Walter Koenig on Shat's Raw Nerve
- Thread starter ItsGreen
- Start date
Just to answer the question about Koenig's baldness for those who've never read it:
Koenig wrote a book about his experiences shooting STTMP called Chekov's Enterprise. He mentioned wearing a rug during shooting. I don't recall precisely where or in what section of the book.
I'm also fairly certain he mentions it in his biography.
Koenig wrote a book about his experiences shooting STTMP called Chekov's Enterprise. He mentioned wearing a rug during shooting. I don't recall precisely where or in what section of the book.
I'm also fairly certain he mentions it in his biography.
Hardly "unspoken." Several Star Trek alumni have been quite vocal about their alleged suffering at the hands of Shatner. It's just a matter of deciding whose version you think is most believable.
Heck, for that matter, if you're really looking for a trusted source, Nichelle Nichols might even be able to tell you what Martin Luther King thought of Shatner!
In the 1960's, fifty freakin' years ago, there was no such thing as "Ethics in the Workplace." Hell, as pointed out, there's no confirmed "Shatner did this that and the other thing" to Koenig, Takei, Nichols, Doohan to be an asshole. He did it because he felt (and rightly so) that the show should focus on its star. Some of the little gang of four's statements have been contradicted by Justman and Solow.
To be honest, the best example I've seen of a script being rewritten to favor a star was Jerry Sohl's "Sandoval's Planet" wherein SULU and Leila Kalomi had the relationship. In comes DC Fontana who rewrites the episode to favor the star, LEONARD NIMOY. What? No cries of foul against Nimoy? Sohl didn't like it; changed his name on the screenplay to his pseudonym Nathan Butler. But you never hear Takei bringing up Nimoy about this humongous change to a script to benefit Nimoy. No, you hear him whining about his lines in TWOK getting cut.
Oh, and Jonas Grumby, terrific line about Nichelle Nichols! I'm still laughing...
To be honest, the best example I've seen of a script being rewritten to favor a star was Jerry Sohl's "Sandoval's Planet" wherein SULU and Leila Kalomi had the relationship. In comes DC Fontana who rewrites the episode to favor the star, LEONARD NIMOY. What? No cries of foul against Nimoy? Sohl didn't like it; changed his name on the screenplay to his pseudonym Nathan Butler. But you never hear Takei bringing up Nimoy about this humongous change to a script to benefit Nimoy. No, you hear him whining about his lines in TWOK getting cut.
Oh, and Jonas Grumby, terrific line about Nichelle Nichols! I'm still laughing...
Well, the main problem as I see it:
Roddenberry lied a lot to get his cast on the cheap.
He'd tell them how he'd feature their characters more so as to get them to do work for less, then write scripts for Shatner/Nimoy and Kelley because they were the stars.
Consequently, the supporting/day player cast started looking for someone to blame when their roles became exactly what Roddenberry intended them to be -- rather than what he told them they'd be.
Having been told by Roddenberry that he was the star, Shatner acted like the star of a series. Does the star of a series give a fetid dingo's kidney about a day player who can (and often was) replaced? Nope -- not in the slightest. No reason he or she ever should.
Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley's names were in the opening titles. That's who the show was about. That's who they were told the show was about. That's how they acted.
It's not Shatner's fault if Roddenberry was busy telling stories to the supporting/day player cast. Indeed, he did them all a disservice in doing so, particularly with the fan adulation in later years. If they'd simply been told up-front: "Look, you're a recurring character. You're there mostly to provide a sense of background continuity. You'll get lines from time to time," everyone would have been much better off.
Roddenberry had reasons for lying, of course. In Nichols' case, she was his mistress, and a producer could hardly go telling his mistress he wants her in his show -- but as a day player who can be replaced. I'm unclear why he tended to lie to the others, but lie he did.
Roddenberry lied a lot to get his cast on the cheap.
He'd tell them how he'd feature their characters more so as to get them to do work for less, then write scripts for Shatner/Nimoy and Kelley because they were the stars.
Consequently, the supporting/day player cast started looking for someone to blame when their roles became exactly what Roddenberry intended them to be -- rather than what he told them they'd be.
