TAS... Sigh
- Thread starter FalTorPan
- Start date
Just black.
About the color problems (pink tribbles, pink Kzinti ships)...
I've heard the story about the director who was colorblind and didn't realize the actual color that would appear.
It seems unlikely to me.
Even if one fellow was colorblind, he couldn't have been the sole pair of eyes on the project. Producers, editors, colorists, other people... no one else noticed?
Also, if his colorblindness was the reason for pink tribbles I'd think LOTS of other things would be messed up. Wouldn't a whole range of colors across many eps be affected?
Or perhaps there were many mistakes, and many were caught and corrected, and we've only a few isolated slip-ups like the Kzinti spaceship?
I've heard the story about the director who was colorblind and didn't realize the actual color that would appear.
It seems unlikely to me.
Even if one fellow was colorblind, he couldn't have been the sole pair of eyes on the project. Producers, editors, colorists, other people... no one else noticed?
Also, if his colorblindness was the reason for pink tribbles I'd think LOTS of other things would be messed up. Wouldn't a whole range of colors across many eps be affected?
Or perhaps there were many mistakes, and many were caught and corrected, and we've only a few isolated slip-ups like the Kzinti spaceship?
If he's the guy in charge, he has the final say. Besides, how could the other staffers necessarily tell if he was wrong? They didn't have Memory Alpha or home video back then.
And really, who's to say the Kzinti don't consider pink to be a menacing color? Maybe they see it as the color of raw meat or the color of the gums around bared fangs.
And really, who's to say the Kzinti don't consider pink to be a menacing color? Maybe they see it as the color of raw meat or the color of the gums around bared fangs.
If it’s good enough for the Klingons...
Soaked in the blood of the many Klingon that they have butchered,
why do you think the Klingons eradicated these merciless killing machines?
Well, we know the tribbles in "More Tribbles, More Troubles" were the result of some inept genetic engineering by Cyrano Jones. The fur color could've been a side effect of that gene-tweaking. Or perhaps even an intentional change. Maybe Cyrano planned to engineer tribbles in a wide range of designer colors.
Gene Roddenberry had a tendency to tell people what he thought they wanted to hear, even if it meant telling one person one thing (like, say, telling Richard Arnold, who has a major burr under his saddle regarding TAS that it was out because GR didn't like it anymore) while telling someone else the exact opposite (like telling D.C. Fontana or Bjo Trimble that he was perfectly fine with TAS, and never gave any indication that any future editions of the Concordance should omit any references to TAS).
The central core of the issue appears to be twofold.
1) TAS was in a state of legal limbo in 1987, thanks to the dissolution of Filmation and the disposition of its varied licensed properties, one of which was Star Trek. Not feeling an need to burden his underlings with the legal niceties, he just told them it was out, so don't let any of the licensees use it as a reference.
2) GR didn't feel the need to be inextricably bound to previous continuity if he thought it could be improved upon, and especially if was in an area that wasn't going to be visited anyway. The Klingons' appearance is a perfect example. There weren't any plans to ever show any TOS Klingons, and the only Klingons were we ever going to see again were going to be the bumpy headed ones (at least that was the plan circa TMP) so Gene felt perfectly at ease saying whatever the hell he wanted about "what happened to the Klingons". As for the "they always looked that way, your tv just wasn't tuned right" excuse eventually gave way, around the time of TNG's development, was that the TOS Klingons came from the northern hemisphere, the bumpy headed ones came from the south, and Worf (who exibited traits of both) came from somewhere around the equator.
In other words, he was tossing out bones to keep the more obsessive fans at bay for a while longer. He never really took that level of detail all that seriously.
The central core of the issue appears to be twofold.
1) TAS was in a state of legal limbo in 1987, thanks to the dissolution of Filmation and the disposition of its varied licensed properties, one of which was Star Trek. Not feeling an need to burden his underlings with the legal niceties, he just told them it was out, so don't let any of the licensees use it as a reference.
