Takei's Claims About Shatner

[Hofner]

What I remember, right or wrong, is that Shatner's cut of TOS was 5 percent.

This question came up before not long ago and I did a search and found a post by @Harvey about this subject.

I'm too lazy right now to do the search again. It's quite cumbersome for me to do a search because I'm blind and can only use the keyboard and the Trek BBS isn't totally accessible. (Not a complaint of this web site, it's just the way things are.)

Robert

 

[Ssosmcin]

What I remember, right or wrong, is that Shatner's cut of TOS was 5 percent.

This question came up before not long ago and I did a search and found a post by @Harvey about this subject.

I'm too lazy right now to do the search again. It's quite cumbersome for me to do a search because I'm blind and can only use the keyboard and the Trek BBS isn't totally accessible. (Not a complaint of this web site, it's just the way things are.)

Robert

You posted it here:

https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/a-matter-of-shatners-perspective.306365/page-12

I did a search and found this post by @Harvey from an old thread.

Harvey said:

At the outset in 1966, William Shatner owned five percent of Star Trek as part of his contract. Gene Roddenberry's contract must have given him more of the show than Shatner got. And of course Desilu owned the largest share. That would be my understanding.

Roddenberry (through Norway, basically a shell corporation), Shatner, NBC, and Desilu each had a share of profit participation in the show. Through Hollywood accounting, the show didn't go into profit until the 1980s (and probably only went into profit then because Roddenberry and Shatner sued Paramount for their share).

Desilu (later Paramount, later CBS) always controlled the underlying intellectual property.

Plus, as @Harvey reported in the old Fact Check blog:

• Profit participation was never a subject of discussion. In addition, William Shatner had 5% profit participation in Star Trek, not the 20% figure quoted by Mark Clark.

And naturally Harvey cited his sources at the end of the post.

Letter from Gunther H. Schiff to Ed Perlstein, October 14, 1965, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek Television Series Collection, Box 31, Folder 2 (""The only cost that can be deducted from Bill's 5% is the distribution fee of 50%")

 

[Maurice]

You should ask him again. We’ve been reading some of the legal papers of Roddenberry v. Roddenberry that spell out some of the specific terms, though I don’t remember what it says about Shatner exactly if anything.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

I've enjoyed his work, but he's no saint. Shatner took Putin's money as an RT-America propogandist up until a week after the invasion began. I'll always appreciate his roles, especially Star Trek, of course, but he picked the wrong team and he didn't have to. Since 2014, working for the Russians was unconscionable. It says a lot about his character. It should be remembered.

Hey, I'd love to see your source on that, on the idea that Shatner was a propagandist. I mean, you're not just blowing smoke, right?

Here's what I found:
---------------------------------------
https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture...how-billionaire-space-race-mortality-n1274683
But his persona, built on decades of nostalgia, took a hit this summer after the Kremlin-backed television channel RT America announced he would host a new talk show called "I Don't Understand." U.S. intelligence agencies have described RT America, which broadcasts on cable in the United States, as "Russia's state-run propaganda machine," and the channel is registered as a "foreign agent" with the federal government.

Shatner, for his part, has defended his decision to link himself with RT, saying on Twitter that he did not make the science-themed talk show specifically for the network — "I made a TV program and they bought the distribution rights to it" — and disputing assertions that he would be a "mouthpiece" for the Russian government.
-------------------------------
So Shatner made a show that has nothing to do with Russia, politics, or propaganda. RT bought the rights to air it, probably as filler and to grab some celebrity cachet for their reputation. Thus Shatner is a villain. Unless I'm missing something.

 

[XCV330]

Hey, I'd love to see your source on that, on the idea that Shatner was a propagandist. I mean, you're not just blowing smoke, right?

Here's what I found:
---------------------------------------
https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture...how-billionaire-space-race-mortality-n1274683
But his persona, built on decades of nostalgia, took a hit this summer after the Kremlin-backed television channel RT America announced he would host a new talk show called "I Don't Understand." U.S. intelligence agencies have described RT America, which broadcasts on cable in the United States, as "Russia's state-run propaganda machine," and the channel is registered as a "foreign agent" with the federal government.