Having been told by Roddenberry that he was the star, Shatner acted like the star of a series. Does the star of a series give a fetid dingo's kidney about a day player who can (and often was) replaced? Nope -- not in the slightest. No reason he or she ever should.
Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley's names were in the opening titles. That's who the show was about. That's who they were told the show was about. That's how they acted.
It's not Shatner's fault if Roddenberry was busy telling stories to the supporting/day player cast. Indeed, he did them all a disservice in doing so, particularly with the fan adulation in later years. If they'd simply been told up-front: "Look, you're a recurring character. You're there mostly to provide a sense of background continuity. You'll get lines from time to time," everyone would have been much better off.
Roddenberry had reasons for lying, of course. In Nichols' case, she was his mistress, and a producer could hardly go telling his mistress he wants her in his show -- but as a day player who can be replaced. I'm unclear why he tended to lie to the others, but lie he did.
And it is because of issues like these that changes have been made in the industry to avoid drama like this. Just because it happened doesn't make it right. Just because a woman wasn't allowed to be paid the same amount of salary as her male equal in the 60s doesn't make it right. Problems like this get noticed and corrections are made. They are not "excused".
I already said that even if he did not intent to do it maliciously it still was a dick move regardless. Even if he was not aware of what he was doing was wrong, it still was dickish.
How was Star Trek not focused on Captain Kirk? The intro is spoken by the show's star. The show is about a Captain and his struggles with his crew. You're making it sound like that Kirk's role was being threatened by these four co-stars who barely had stake in the show as it is.
Seriously, now. Let's be rational here. Captain Kirk was the star and the show was his story; everything else was just ego.
Really? I never heard of this. Nimoy side of the story was that he was approached of the story idea from DC Fontana herself, and I quote:
" But that day in 1967, when she came on to the Star Trek soundstage and said ' Hey, I have an idea for a Spock love story'. I was taken aback, not only taken aback but frightened. "
It was always emphasized that the show was constantly in writing and once a script was finished, it was finished. Why would they turn around and halt production for a complete rewrite and if they did go ahead and let the actors know? Whatever the writers did really has no blame on the actor if the actor did not know.
Again, maybe because they didn't know.
There's three sides to a story: His story, their story, and the truth. What one has to do is find that middle ground. I find fault on all ends here but I still view Shatner as a very egotistical man. It is due to his ego that he has lasted in the entertainment industry as long as he has but it also due to that ego which had garnered him an iffy reputation in the industry for a brief period in time.
You want to take the extreme and call everyone whiners and that Shatner is the holy god of this show and everyone owes him thanks, that's fine. I like to take the approach that there's some truth to what they've said and there's some truth to what Shatner says but I'm not going to discredit them as whiners when it is obvious that what he did (in terms of script rewrites for the sake of ego) was wrong. Shatner can do whatever the hell he wants, and in this case he already has - it being 45 years ago - but that still doesn't stop me from looking at the situation and saying, " You know, that was wrong. "
I definitely agree there about Roddenberry. He gets a lot of praise, but there's something about him that just rubs me the wrong way with how he did business. Yes, he became successful but dude... He had to have some balls back then too.
Last edited:
Merky, I would probably agree with you about Shatner if the original Star Trek was an ensemble show ala TNG. But it wasn't. It was a three hander. Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley. They were the cast of Star Trek. Shatner's name came first in the credits. It was his show. He was the star. It was his right to make sure the scripts utilized his character heavily because in the end the success and the failure of a show rested on the shoulders of its star.
At the end of the day Star Trek would have survived without the four day players. Chekov joined the cast in season 2 while Sulu was nowhere to be seen. Does anyone really notice that he wasn't there? Did anyone notice Uhura's absence in Turnabout Intruder? What about City on the Edge of Forever? Scotty wasn't there. Who noticed? Nobody. It wasn't their show.
Everyone would have noticed if Kirk or Spock wasn't there because in the end they were Star Trek.
