These Are The Voyages - Season Three
- Thread starter Talos IV
- Start date
You still don't know. All you have is an allegation and no proof.
IMDB listing for "Cash Markman". Note list of pseudonyms (and some Trek style film titles).
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0548554/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1
I don't think it matters, really, but it's true. Feel free to PM me if you want.
Back to the original topic: The new book is interesting.
I had no idea just how much NBC and Paramount hated Star Trek by the time of the third season ("Despised" is more like it.)
Or that Freiberger would have continued with some humor in the show, but Roddenberry said no.
I had no idea just how much NBC and Paramount hated Star Trek by the time of the third season ("Despised" is more like it.)
Or that Freiberger would have continued with some humor in the show, but Roddenberry said no.
Yeah, Memory Alpha had his pseudonym and alt career, but I know that's a wiki. Though unlikely someone would make that up. Via Google, there were some other sites including imdb. It doesn't make him a bad guy, I just said it's interesting. But yeah, not really that much.
I too would like (mildly) to know why NBC despised a show they put on the air. And I would need primary sources, not inference from Mr. C.
I too would like (mildly) to know why NBC despised a show they put on the air. And I would need primary sources, not inference from Mr. C.
I enjoy the books for what they are. Are some of the interpretations misguided or just plain wrong? Obviously, and thanks to this BBS, there's lots of discussion that deals with that. Still, I am enjoying them.
It's no different than many of the WW1 and WW2 history books I've got. There are a lot of many differing views covered in the books - especially those written after the war right through to the 60's. What was the motivation behind this, did this government believe this or did they do that for this reason? It simply depended on who wrote the damn book. It doesn't make reading them any less enjoyable. I'll make up my own mind after reading different sources.
I believe that these books are worth having in your collections - others do not. To me, I don't give a damn. Buy them if you want them - don't buy them if you don't.
It's no different than many of the WW1 and WW2 history books I've got. There are a lot of many differing views covered in the books - especially those written after the war right through to the 60's. What was the motivation behind this, did this government believe this or did they do that for this reason? It simply depended on who wrote the damn book. It doesn't make reading them any less enjoyable. I'll make up my own mind after reading different sources.
I believe that these books are worth having in your collections - others do not. To me, I don't give a damn. Buy them if you want them - don't buy them if you don't.
There's details about the death-knell Friday night timeslot, NBC's unwillingness to promote the show, downplaying/distorting the still-decent ratings, and making the producers sweat out a renewal at mid-season. And needless censorship of certain episodes (notably "The Savage Curtain").
Partly, it appears it was really Roddenberry they couldn't stand, and mishandling the show was an extension of that.
Eye-opening too is Roddenberry's contempt for Freiberger's "quite different" way of producing the show, after getting him the job in the first place.
Yep.
And honestly, who cares? Even if he does do what Wiki and Google claims, the topic should be the book and the points it raises, true or false. Not his other career.
When he claims NBC was "unwilling to promote the show," what's he basing that on? I recall a similar claim in the season two book that the network did no on-air promotion for the show that year - a claim easily disproved by a YouTube search - which leaves me viewing this new claim with some doubt.
With the exception of censorship of The Savage Curtain (and by who? Standards and practices? NBC's program manager? And in what way out of the ordinary?) the rest of his argument (the timeslot, the slow renewal at midseason) really comes down to one thing: the ratings.
I've already discussed all the problems with his ratings argument previously, both on my blog and here. Unless he's overhauled his methodology here (and samples posted on Facebook suggest he hasn't) then, no, the ratings weren't "decent" and NBC wasn't distorting them. All the numbers I've seen indicate the show's worst ratings were recorded in its final year. Coming up a weak second place (ahead of Judd, for the Defense, which was cancelled that year because of - you guessed it - low ratings) was far from decent.
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
Without casting any judgment on the porn industry, it's likewise hardly the most reputable industry for someone to be coming from to be putting out material such as this.
But you're right, it's not the real issue I have with Cushman. It's just a funny side issue, honestly. (i.e. of course a guy who wrote and directed ~90 porn films would be the guy trying to cash in on the completist gullibility of some Trekkies who might not know or care better.)
The reall issue I have is with Cushman's readily apparent and already established lack of journalistic ethics, scholarship, his shameless refusal to acknowledge his mistakes when given point blank proof that they are, in fact, mistakes, and the shady and questionable ambiguity around the multiple personae involved with the publication, from his several alter egos, and the merry-go-round of people apparently behind Jacobs-Brown Press.
The point is, there's enough out there that whatever money I spend on Star Trek is going to be on something legitimately produced by CBS and Paramount and it's sure as shit going to be something that's not surrounded with so many questions and controversy.
Last edited:
I think this is it for me as well.
I contacted him on social media and bumped into him in person once. Like most of us on here I was appreciative of the size (ahem...let's scrub that in the circumstances), er...the volume of his work, but curious as to why there were so many factual mistakes and such a lack of editorial polish for a publication supposedly decades in the making. I also wanted to talk about his ratings thesis, but he was having none of it. As soon as he realised I owned the thing, he treated me like I was fresh air. To be fair, he was there to shift product in a hurry, and his co-author Susan(?) was quite nice.
In ten years posting I could count on one hand the times I've been attacked on here or Amazon.com, but make a review pointing out the self-evident problems with these books, and all sorts of vindictive personal attacks will start flying your way from random unknowns who protest too much, methinks.
Don't really care about Cash...er Cushman's previous 'credits', although there are a million lines running through my head at the moment
If you are interested in the creative process, and have no access to the Star Trek memo collection, grab these on Kindle -- you will be entertained by Justman, Roddenberry et al. Just be aware though that apparently the volume and quality of memos apparently drops when you get to Season three when Justman quits and Roddenberry works in a less than full time capacity -- maybe Talos IV can tell us more?
Cushman told me we'd be surprised at just how involved Roddenberry was with season 3 -- what do you think Talos IV?
So now that Cushman's had his go, hopefully someone else learns from his attempt and produces the definitive, rigorously researched story of TOS. There's plenty of writing and researching talent on here, and the 50th is approaching...
According to the book: During the first part of the season, yes. Roddenberry was still involved. Much of the work on story ideas and scripts for the 3rd season (some of which actually became episodes) began before Freiberger even got there.
As the season wore on Roddenberry became less involved, and started complaining about the way Freiberger was handling the show.
The lack of Roddenberry/Justman memos is missed, especially for the latter episodes of the season. But there's enough in the way of interviews (both old and new) to still provide exhaustive coverage right up till the end.
Really, I just skip over the "Author's Assessment" section for each episode and go right to the making-of. Fascinating stuff.
That new formality between Kirk and the others on the bridge, during the "Spectre of the Gun" teaser (Kirk calling Spock "science officer" etc.)? This was Roddenberry's doing. (Per the book: "Much of Star Trek's warmth was slipping away -- something Freiberger and Singer did not instigate, but would be blamed for.")
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
I haven't read any reviews or feedback yet.
It's really a terrific book.
I have lots of qualms, obviously, about These Are The Voyages. I have no qualms about Return to Tomorrow. To paraphrase myself, it's not just a remarkable book about Star Trek--The Motion Picture, it's a remarkable piece of nonfiction, period.
Similar threads
