Parts were exaggerate, but not all or even most, as I understand the novel.
So, were the event of TOS as a whole inaccurate and therefor false? No.
the name enterprise
- Thread starter Mr Pointy Ears
- Start date
So, were the event of TOS as a whole inaccurate and therefor false? No.
Based on the quotes I linked to above and the TMP novelization forward, GR was of the opinion that the Klingons always looked like they did in TMP, season 3 and TAS never happened and neither did the "foolishly heroic" parts of seasons 1 and 2. Roddenberry was nothing if not a revisionist.
Here's the relevant section...
Unfortunately, Starfleet's enthusiasm affected even those who chronicled our adventures, and we were painted somewhat larger than life, especially myself.
Eventually, I found that I had been fictionalized into some sort of "modern Ulysses" and it has been painful to see my command decisions of those years so widely applauded, whereas the plain facts are that ninety-four of our crew met violent deaths during those years - and many of them would still be alive if I had acted either more quickly or more wisely. Nor have I been as foolishly courageous as depicted. I have never happily invited injury; I have disliked in the extreme every duty circumstance which has required me to risk my life. But there appears to be something in the nature of depicters of popular events which leads them into the habit of exaggeration. As a result, I have become determined that if I ever again found myself involved in an affair attracting public attention, I would insist that some way be found to tell the story more accurately.
(P. 7-8)
This isn't one or two incidents he's denouncing, but the entire depiction of the 5-year mission. Roddenberry is saying "forget that, this is real Star Trek."
Here's the relevant section...
Unfortunately, Starfleet's enthusiasm affected even those who chronicled our adventures, and we were painted somewhat larger than life, especially myself.
Eventually, I found that I had been fictionalized into some sort of "modern Ulysses" and it has been painful to see my command decisions of those years so widely applauded, whereas the plain facts are that ninety-four of our crew met violent deaths during those years - and many of them would still be alive if I had acted either more quickly or more wisely. Nor have I been as foolishly courageous as depicted. I have never happily invited injury; I have disliked in the extreme every duty circumstance which has required me to risk my life. But there appears to be something in the nature of depicters of popular events which leads them into the habit of exaggeration. As a result, I have become determined that if I ever again found myself involved in an affair attracting public attention, I would insist that some way be found to tell the story more accurately.
(P. 7-8)
This isn't one or two incidents he's denouncing, but the entire depiction of the 5-year mission. Roddenberry is saying "forget that, this is real Star Trek."
All it really says is that there's been some embellishment of some of the facts due to sensationalism, but there's nothing in there that says that TOS didn't happen as we saw it.
Has any site catalogued all the crew deaths we saw on screen? It would be interesting to see how many of these we saw versus ones that happened "off-camera".
^ Thanks! 
So 56 deaths on camera, leaving 38 off camera. Meaning we saw ~60% of the total. And yeah, I know the TMP novelization is not canon. But interesting, nonetheless.
Also interesting: since we saw 3 years of the 5-year mission... that's 60% as well. I wonder if that's how Roddenberry came up with the 94 figure in the first place. But that would discount other deaths that happened during adventures in those 3 years that we didn't see. (Unless we saw everything interesting that happened during those 3 years!
)
So 56 deaths on camera, leaving 38 off camera. Meaning we saw ~60% of the total. And yeah, I know the TMP novelization is not canon. But interesting, nonetheless.Also interesting: since we saw 3 years of the 5-year mission... that's 60% as well. I wonder if that's how Roddenberry came up with the 94 figure in the first place. But that would discount other deaths that happened during adventures in those 3 years that we didn't see. (Unless we saw everything interesting that happened during those 3 years!
)
Can you imagine what may have happened if Gene had lived long enough to see the era of "revisionist" movies like the special editions of the Star Wars trilogy?
Similar threads
- Poll