At the end of the day Star Trek would have survived without the four day players. Chekov joined the cast in season 2 while Sulu was nowhere to be seen. Does anyone really notice that he wasn't there? Did anyone notice Uhura's absence in Turnabout Intruder? What about City on the Edge of Forever? Scotty wasn't there. Who noticed? Nobody. It wasn't their show.
Everyone would have noticed if Kirk or Spock wasn't there because in the end they were Star Trek.
Scotty was there. lol
And I did notice Uhura, but then again, Uhura became a favorite character of mine by the time I saw that episode - hailing frequencies and all - because she was a character on the cast I could relate to, probably the only character. Yes, they were easily flipped around and a lot of the stories could carry on without them. This is true and I am not debating that. I am simply debating the ethics behind it.
But it is also not fair to simply brush these characters under the bus and say that their contributions were meaningless which then in turn justifies Shatner axing lines for the benefit of his own character (or Nimoy for that matter). They were on screen and they did make an impact, regardless if those who want to accept it or not.
ETA: If Shatner had anyone to defend his character from, it would have been Nimoy's. The unintentional black horse that came and blew past Kirk and his charisma. Trying to stay on top of Spock made sense...
Last edited:
Sorry, but you have no clue. This sort of thing continues to be an issue among cast members even in today's television shows.
Nice red herring, but really sloppily handled.
Why? Just because you've perceived some sort of offense at the man doesn't make you right in judging him so harshly.
The original series is about the captain and his struggles with his crew? Really? *tilts head* REALLY?
I've thought the same while reading your slams against Shatner for simply being the star of a television series that was produced nearly 50 years ago.
Far be it for anyone to assume that Nimoy would play up this version of events to increase his stature.
Sorry, but it was Jerry Sohl's story, and they rewrote it for Leonard Nimoy.Do you actually read the posts you're responding to? No one has made the absurd claim that they stopped production. If you're going to debate someone, you really need to keep the facts straight. And as far as "once a script was finished, it was finished" goes, that's utter nonsense. Even Peter Jackson rewrote the scripts on the set while filming LotR. A script must be a flexible document, especially when three of the stars have script approval.
Sorry, but you cannot prove Nimoy did not know. Just because you were totally unaware of the evolution of "This Side of Paradise" doesn't mean that Nimoy wasn't.
It's been in print for two decades now when I first read about in Allen Asherman's Compendium. You're holding Shatner accountable for being an asshole for things he did 45 years ago. But not Nimoy and Fontana? The disparity speaks volumes.
I'm sorry, but the "iffy reputation in the industry" is simply not true. It's a complete fabrication on your part. The whining of the mini-four doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
Now you're getting delusional. Find me one instance where I stated Shatner was anything other than the star. You can't, so you make up this sort of nonsense (holy god indeed) to prove a ridiculous point.
I'm discreditng them because some of the things they claim have been shown to be false by Solow and Justman. And Nichols own agrandizement of her MLK story shows she's an unreliable witness in regards to these events.
In your opinion. I can name over two dozen Hollywood stars who engage in the same sort of behavior that Shatner did even today.
Quite so. But I don't think he really promised anybody anything when casting them, with the exception of Majel and Nichelle.
So you're giving Roddenberry a pass, but not Shatner.
BBS Rules #11: There's no arguing with a basher.
Characters disappearing? Others coming more into the forefront? This is true. People fighitng over lines, this is also true.
But I think the industry has became a little bit more tighter in terms of how much freedom an actor has on set. There's more people involved.
Your defense: There's no worth ethics in the 60s so it's okay.
... Really? And you call that sloppily handled? Come on, bro.
You're interpreting what I'm saying as me judging him harshly. You've also convientely brushed past every other comment that I've said in which I consider Shatner a funny guy, probably great to have drinks with, but probably was a bitch to work with professionally in his prime.
Struggles along with his crew on missions. Struggling with his crew... Hopefully you get the picture. It's late, I've been up since 6am. Nice to know you're critically analyzing everything I say.
You're taking it as a personal attack on him. You obviously can't seem to notice the difference. I said it was dick move. What, should I sugar coat it for you?
" You know, that was a really bad bad thing he did. Such a bad boy, he knew better. "
Please, its the internet.
