Quantcast
Channel: Star Trek Fact Check
Viewing all 43 articles
Browse latest View live

See Star Trek's First Pilot on the Big Screen with Director Robert Butler in Person for a Q&A

$
0
0
Susan Oliver, Gene Roddenberry, Robert Butler, and Bob Justman on the set of 'The Menagerie' (1964)
Readers who live in the Los Angeles area will want to put this one on their calendar. Robert Butler, who directed 'The Menagerie' (also known as 'The Cage') will be appearing in person at the Billy Wilder Theater in Westwood for a screening of Star Trek's first pilot on Friday, January 24, 2014 at 7:30pm. Admission is free; event parking at the theater is usually $3.

Also shown will be 'Publish or Perish,' a 1974 episode from the third season of Columbo, featuring several faces that might be familiar to Star Trek fans, including Mariette Hartley (Zarabeth in 'All Our Yesterdays') and Ted Gehring (one of the transported policemen in 'Assignment: Earth').

(Click Image to Enlarge, then right-click an select "Open image in new tab" to view full size)
Butler (now 86) has spoken about his involvement with Star Trek before, in an interview with Edward Gross for Starlog #117. I have included that interview above (view the full issue here). For those who will be in the Los Angeles area next week, I hope to see you at the screening!

Starlog courtesy of The Internet Archive.

Top image courtesy of Trek Core.


Drive-In Dream Girls: Star Trek's First and Second Yeoman

$
0
0
Tom Lisanti's Drive-In Dream Girls: A Galaxy of B-Movie Starlets of the Sixties (2012) will primarily be of interest to Star Trek fans for its interviews with Laurel Goodwin and Andrea Dromm, Grace Lee Whitney's predecessors in the role of the Captain's Yeoman in 'The Menagerie' and 'Where No Man Has Gone Before.' The two actresses have rarely been interviewed about their roles on Star Trek, and provide some valuable insight into their experiences on the show. That being said, the book includes a few inaccuracies and some faulty memories in the chapters devoted to these two actresses which should be corrected before they become part of the popular myth of the making of Star Trek.

For example, consider the following passage about Laurel Goodwin, who appeared as Yeoman Colt in the first pilot episode:
After the pilot was complete, it was shown to all three networks, who passed on it. NBC, though, thought it had potential, but they felt it was too surreal and that the audience would not accept a woman as second in command. NBC commissioned a second pilot. All the actors were dropped except for Leonard Nimoy and Goodwin. Two weeks before filming began, Goodwin learned that she too was being let go. 'I was not replaced--the role was just dropped. I was mad because I missed out on other work during the pilot season from the previous year.'
--Tom Lisanti, Drive-In Dream Girls: A Galaxy of B-Movie Starlets of the Sixties (2012), p.41
The phrasing here suggests that Desilu produced Star Trek and then tried to sell it to one of the three networks, but that's not what happened. Desilu knew going into Star Trek that the series would be an expensive venture (indeed, the final cost of 'The Menagerie' was $615,781.56), and couldn't have afforded the series pilot without the financial backing of one of the networks. Luckily, after CBS turned down the program, NBC decided gave Star Trek a pilot commitment. Although the end result wasn't what they were looking for, NBC saw enough potential that they agreed to finance a second pilot episode, which became 'Where No Man Has Gone Before.' It's unlikely that ABC or CBS were ever screened either pilot, since it was an NBC program from early on in the development process.

Moreover, the claim that NBC "would not accept a woman as second in command" has been disputed, most notably in Herb Solow and Bob Justman's Inside Star Trek: The Real Story (1996). Solow and Justman maintain that NBC were perfectly happy with a strong female lead -- they just didn't like Majel Barrett. Roddenberry, not wanting to re-cast the role he had written for his mistress, chose to drop Number One entirely -- although he would later blame the network for this decision.

Laurel Goodwin as Yeoman Colt in "The Menagerie (1964)
The claim that "All the actors were dropped except for Leonard Nimoy and Goodwin" is simply false. None of the actors who worked on the first pilot had options for a second pilot in their contracts. When NBC ordered a second pilot rather than a series, the entire cast became free agents. Even Leonard Nimoy, who continued on with the series, had to negotiate a new contract, dated June 2, 1965 (read more about this in the post and comments here).

When it comes to Goodwin's statement that she wasn't told about being dropped from the series until two weeks before the second pilot went before the cameras (which would have been sometime in early July 1965, since photography of 'Where No Man Has Gone Before' commenced on July 19, 1965), I have to view this with some skepticism. Although Roddenberry was notorious for putting off the delivery of bad news, Colt had already been replaced by Yeoman Smith in the earliest teleplay of 'Where No Man Has Gone' Before (dated May 27, 1965).

