry papers at UCLA, but they're hardly a comprehensive sample. If anything, it sounds like something Roddenberry said off the cuff here might have grown more and more exaggerated over time.

 

[Doctor Jeffrey]

Mariette Hartley did the audio commentary for the DVD of a Twilight Zone episode that she did with Robert Lansing. It's been years since I heard that commentary, but I think she had kind things to say about him. But, I don't own the DVDs, so I can't check right now. You have me curious. I might borrow that DVD again to hear what she had to say.

 

[Phoenix219]

I've never heard of Starship OR Hopeship before. Very odd!!!

 

[Maurice]

During the run of Trek, NBC kept pushing for new worlds and new sets each week to demonstrate the worth of owning a color TV (made by NBC parent company RCA).

To be fair to NBC, and specifically Stan Robertson, "strange new worlds" was the show Roddenberry promised them, and it's not the show he could deliver weekly because he underestimated the costs involved. He should have pitched them a show that was like a planet story every other week or something.

I think it's a stretch to assume being set on planets had anything to do with RCA and color TV sales, given any show can be plenty colorful no matter the setting, and especially a show with Jerry Finnerman's gelled lighting scheme. I think you're conflating two different things here.

I shared the memories because I think it could have been a good series, and it did cover a production problem between NBC and Desilu (and later with Paramount). The production problem solution gave the possibility the ring of truth.

In a hospital ship series, they could have stayed on the ship interior sets most weeks and created colorful visuals with new alien make ups and costumes, and recycling and modifying costumes is less expensive than remodeling scenery. But, I can only tell you what he said in those few articles and at Ohio State.

You didn't directly address the "production problem". Did you mean the idea you mentioned of doing a shipboard series? That addresses a cost problem Star Trek had but it would mean making another series spun off a show that was routinely "on the bubble" of cancelation.

 

[Rahul]

It wasn't meant to be a Trek-like show in the first place; Roddenberry just made a Trek episode out of it because it was the only way he could get a pilot made once his original standalone pitch for it as a half-hour show had been rejected. As with many spinoffs back then, if it had gone to series, it probably would've functioned pretty independently of its parent show. The series pitch document by Roddenberry and Art Wallace talks about preparing a demo film for networks which would include footage from the episode but eliminate all Star Trek elements and references from it, presenting it as a separate, standalone entity. It's possible they would've approached an actual series the same way, downplaying its Trek connections or retconning them out altogether. The show would've been so different in approach that I doubt it would've been compared much to Trek at all.

Exactly. Also, let's not forget: Writing a full script is fucking hard work that consumes time. Time you might not have when you have to write 26 scripts a year for a running show. Just purely from a business perspective, that was a pretty smart choice: Re-use that half-finished pilot script, and just insert Kirk, Spock & Co. into at various points. Boom! More time to focus on writing the next original script.

Also the reason why "The Menagerie" - one of my absolute favourite Trek episodes of all times - exists in the first place: One entirely finished episode already filmed. And two empty slots in the production pipeline for the show. Solution: Kirk & Spock watching a clip show. But since "The Cage" never aired - all of that stuff was magical and new for the audiences!

 

[Christopher]

To be fair to NBC, and specifically Stan Robertson, "strange new worlds" was the show Roddenberry promised them, and it's not the show he could deliver weekly because he underestimated the costs involved. He should have pitched them a show that was like a planet story every other week or something.

Well, that's not true. The very first Star Trek proposal document specifically addressed how to make the show affordable:

The "Parallel Worlds" concept makes production practical by permitting action-adventure science fiction at a practical budget figure via the use of available "earth" castine [sic], sets, locations, costuming, and so on.
...
Our format is tailored to practical production and cost factors. Use of stage sets, backlot and other locations are simplified by Captain April's "Class M" orders. And our own "Parallel Worlds" concept. The majority of story premises listed can be accomplished on such common studio backlot locales and sets such as Early 1900 Street, Oriental Village, Cowtown, Border Fort, Victorian Drawing Room, Forest and Streamside.

He also proposed building stories around leftover sets from recent movies as an additional money-saving move, and he said there would be occasional stories set exclusively aboard the ship; the whole reason it was a large ship with a large crew was so that stories could be generated internally. He even made a suggestion TOS didn't use but I wish it had -- saving money by doing 3-4 episodes on a single planet to get more use out of its sets, costumes, etc. The only time that was done was with Starbase 11 in "Court-Martial" and "The Menagerie," and even there, the two used different matte paintings.

Roddenberry wasn't a novice, after all. He'd been in TV production long enough to know its practical and budgetary limitations, and he designed the Trek format specifically with those limitations in mind. He never would've sold it in the first place if he'd been unrealistic about the production costs.