Far be it for anyone to assume that Nimoy would play up this version of events to increase his stature.
Do you honestly read what you're writing? Television production and movie production are two different things. Time tables are COMPLETELY different and if we travel back to 1960s television, it would even be tighter. You can fit a rewrite in here or there to a scene or two, but a complete script rewrite in the middle of production? Are you serious?
It's time and money... and who said they all had script approval? Nimoy said they took suggestions and I believe one time he blew up about some script and they put him on suspension for it.
Neither can you. All I have to go by is what Nimoy states in his autobiography which he claims he was presented the story by DC Fontana. Nothing about how the script was written originally for Sulu. Why am I going to argue the source?
You're obviously not reading had, done, did -- pass tense words here. I'm talking about what he did THEN and why I think what he did THEN was a dickish move. But obviously the man has moved past that and turned himself around.
And I guess Meyer's briefly talking about Shatner's ego is just fabrication? Everyone says he has an ego, and? That's an iffy reputation. Having an ego is not the best thing in the world to walk around with.
Delusional? I'm just taking it as how I interpret it. Shatner is the star - he is within all his right as the star to do whatever the hell he wants because he is the star. It's called exaggeration, bb.
Hun? So a few things may have been proven false, or maybe not as dramatic as how four individuals have put it and they're whiners and assholes? Really?
And how can you judge whether or not Nichols' meeting with MLK is an over zealous story of grandeur? Where you there? Did you meet anyone who was there? Do you not find her capable of meeting such a man and her encouraging her to stay on the show?
I find your distaste for these four actors making you overtly defensive over someone else' differentiating opinion. It doesn't help that it seems like you're a hard core Shatner stan.
And they all have done some pretty dickish things.
Did I give Roddenberry a pass? I said I get bad vibes from him and found that he had a lot of balls. Do I need go on a rant of how much I find Gene's business practices to be completely shitty in a thread about William Shatner?
I think not.
Well, heck, I'll go ahead and say it:
There are very few instances in TOS where a supporting character materially contributed to a story.
This isn't to slight the actors, who were talented and did the best with the material they were given. This is to say that in the overwhelming majority of cases, their character could have been replaced with anyone -- and the story wouldn't have suffered.
Keep in mind that both Sulu and Uhura never even had a first name. Sulu didn't officially get his until Star Trek VI. Uhura's wasn't official until Star Trek (2009). Their first names were never uttered in the series.
Take "The Trouble With Tribbles," in which Uhura and Chekov have some business at K7. It was originally written for Sulu and Uhura, but Takei was shooting The Green Berets with John Wayne so it was re-written. Did it matter? Not a lick. Could you have replaced Uhura with Lt. Palmer (comm officer in "The Doomsday Machine") and have it play exactly the same way? Absolutely.
(I'd also point out that in contrast, Takei's character in The Green Berets actually mattered. If you've seen the film, Takei plays Captain Nim, a native South Vietnamese officer under Wayne. He's portrayed as a freedom-fighter, brutal if necessary, but clearly a sympathetic character. The audience identifies with him. When he's killed, the audience is moved by his death.)
Later, in the bar fight, we get some of the best characterization of the supporting cast in the series. The fact that Scotty is upset at the Klingons insulting the Enterprise rather than Kirk is one of the very few times when his character actually matters. The banter he has with Chekov, however, could have been with any regional character. It could have been with an Irishman or a Frenchman: just change Vodka to Irish Whiskey or a Chateau Picard.
However, the episodes in which Scotty got the most screen time were "Wolf In the Fold" and "The Lights of Zetar." In neither episode does Scotty matter.
In the first, some Enterprise crew member needs to be accused of murder. It could have been Sulu or Chekov, DeSalle, or Leslie without affecting the plot at all. The important part of the story is how Kirk, Spock and McCoy get the accused out of their predicament.
In the second, the same thing is true: some Enterprise crew member needs to be in love with the Hot Female Guest Star. It could have been Sulu, Chekov, DeSalle, or Leslie without affecting the plot.
Go through and replace any of the supporting characters' names with any other throughout the series, and you'll discover that very rarely does it matter who says what.