Shatner, for his part, has defended his decision to link himself with RT, saying on Twitter that he did not make the science-themed talk show specifically for the network — "I made a TV program and they bought the distribution rights to it" — and disputing assertions that he would be a "mouthpiece" for the Russian government.
-------------------------------
So Shatner made a show that has nothing to do with Russia, politics, or propaganda. RT bought the rights to air it, probably as filler and to grab some celebrity cachet for their reputation. Thus Shatner is a villain. Unless I'm missing something.

He took Putin's money, he knew what it was about, he didn't stop taking it till there was no other choice. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Kaelef]

Mumy approached Nimoy and said something like "we have something in common, we both do science fiction shows." By Mumy's account, Nimoy kind of grunted and brushed him off. For whatever it's worth.

Don't know that I'd read too much into that, as Nimoy's misgivings about his role in Star Trek - at least through the 60's and 70's - is pretty well documented. His reaction may have simply been "yeah, don't remind me"...

 

[johnnybear]

The early Trek episodes did seem to have the supporting cast, Yeoman Rand and Mr. Sulu have a couple of scenes with plenty of lines. I quote Man Trap and Naked Time for Sulu and Charlie X and The Enemy Within for Grace Lee Whitney but it's true that Sulu disappeared during half the second season and his lines were given to Chekov and no one really missed him! I saw TMP last weekend and most of George Takei's role as Sulu was him just looking stunned at the screen as the Enterprise encountered the weird shapes and objects inside V'Ger's cloud! Grace sadly seemed as though she was to be featured more prominently in the series publicity pics with her, Shatner and Nimoy but sadly she was let go after that terrible ordeal she had to endure!
JB

 

[Warped9]

The mindset of the day was to lean on your strengths—in this case being Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley. But one can wonder of the show runners had been a little more forward thinking and given the supporting cast a bit more to do it could have added more to TOS’ tapestry. The supporting cast would never be asked to carry the series, but I think they had sufficient ability to justify some extra lines and scenes.

But that would have meant having a slightly different focus to allow the supporting cast a bit extra screen time.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Well, let’s look at the format of the series. In order for the show to feature alien worlds, they have to get off the ship (and the network demanded that anyway). Since it was the 60’s and adventure shows were star driven vehicles, there was no way Kirk and Spock were gonna cool their heels while other people had the main plots. And even if the series was made more “realistic” then the bridge crew would never leave and mission specific exploration teams would go down. MAYBE Spock would, but Kirk would stay behind. And so would the helmsman, communications officer and navigator. These guys were never gonna be more than they were, regardless of who the lead actors were. Ensemble shows just weren’t the norm and the bottom four should be happy the budget was cut and they had to do more shipboard stories. Otherwise they’d have gotten even less screen time. Even a barnacle is happy to have a boat to hang onto.

 

[Warped9]

I wasn’t thinking about setting the main cast aside, but giving the secondary group a wee bit more like they had in early first season.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Sure, I agree, it would have been nice. If Spock didn't take off as the breakout character, the series could have held onto original feel of the show a bit longer, but the focus changed. The earlier episodes did feel like a more crowded, working ship and I enjoy them a lot. But hey, look at Balance of Terror. Takei and Nichols had nice amounts of screen time but the lion's share of the non-star drama went to the guest cast. Imagine if they changed Angela to Uhura. Tomlinson was gonna die anyway and it would have been a great opportunity for Nichelle (who I felt WAS quite good in the series). But to my knowledge, they never even considered it. That wasn't Shatner's doing and Kirk comforting Uhura at the end would have put Kirk in a sweet light.

 

[Amaris]

I really doubt it. He already has an inflated sense of his importance to the show.

I was thinking the same. George loves attention (what actor doesn't?), and you can see his audiences relish his stories of Shatner being an ass.

The thing is, I've seen the blooper reels, and everyone seems to be laughing, and having a good time, snarking between each other, but it's fun snark. If working on set with Bill was that bad, then what were we seeing? If everyone hated Bill, but they were so casually enjoying his company (you can see the body language in the reels, it's very relaxed), just what is the truth?

