well that's one explanation, but it wouldn't be likely to inspire confidence in colonists. Much like building a house on a fault line. But sure, space is big and it's hard to explore it all. One reason why all those space battle scenes seem so incongruous.
The best first officer in the Fleet?
- Thread starter Holopat
- Start date
well that's one explanation, but it wouldn't be likely to inspire confidence in colonists. Much like building a house on a fault line. But sure, space is big and it's hard to explore it all. One reason why all those space battle scenes seem so incongruous.
The monologue has never been an accurate mission statement.
Are there colonies near the Neutral Zone? All I recall are the military outposts.
They didn't object to the character of Number One. NBC objected to the blatant nepotism of Roddenberry casting his well known extramarital girlfriend Majel Barrett in the role of of Number One. They also had concerns whether she was strong enough an actress to carry the role. Mind you it's also possible the network mistook the cool demeanor of the character as a limitation of Barrett's acting ability. Because they didn't object to the character, given women were being given significant roles on television in those days, it's entirely possible Roddenberry could have recast the character with someone else and NBC would have been fine with it. On that point Jeanne Bal, who later played Nancy Crater in "The Man Trap," was initially on a list of candidates for the role of Number One before Roddenberry cast Majel.
The "story" of NBC not liking the idea of a woman as second-in-command was most likely bullshit concocted by Roddenberry to spare his girlfriend's feelings that they objected to his nepotisim and their concerns about her acting ability.
X thousand repetitions of a statement make one truth, right? With all the repeats, the opening credits monologue certainly fits that criteria.The monologue has never been an accurate mission statement.
Well, I share their concerns about her acting ability. But whatever the source (I believe it came from Roddenberry) it was stated for years that was the reason.
Part of GR's long-time spiel trotted out at cons and colleges for decades.
Hollywood is full of blatant nepotism, as are most businesses, politics, etc. I don't think it was so much that as Roddenberry was already something of a pain in the a$$ and Majel never had much talent. She was pretty wooden as Number One. And as Christine Chapel she was nauseatingly saccharine.
A lot of stories in regard to TOS were repeated over the years. Some of them perpetuated by Roddenberry such that fans accepted them as gospel only to learn years later much of it was bullshit.
NBC’s objection to Number One is one of those stories. Lucille Ball fighting NBC to keep TOS on the air is another myth many still believe.
NBC’s objection to Number One is one of those stories. Lucille Ball fighting NBC to keep TOS on the air is another myth many still believe.
Well naturally now NBC would claim it was because of Roddenberry's sexist using of his mistress, rather than NBC's sexism as regards women in a command role. Certainly Uhura was never regularly put in command, even tho a no stripe Chekhov was. I don't know which of the Chapel narratives are true. Maybe both are just a little true and both are just a little BS. As one of the people who loved TOS, went to the cons, bought the zines in the late sixties and seventies, it sort of bugs me to hear others dismiss this as "myth" and "bs". It came from the creators' mouth repeatedly, in a period where there was precious little interest in Star Trek, (and the network cancelling Star Trek). It was natural to believe the creator rather than the network. Now the showrunners wantonly violate canon as well as the network. They seem to delight in disrespecting the very people (shattering their expectations, their canon, their narratives) whose support and dollars brought value to their product. So while I don't dispute that your comment may be "just a little true" I still don't care for the implication that fans were believing in myths. Myths are ancient history. These were assertions made at the time from those directly involved, to those that are still here.
Justman and Solow are the ones who brought the story to light. Not sure they'd have reason to make it up.
Last edited:
I never said they did. But every person involved had their own perspective. I think many were involved in TOS's development and success, and Roddenberry's pet hobbyhorses could be tedious - his repeated theme of "finding one's creator" got old when it was repeated in pilots and in TMP. Among other things. I'm sure Solow also had better things to do than counter Roddenberry's narratives before fan conventions. But Roddenberry sure spread that narrative far and wide and it wasn't, at the time, equally countered. And decades after the fact, maybe it's a bit late.
Yep, usually told to enhance his standing with fandom.
occupy the high ground so no one else will claim it. Same reason Argentina and Chile spent ridiculous amounts of strained budget keeping "villages" in the Antarctic islands south of Tierra del Fuego to justify claims that aren't universally recognized.
I’m not any critical Roddenberry fan. I think others were critically responsible for cony TOS’ success as
I have my own disappointments with Roddenberry's work after TOS, which makes me more appreciative of those who steered TOS as it was happening. But I didn't hear Justman and Solow in front of cons countering his tale. At the time, we appreciated what sources we had.
I have my own disappointments with Roddenberry's work after TOS, which makes me more appreciative of those who steered TOS as it was happening. But I didn't hear Justman and Solow in front of cons countering his tale. At the time, we appreciated what sources we had.
Sure. He wanted more content and he counted on fans and fandom to be a future audience for new works.
Eh, it paid the bills.
Tell me who didn't go before a convention to enhance their standing with fandom. I went to a lot of cons back in the day - late sixties, seventies to early eighties. I saw a lot of content creators, from Issac Asimov to Harlan Ellison to Roddenberry and more appear at cons, some hardly blockbuster ones. They weren't there for the big bucks.
Without Roddenberry there is no Star Trek—thats undeniable. But that doesn’t make him infallible or put him above fair criticism. For me, like countless others, The Making Of Star Trek was akin to the show’s bible. But as the years went by we learned there were things in there we accepted as unvarnished gospel that were revealed to be half-truths or outright fabrications, but it made good copy.
Even so there remains a lot of good stuff in TMoST and it is unquestionably an important book in terms of the franchise as well as in the evolution of genre materiel on television, in film and in genre merchandising.
I’m not out to vilify Roddenberry, but his tall tales and fabrications deserve to be called out given how many still believe the myths.
Even so there remains a lot of good stuff in TMoST and it is unquestionably an important book in terms of the franchise as well as in the evolution of genre materiel on television, in film and in genre merchandising.
I’m not out to vilify Roddenberry, but his tall tales and fabrications deserve to be called out given how many still believe the myths.
I'm curious if there's any real objective factual proof to this "disproving" of Roddenberry's myths. Or if it is just a "he said" "he said". I don't know if Roddenberry was tale telling or not on certain points, because you haven't given any objective proof on any particular point. There have been various people saying various things, generally long after Roddenberry's death. But again, why not say it when he was alive, and there could be a dialogue, with presumably proof if it came to that? It's easy to make grandiose claims (Roddenberry or those countering his myths). But at least Roddenberry did it when those opposing him could counter him if they could or would. TMoST came out when I was still a teen (I started watching Star Trek at 10, during it's first run). But they didn't. So it is a bit rich to call what Roddenberry said "tall tales" when he was putting the only tales that were available at the time. I don't have a lot of respect for decades later "he said, he said." I'm willing to listen, but I reserve judgment. Even if there were proof at this point, where was it then? It seems more like grandstanding on the renewal of the franchise. They didn't give a damn when it was in syndication with little prospect of it being resurrected. When it started to have money associated with it, decades later, then suddenly its Roddenberry telling tall tales. I'm not saying he didn't slant his side of it. He was no angel. I'm just saying its a lot late and so far that I've heard, no real proof.
Similar threads