The supporting cast is their jobs, as most supporting cast tends to be. An engineer was needed. A navigator, a communications officer, a helmsman. At least nine times out of ten, any one would do -- and occasionally did. How many times did Mr. Leslie find himself sitting in any vacant chair? How many nameless navigators sat in Chekov's seat? Does anyone remember Mr. Farrell from the early first season?
Indeed, in the first season, it mattered only twice who sat in the navigator's chair. The first was "The Corbomite Maneuver" (the plot needed needed to be someone young and green that Kirk could relate to) and "Balance of Terror" (the plot needed someone to be suspicious of Spock). Had those episodes been shot in the second or third season, the person would have been sitting at some other station and would have been as equally disposable at the end of the episode.
The relatively interchangeable nature of the characters is probably best exemplified in Star Trek 2009. In that film, each character is given just enough characterization and just enough moments that they matter in the film. While it still focuses on Kirk and Spock, the supporting characters each perform an integral role in the plot and couldn't be easily swapped with anyone wearing the right color uniform.
TOS scripts weren't generally written with the supporting character in mind, but rather the character's job in mind. Consequently they could be easily replaced without harming the plot. This makes perfect sense given that these were day players. The budget might call for Leslie to be sitting at the engineering station rather than Scotty because they didn't pay him as much. Or if one was lucky (like Takei) and found a better job, they could swap lines without any harm to the story.
Consider that there was always some possibility that a day player might find a better job. The comm officer in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" Lt. Alden, played by Lloyd Haynes. He was replaced -- partly because Roddenberry wanted to cast one of his mistresses. However, in 1969, he was cast as a lead in Room 222 -- which ran five years and was considerably more successful on first-run TV than TOS. Indeed, if one examines his IMDB page, you'll find he had a moderately successful career right up until his 1986 death.
There was always some chance that one of the supporting cast might find a better gig. It didn't make sense to write specific dialogue for their characters.
In short: TOS was about Kirk and Spock, and to a lesser extent McCoy. All the rest could have been (and occasionally were) replaced without harm to the series.
There are very few instances in TOS where a supporting character materially contributed to a story.
This isn't to slight the actors, who were talented and did the best with the material they were given. This is to say that in the overwhelming majority of cases, their character could have been replaced with anyone -- and the story wouldn't have suffered.
Keep in mind that both Sulu and Uhura never even had a first name. Sulu didn't officially get his until Star Trek VI. Uhura's wasn't official until Star Trek (2009). Their first names were never uttered in the series.
Take "The Trouble With Tribbles," in which Uhura and Chekov have some business at K7. It was originally written for Sulu and Uhura, but Takei was shooting The Green Berets with John Wayne so it was re-written. Did it matter? Not a lick. Could you have replaced Uhura with Lt. Palmer (comm officer in "The Doomsday Machine") and have it play exactly the same way? Absolutely.
(I'd also point out that in contrast, Takei's character in The Green Berets actually mattered. If you've seen the film, Takei plays Captain Nim, a native South Vietnamese officer under Wayne. He's portrayed as a freedom-fighter, brutal if necessary, but clearly a sympathetic character. The audience identifies with him. When he's killed, the audience is moved by his death.)
Later, in the bar fight, we get some of the best characterization of the supporting cast in the series. The fact that Scotty is upset at the Klingons insulting the Enterprise rather than Kirk is one of the very few times when his character actually matters. The banter he has with Chekov, however, could have been with any regional character. It could have been with an Irishman or a Frenchman: just change Vodka to Irish Whiskey or a Chateau Picard.
However, the episodes in which Scotty got the most screen time were "Wolf In the Fold" and "The Lights of Zetar." In neither episode does Scotty matter.
In the first, some Enterprise crew member needs to be accused of murder. It could have been Sulu or Chekov, DeSalle, or Leslie without affecting the plot at all. The important part of the story is how Kirk, Spock and McCoy get the accused out of their predicament.
In the second, the same thing is true: some Enterprise crew member needs to be in love with the Hot Female Guest Star. It could have been Sulu, Chekov, DeSalle, or Leslie without affecting the plot.