I'm sure Bill could be an absolute ass sometimes, like any other human being. His personality is definitely the type that likes to be sarcastic and snarky, but usually in good humor. It seems, at least to me, that his intention is never to actually hurt anyone, but he expresses both his fondness for someone, or his dislike of someone, with that same kind of snark and silliness, and it can be misinterpreted by the recipient. Sometimes a joke lands badly, regardless of intention.

 

[plynch]

These guys were never gonna be more than they were, regardless of who the lead actors were. Ensemble shows just weren’t the norm and the bottom four should be happy the budget was cut and they had to do more shipboard stories.

They were more than they were, though, early on as pointed out. Including Riley, Tormolen, Angela, Hansen, there’s a bigger crew than later, and they got more lines. I don’t need or want feature episodes. But no denying it was somewhat more ensembley, stress “somewhat.” It made the ship feel realer, those scenes in botany or the rec room.

 

[Daddy Todd]

That roast looks like cheesy entertainment

"Cheesy" is the nature of the celebrity roast. That's why people watch. IMHO, of course.

Anyway, Betty White was awesome in that roast. She made it for me.

 

[Harvey]

Shatner's piece of the show was more than I first thought; @Maurice and I only figured this out recently. The documents at UCLA suggested 5%. But his final contract is not on file, only correspondence between his reps and Desilu about the finer points of said contract. One of the legal briefs for the Roddenberry vs. Roddenberry lawsuit breaks down the profit participation percentages between NBC, Desilu, Norway, and Shatner. And Shatner's piece was twenty percent. Mark Clark got it right in his Star Trek FAQ book, I got it wrong. Mea culpa.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Shatner's piece of the show was more than I first thought; @Maurice and I only figured this out recently. The documents at UCLA suggested 5%. But his final contract is not on file, only correspondence between his reps and Desilu about the finer points of said contract. One of the legal briefs for the Roddenberry vs. Roddenberry lawsuit breaks down the profit participation percentages between NBC, Desilu, Norway, and Shatner. And Shatner's piece was twenty percent. Mark Clark got it right in his Star Trek FAQ book, I got it wrong. Mea culpa.

Ha, it's all good. At least you own up to it, unlike some "researchers." Thanks for the clarification and update.

Just shows you how much we trust you!

@Maurice thanks also!

Okay well, if I got that much of a network series, it would be in my best interest to be pretty hands on.

 

[Push The Button]

Ha, it's all good. At least you own up to it, unlike some "researchers." Thanks for the clarification and update.

Just shows you how much we trust you!

@Maurice thanks also!

Okay well, if I got that much of a network series, it would be in my best interest to be pretty hands on.

Shatner lost out, unfortunately, but it could have been worse. Consider the sad story of Ron Wayne:

…he co-founded Apple Computer Company (now Apple Inc.) as a partnership with Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs on April 1, 1976, providing administrative oversight and documentation for the new venture. Twelve days later, he sold his 10% share of the new company back to Jobs and Wozniak for US$800

 

[Noname Given]

Shatner lost out, unfortunately, but it could have been worse. Consider the sad story of Ron Wayne:

…he co-founded Apple Computer Company (now Apple Inc.) as a partnership with Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs on April 1, 1976, providing administrative oversight and documentation for the new venture. Twelve days later, he sold his 10% share of the new company back to Jobs and Wozniak for US$800

^^^
Just goes to show he had no faith and thought their idea of a PC for personal use would not be profitable. If Apple had gone nowhere (and with Jobs' attitude, it's amazing it did).

9 times out of 10, that's the smart play.

 

[1001001]

Shatner lost out, unfortunately, but it could have been worse. Consider the sad story of Ron Wayne:

…he co-founded Apple Computer Company (now Apple Inc.) as a partnership with Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs on April 1, 1976, providing administrative oversight and documentation for the new venture. Twelve days later, he sold his 10% share of the new company back to Jobs and Wozniak for US$800

Apple is worth, what, $2 Trillion?

10% is $200 Billion.

Now that's walking around money!

 

[Maurice]

Shatner lost out, unfortunately[…]

Just how did Shatner lose out? If he stood nothing to gain on the matter of profit participation why did he join Roddenberry in threatening to sue Paramount to determine if the show had gone into the black?