These Are The Voyages Volumes 4 and 5...
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
I think it would be interesting to read more about the nuts-and-bolts of developing TAS and its episodes.
The author has already given us a tidbit by saying that NBC almost immediately regretted cancelling TOS when they saw the show take off in syndication. Add in the 1969 Moon landing which firmly established the reality of space travel and NBC realized they had had the perfect show for the times and had let it go. Suddenly the prospects of greater revenues was more significant than their beefs with Gene Roddenberry.
Upon realizing what they had lost NBC tried to get Star Trek back, but Paramount said no. Apparently Paramount's thinking was that they were making good money from the syndicated reruns and tie-in merchandising and didn't want to risk that by greenlighting a new show. It didn't occur to them then that people could still watch the reruns as well as watch a new show. The light finally went on for Paramount in the mid '80s when they greenlighted TNG. In the meantime they finally relented for Star Trek to return as TAS because they didn't see a cartoon as a direct competitor to the live-action series.
The author has already given us a tidbit by saying that NBC almost immediately regretted cancelling TOS when they saw the show take off in syndication. Add in the 1969 Moon landing which firmly established the reality of space travel and NBC realized they had had the perfect show for the times and had let it go. Suddenly the prospects of greater revenues was more significant than their beefs with Gene Roddenberry.
Upon realizing what they had lost NBC tried to get Star Trek back, but Paramount said no. Apparently Paramount's thinking was that they were making good money from the syndicated reruns and tie-in merchandising and didn't want to risk that by greenlighting a new show. It didn't occur to them then that people could still watch the reruns as well as watch a new show. The light finally went on for Paramount in the mid '80s when they greenlighted TNG. In the meantime they finally relented for Star Trek to return as TAS because they didn't see a cartoon as a direct competitor to the live-action series.
Always welcome more TNG behind the scenes book, even though we won't get it till 2017.
Do you care to indicate where this is confirmed?
PS - I finally finished the second book this weekend. (Real life interferes sometimes.) The books aren't perfect but they're enjoyable.
Here: http://www.trek.fm/standard-orbit/71
It was actually first mentioned a few weeks ago in another interview, but this time around he has said that the books are definitely happening. Volume 4 is said to be three quarters complete.
Cushman has also said that Volume 5--chronicling TNG's development and its first season--will fill in the contributions of Robert Justman, Dorothy Fanta, David Gerrold and others in greater detail.
Last edited:
be good to have another take on the movies (in addition to the Shatner/Nimoy bios, and the Altman/Gross Making of the Trek movies books). sounds as though they'll be spread over 2, maybe 3 volumes though
sounds as though its shaping up to be a much grander take on the Altman/Gross 'Captains Logs' books of the 90s
sounds as though its shaping up to be a much grander take on the Altman/Gross 'Captains Logs' books of the 90s
Last edited:
Volume 4 (one book) will cover the efforts to revive Star Trek, TAS, Phase II, the first films and the fandom of the '70s and '80s up to the introduction of TNG.
To my knowledge (and I could be wrong) only one other book touched on the fandomof the early '70s and that was David Gerrold's The World Of Star Trek written back in that era. It was an interesting read yet it definitely has Gerrold's slant on things.
Last edited:
Thanks.
I'm actually pretty excited about what you say about Volume 5. I always thought based upon what I've read Fontana should have gotten a Co-Creator credit on TNG.
Of course, around here there will be very little speaking of the merits of this project, just whining about some incorrect details and constantly deriding the book because of the author's day job. Whatever.
Wasn't Cushman dying at some point?
EDIT: Here we go...
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/791163687/these-are-the-voyages
I guess he got better.
EDIT: Here we go...
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/791163687/these-are-the-voyages
I guess he got better.
There's a bit more to it than that. Including him lying about his relationship to Jacobs-Brown Press.
"Cash" joked about getting cancer in this interview.
"Q: Any short term or long term goals?