2) GR didn't feel the need to be inextricably bound to previous continuity if he thought it could be improved upon, and especially if was in an area that wasn't going to be visited anyway. The Klingons' appearance is a perfect example. There weren't any plans to ever show any TOS Klingons, and the only Klingons were we ever going to see again were going to be the bumpy headed ones (at least that was the plan circa TMP) so Gene felt perfectly at ease saying whatever the hell he wanted about "what happened to the Klingons". As for the "they always looked that way, your tv just wasn't tuned right" excuse eventually gave way, around the time of TNG's development, was that the TOS Klingons came from the northern hemisphere, the bumpy headed ones came from the south, and Worf (who exibited traits of both) came from somewhere around the equator.
In other words, he was tossing out bones to keep the more obsessive fans at bay for a while longer. He never really took that level of detail all that seriously.
I disagree. He was simply tossing out any Star Trek that he wasn't involved with. Didn't he supposedly say that he considered some of the events of the movies apocryphal as well?
Or perhaps it's because who was involved: DC Fontana, William Shatner, etc.
Either way, forgive me if I assign less than noble motives to Roddenberry and Richard Arnold.
One of the main reasons GR went with the tactic of telling people what they wanted to hear was to avoid pointless arguments, and debating the merits of TAS with his gofer is practically the dictionary definition of a pointless argument, especially when he was legally barred from referencing it anyway; better to let the gofer think his side had won. Might get him to work harder.
Remember, Richard Arnold only knows what Roddenberry told him, upon which he has put his own spin. The truth is almost certainly far more complicated, and since RA was nothing more than a glorified gofer whose primary duty was to handle all the sundry bullshit jobs that nobody else wanted, he wasn't in a position to know anything more than he was told, and probably knows quite a bit less than he actually thinks he does. And, as evidenced by his swift removal following GR's passing, was only tolerated out of respect for Roddenberry.
Remember, Richard Arnold only knows what Roddenberry told him, upon which he has put his own spin. The truth is almost certainly far more complicated, and since RA was nothing more than a glorified gofer whose primary duty was to handle all the sundry bullshit jobs that nobody else wanted, he wasn't in a position to know anything more than he was told, and probably knows quite a bit less than he actually thinks he does. And, as evidenced by his swift removal following GR's passing, was only tolerated out of respect for Roddenberry.
^^^Any Producer worth his/her salt doesn't have to tell people what they want to hear, but simply says, "That's the way it is." Mollifying a "gofer" would be a fairly silly reason to make up stories like that when the truth is easier and actually would shut down argument: "We can't use material from it because the rights aren't 100% ours." End of subject.
But then there's not a lot of evidence that Roddenberry was a great producer.
But then there's not a lot of evidence that Roddenberry was a great producer.
But the "ST Concordance" reprint was not an officially licensed tie-in product. Had Pocket put it out, both Richard Arnold and then-Paramount/Viacom Consumer Products would have vetted the manuscript, and it probably would have had the same restrictions as the "ST Chronology" and "ST Encyclopedia". ie. Use only live-action ST as canon.
GR wasn't mollifying anyone. He knew that RA was a staunch supporter of what RA himself considered to be "true Trek", so was happy to have him doing the terribly tedious job of vetting tie-in proposals and completed manuscripts, now that Susan Sackett was busier as GR's assistant on TNG, knowing that RA wouldn't allow anything through that "diluted the franchise".
Had Gene said anything to Bjo about wanting TAS out of the timeline, she at least would've taken his opinion into consideration, and mentioned something about it in the introduction (before including it anyway 
). He said nothing of the sort to her.
). He said nothing of the sort to her.
Had Gene said anything to Bjo about wanting TAS out of the timeline, she at least would've taken his opinion into consideration, and mentioned something about it in the introduction (before including it anyway
Exactly, but I think Bjo sufficiently worded her intro in the revised Concordance: ie. obviously she didn't ask, and GR didn't tell - although she knew RA's and the Star Trek Office's stance on "canon" for licensed tie-ins very well. Bjo also knew well the frustrations of many of the ST novelists' battles with RA in 1989-91 as they grappled with "that memo" of 1989, which specified that live action ST, as aired, was to be the source of canonicity.
Bjo and Richard were in regular contact; when I was in the US, in both 1983-84 and 1991-92, and in their Aussie ST convention appearances in between, they both talked about having chatted with each other in recent days. Likewise, Bjo was in regular contact with GR.