Go through and replace any of the supporting characters' names with any other throughout the series, and you'll discover that very rarely does it matter who says what.
The supporting cast is their jobs, as most supporting cast tends to be. An engineer was needed. A navigator, a communications officer, a helmsman. At least nine times out of ten, any one would do -- and occasionally did. How many times did Mr. Leslie find himself sitting in any vacant chair? How many nameless navigators sat in Chekov's seat? Does anyone remember Mr. Farrell from the early first season?
Indeed, in the first season, it mattered only twice who sat in the navigator's chair. The first was "The Corbomite Maneuver" (the plot needed needed to be someone young and green that Kirk could relate to) and "Balance of Terror" (the plot needed someone to be suspicious of Spock). Had those episodes been shot in the second or third season, the person would have been sitting at some other station and would have been as equally disposable at the end of the episode.
The relatively interchangeable nature of the characters is probably best exemplified in Star Trek 2009. In that film, each character is given just enough characterization and just enough moments that they matter in the film. While it still focuses on Kirk and Spock, the supporting characters each perform an integral role in the plot and couldn't be easily swapped with anyone wearing the right color uniform.
TOS scripts weren't generally written with the supporting character in mind, but rather the character's job in mind. Consequently they could be easily replaced without harming the plot. This makes perfect sense given that these were day players. The budget might call for Leslie to be sitting at the engineering station rather than Scotty because they didn't pay him as much. Or if one was lucky (like Takei) and found a better job, they could swap lines without any harm to the story.
Consider that there was always some possibility that a day player might find a better job. The comm officer in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" Lt. Alden, played by Lloyd Haynes. He was replaced -- partly because Roddenberry wanted to cast one of his mistresses. However, in 1969, he was cast as a lead in Room 222 -- which ran five years and was considerably more successful on first-run TV than TOS. Indeed, if one examines his IMDB page, you'll find he had a moderately successful career right up until his 1986 death.
There was always some chance that one of the supporting cast might find a better gig. It didn't make sense to write specific dialogue for their characters.
In short: TOS was about Kirk and Spock, and to a lesser extent McCoy. All the rest could have been (and occasionally were) replaced without harm to the series.
Last edited:
You bring up some good points, Dakota, and I agree 100% that the characters were written for their jobs and nothing more. But even if it was a job, it was their jobs that sitll advanced the plot. The only thing that lacked was characterization.
But characterization was only lacking for Uhura and in some aspects, Sulu. We were still able to know that Scotty was a proud scottsman who loved his liquor and his ship. We still knew that Chekov was a bright young tactical officer who constantly claimed everything was a Russian invention. We even have Sulu who was easy going, friendly, could fence, had many hobbies -- But Uhura was really the only character who had no personality on the set but I like to blame that on racism and misogyny.
Another rant for another day.
But my issue will always be that even if the characters were written for their jobs and had no dramatic impact on the episode's progression, it was still a job. It's like someone coming in and taking your job away for no other reason than because he has more seniority than you, and while they probably knew that going into production - it still was something that in some occasions could have been avoided. There are times when lines do have to get cut, where a scene has to be rewritten, and there are times where lines have to be swapt... but within reason. If there's no justifiable reason to the change other than " I'm the star " then it will simply be a dick move. That will always be my take on it. I will agree to disagree.
But characterization was only lacking for Uhura and in some aspects, Sulu. We were still able to know that Scotty was a proud scottsman who loved his liquor and his ship. We still knew that Chekov was a bright young tactical officer who constantly claimed everything was a Russian invention. We even have Sulu who was easy going, friendly, could fence, had many hobbies -- But Uhura was really the only character who had no personality on the set but I like to blame that on racism and misogyny.
Another rant for another day.
But my issue will always be that even if the characters were written for their jobs and had no dramatic impact on the episode's progression, it was still a job. It's like someone coming in and taking your job away for no other reason than because he has more seniority than you, and while they probably knew that going into production - it still was something that in some occasions could have been avoided. There are times when lines do have to get cut, where a scene has to be rewritten, and there are times where lines have to be swapt... but within reason. If there's no justifiable reason to the change other than " I'm the star " then it will simply be a dick move. That will always be my take on it. I will agree to disagree.