A: Yeah. Stay in the game. Pay off my house. Get bigger budgets. Beat Jonathan next year at the AVN awards in the category of Best Sex Comedy, and hope that it's with a movie that I intended on being funny! Stay happy. Get more happy. Get more ass. Always be loved by someone. Don't hurt anyone.
Don't get cancer. Die in my sleep."
Neil
I stand corrected. I had forgotten about those and I now recall I had read Star Trek Lives! way back when.
As if the criticisms were limited to incorrect details and there was any derision of the book because of Cushman's day job.
How wonderfully mature, my friend.
I don't deny there are problems with the books. But here's the thing... I appreciate the work. I appreciate the effort. I don't have the ability to fly across the country and go look at the memos and notes within the UCLA Archives. This gives me some insight into what actually happened in the 1960s. Do I take it with a grain of salt, particularly the ratings and the commentary? You bet your ass I do. Still, I don't deride it because of the details and typos. I think the issue with Cushman and the fan art is ridiculous and inexcusable but ultimately, I let it go. It's not worth getting upset about the things the book gets right. I could give a shit about Cushman's connection with Jacobs Brown Press and I could give even more of a shit about the fact that he works in pornography. He's made an effort here. An effort I've been entertained by. That's enough for me.
How wonderfully mature, my friend.
I don't deny there are problems with the books. But here's the thing... I appreciate the work. I appreciate the effort. I don't have the ability to fly across the country and go look at the memos and notes within the UCLA Archives. This gives me some insight into what actually happened in the 1960s. Do I take it with a grain of salt, particularly the ratings and the commentary? You bet your ass I do. Still, I don't deride it because of the details and typos. I think the issue with Cushman and the fan art is ridiculous and inexcusable but ultimately, I let it go. It's not worth getting upset about the things the book gets right. I could give a shit about Cushman's connection with Jacobs Brown Press and I could give even more of a shit about the fact that he works in pornography. He's made an effort here. An effort I've been entertained by. That's enough for me.
Let me put it like this: Harvey does a far better job of researching this stuff on his blog than Cashman ever could. He does it for free.
Wait, IS that fan art? Or a long lost mock up for the real movie poster? YOU choose the ending, kids.
Edit. I just read more posts.
Uh, details matter. Typos not so much, though having many indicate a general lack of attention to detail. Details in general knowledge things that people causght without looking them up certainly cast into doubt more specialized details he claims without evidence. Once a witness is untrustworthy, he or she is, well, untrustworthy.
If you just look at the books as a depository of memos, ok, that's another thing, I guess.
Edit. I just read more posts.
Uh, details matter. Typos not so much, though having many indicate a general lack of attention to detail. Details in general knowledge things that people causght without looking them up certainly cast into doubt more specialized details he claims without evidence. Once a witness is untrustworthy, he or she is, well, untrustworthy.
If you just look at the books as a depository of memos, ok, that's another thing, I guess.
How wonderfully mature, my friend.
I don't deny there are problems with the books. But here's the thing... I appreciate the work. I appreciate the effort. I don't have the ability to fly across the country and go look at the memos and notes within the UCLA Archives. This gives me some insight into what actually happened in the 1960s. Do I take it with a grain of salt, particularly the ratings and the commentary? You bet your ass I do. Still, I don't deride it because of the details and typos. I think the issue with Cushman and the fan art is ridiculous and inexcusable but ultimately, I let it go. It's not worth getting upset about the things the book gets right. I could give a shit about Cushman's connection with Jacobs Brown Press and I could give even more of a shit about the fact that he works in pornography. He's made an effort here. An effort I've been entertained by. That's enough for me.
No, you can't have it both ways.
You can't pronounce what things are like "around here," when they're not like that at all, and then turn around, when you're called on it, and imply that counterexamples are buried so deep on the board that it's no wonder you couldn't find them. It's similar to gaslighting, my friend, and it's worth a roll eyes.
Similar threads