A revised Concordance that removed 22 synopses and many encyclopedic entries, ie. more than it added would have proven more frustrating for fans than the error-ridden revision we got. The licensed Pocket "ST Encyclopedia" and "ST Chronology" didn't include much TAS in the first place (by the STO's mandate). Recall that Asherman's "ST Compendium", which was also a licensed Pocket tie-in, but first published after TMP, wasn't ordered to remove all TAS references for its numerous revised reprints.
In fact, the original 1981 edition of the Compendium didn't even mention the animated series. It literally didn't even acknowledge its existence, as far as I can tell in skimming over the relevant sections. A half-hearted overview and episode guide for TAS were added in the first revision in 1986, and remained part of subsequent editions.
Had Gene said anything to Bjo about wanting TAS out of the timeline, she at least would've taken his opinion into consideration, and mentioned something about it in the introduction (before including it anyway
Exactly, but I think Bjo sufficiently worded her intro in the revised Concordance: ie. obviously she didn't ask, and GR didn't tell - although she knew RA's and the Star Trek Office's stance on "canon" for licensed tie-ins very well. Bjo also knew well the frustrations of many of the ST novelists' battles with RA in 1989-91 as they grappled with "that memo" of 1989, which specified that live action ST, as aired, was to be the source of canonicity.
Bjo and Richard were in regular contact; when I was in the US, in both 1983-84 and 1991-92, and in their Aussie ST convention appearances in between, they both talked about having chatted with each other in recent days. Likewise, Bjo was in regular contact with GR.
Bjo was also well aware that Richard didn't have nearly as much authority as he thought he did, and was certainly not a part of the creative process; the closest he ever came was when he brought in the coffee. So his word on the subject was worth less than nothing, even back then.
As far as contact with RA, thems days are long gone, never to return, thanks to his badmouthing Bjo to various con committees and his stealing all her bookings.
Suffice it to say that her opinion of him is in the same ballpark of many folks here.
Arnold may not have had authority over the show itself, but he had very, very real authority over the tie-ins and exercised it aggressively. Novels and comics were revised, rewritten, and even cancelled if they didn't fit his rigid standards. Any attempt at continuity among books, at introducing continuing characters other than the TV cast, at referencing TAS or anything else outside of the live-action canon, was shot down. Two novelists even had books taken away from them and assigned to other authors to rework -- something which, while fairly standard in film and TV, is simply not done in prose.
Reference books are also tie-ins, therefore Arnold's authority extended to them as well. At least one reference book, The Worlds of the Federation, was published with a disclaimer stating that it didn't reflect Roddenberry's view of ST, a disclaimer that Arnold also required on several novels from the era (novels that, for whatever reason, he wasn't able to get revised to his standards or quashed outright).
Ah, yes. Sorry, my books are out of reach at the moment. The light switch won't work in the ST room.
First edition was TOS and TMP, next revision was UK only (adding sections from Asherman's "The Making of ST II"), then the first US one added TAS. It was three years before "that memo" though.
Exactly. I also recall an angry tirade of posts by the authors who used to frequent GEnie and Usenet around the 1989-91 period. It coincided with authors submitting their manuscripts to Pocket on disk for the first time, and they found themselves getting paranoid, realising that anyone looking at the open file (including people with no formal training in literature studies) could make subtle changes to their work - with no paper trail - that not even the editor might notice until after publication.
Since we use pseudonames her, and I don't know your creds for knowing stuff like what RA and GR said, how do you all know who said/did what?
I'd welcome some citation, like "I heard it from so and so that GR was mollifying RA." Or, when I talked to Majel, she said . . ." Otherwise you all might be playing the telephone game, if you know what I mean.
Obviously, CB, you are an author and have dealt with TPTB. All the way back to GR/RA days? Have others of you? Who are you all, in other words?
I am not writing this in a challenging tone, but a curious one. Be well.
I'd welcome some citation, like "I heard it from so and so that GR was mollifying RA." Or, when I talked to Majel, she said . . ." Otherwise you all might be playing the telephone game, if you know what I mean.
Obviously, CB, you are an author and have dealt with TPTB. All the way back to GR/RA days? Have others of you? Who are you all, in other words?
I am not writing this in a challenging tone, but a curious one. Be well.
Similar threads