Shatner has stated on more than one occasion why he pushed for certain lines to be cut, and it was always in service to the story, specifically, to not bog things down with everyone piping in with their two cents' worth for no other reason than to have everyone pipe in with their two cents' worth. If we need something scientific to be said, we need to hear from the science officer, not the helmsman, navigator, and communications officer, unless one of the others actually has something pertinent to offer up.
And, again, Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley were there six or seven days on this damn episode, the others only showed up for their one or two days of work on the bridge, then hustled across town for their guest spots on whatever gig they scrounged up in the meantime. George Takei and Jimmy Doohan both had ten different gigs between '66 and '69 besides Star Trek (Doohan even had a recurring role on "Peyton Place" while doing Star Trek, for a grand total of 26 episodes), Nichelle Nichols had four other gigs, and Walter Koenig had three.
And, again, Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley were there six or seven days on this damn episode, the others only showed up for their one or two days of work on the bridge, then hustled across town for their guest spots on whatever gig they scrounged up in the meantime. George Takei and Jimmy Doohan both had ten different gigs between '66 and '69 besides Star Trek (Doohan even had a recurring role on "Peyton Place" while doing Star Trek, for a grand total of 26 episodes), Nichelle Nichols had four other gigs, and Walter Koenig had three.
Last edited:
They are only iconic in retrospect because EVERYTHING associated with TOS is iconic. Kirk, Spock and some great scripts made the show, if you were sitting on the bridge opening hailing frequencies you got lucky because you were going to enjoy that ripple effect iconic-ness for the rest of your life, thanks to the big guys becoming so insanely popular.
I'm not saying Shatner wasn't a dick but I think like many it's because he was such a grandiose person that Kirk really shone. I've known a few larger than life people and of course they are usually dicks but they are also unforgettable. And those who are standing next to them are often long remembered as well.
I actually prefer the early episodes that feature the supporting cast more. I love the big 3 but I get bored if they dominate the show too much. I think that Shatner pinching lines from the supporting cast was unnecessary and egotistic.
It's true that even in the early days the show wasn't a proper ensemble, although Rand had a few moments that were her own prior to being unjustly axed largely due to back-door shenanigans. We should also note that some supporting characters can grow to be among the most popular characters in a show if given some decent screen time (e.g. O'Brien).
I love Shatner - his performance in sh**t my Dad says is astoundingly good, especially given his advanced age but as a younger man, he was quite disrespectful to his workmates. They did very well out of the franchise due to the movies and conventions but nobody wants to have their few minutes of screentime cut by somebody who is already getting 80% of the screentime and what's more, his attitude and the changes were never essential to teh success of the show.
It's true that even in the early days the show wasn't a proper ensemble, although Rand had a few moments that were her own prior to being unjustly axed largely due to back-door shenanigans. We should also note that some supporting characters can grow to be among the most popular characters in a show if given some decent screen time (e.g. O'Brien).
I love Shatner - his performance in sh**t my Dad says is astoundingly good, especially given his advanced age but as a younger man, he was quite disrespectful to his workmates. They did very well out of the franchise due to the movies and conventions but nobody wants to have their few minutes of screentime cut by somebody who is already getting 80% of the screentime and what's more, his attitude and the changes were never essential to teh success of the show.
Does anyone have an example (from an early draft script, shooting script, or Blish adaptation) of lines that were written for another character, but ended up being spoken by Kirk?
My understanding is that either the lines were cut entirely, since they did nothing to advance the story and only wasted valuable broadcast time, or they were given to a character more appropriate for the specific line, which was not always Kirk.
Hardly "unspoken." Several Star Trek alumni have been quite vocal about their alleged suffering at the hands of Shatner. It's just a matter of deciding whose version you think is most believable.
Heck, for that matter, if you're really looking for a trusted source, Nichelle Nichols might even be able to tell you what Martin Luther King thought of Shatner!
Agreed. But to save me the trouble of reading every single book out there -- what are these evil deeds of Shatner's?