Secondly, Goodwin's claim that she couldn't find work because of her commitment to Star Trek is at least partially incorrect. In the UCLA files there is an April 8, 1965 letter from Goodwin's agent to Ed Perlstein at Desilu which establishes terms in which Desilu agreed to take "second position" to Revue Studios (a subsidiary of Universal) while Goodwin auditioned for a Revue pilot. Goodwin didn't get the part (an unspecified role on the series Tammy, which was broadcast for one season from 1965-66), but that shouldn't be blamed on Star Trek.

Andrea Dromm as Yeoman Smith in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (1965)
The chapter on Andrea Dromm has less to say about Star Trek, and only one claim worth examining here. Explaining why she didn't stick with the series, the book offers the following:
The character of Yeoman Smith was to become a regular on the series, but Dromm passed on it. Explaining her decision, Andrea Dromm says matter-of-factly, 'I was offered a role in The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming. They told me that you either do the film or the series. I chose the film, but if I had known that Star Trek would become such a phenomenon, I probably would have opted for the series.'
--Tom Lisanti, Drive-In Dream Girls: A Galaxy of B-Movie Starlets of the Sixties (2012), p.16
It's been nearly fifty years, so it's possible Dromm's memory is a bit fuzzy, but her account doesn't line up with the archival record. The following excerpt (dated April 11, 1966) of a letter from Roddenberry to Dromm (via her agent) can be found in the Roddenberry collection at UCLA:
Due to changes in format, budget structure, and character concepts, we cannot pick up a number of options, including yours. But we do hope that "Yeoman Smith" will reappear in future stories and hope we will be fortunate enough to find you interested and available at that time.
Roddenberry's suggestion that Yeoman Smith might appear in future stories was probably an empty gesture. He used the same boilerplate languages in the letters releasing Paul Fix and James Doohan from their contracts, which were sent on the same day (read more about James Doohan's fight to stay on Star Trek here).

Despite these mistakes, this post should not be interpreted too negatively. Lisanti's book presents interviews with a number of actresses who have never been asked to speak about their careers in detail. Laurel Goodwin's account of Majel Barrett's on-set relationship with Gene Roddenberry and Andrea Dromm's appraisal of the executive producer (which contradicts James Goldstone's account, from Inside Star Trek: The Real Story, that Gene Roddenberry only cast Dromm because he wanted to "score" with her) will be of interest to any Star Trek fans who want to know more about the production history of the series. Additionally, other actresses who appeared on the program, including Angelique Pettyjohn ('Gamesters of Triskelion'), Arlene Martel ('Amok Time'), Venita Wolf ('The Squire of Gothos'), Beverly Washburn ('The Deadly Years'), Sharyn Hillyer ('A Piece of the Action'), and Valora Noland ('Patterns of Force') are profiled by the book as well.

Author's Note: I recently signed on as a contributor to the pop culture website What Culture. My first post (a Star Trek-themed list, of course) is now online. Don't worry, though -- I'm not about to abandon Star Trek Fact Check. In fact, real life permitting, my research for this year is just getting started. Be seeing you.

An Evening with Robert Butler, Director of 'The Menagerie'

$
0
0
Director Robert Butler and Archivist Mark Quigley (January 24, 2014)
I hope readers who were able to make it to the screening and Q&A with Robert Butler at the Billy Wilder Theater last week had as much fun as I did. The first pilot (along with 'Publish or Perish,' a terrific third season episode of Columbo) looked great on the big screen, and Butler was passionate and animated when discussing his work during the Q&A before intermission.

Butler began the Q&A by joking about Star Trek fans, which generated some laughs from an audience with more than a few "Trekkies" in it:
I don't see any costumes, and I welcome you whole-heatedly, with the confession that I spent a couple hours lately on the Star Trek DVDs that show the gatherings at various cities around the country. I was trying to figure out you, the Trekkies, and the legs, the quick popularity of the show. The thought I'm left with is I found you Trekkies a little less weird than I thought you might be.
When asked why he didn't do the second pilot, Butler explained:
Yeah, I turned it down simply because I'd been there. I think it was a couple of years later, we were talking about that. Gene had gone ahead, I think, and produced more of a television series that he had on the air at the time and I moved on to other things, and then he came to me with the offer [for the second pilot] and I passed because I'd been there. I had heard at the time, probably reasonably, that the network thought and said, "We like it, we believe it, we don't understand it, do it again." So Gene moonlit another script as he was making his subsequent existence, and the show was the result of that.
Butler's timeline is a bit off (the second pilot was produced seven months after the first pilot) and his recollections about Roddenberry producing "more of a television series" aren't quite right (Roddenberry wasn't working on another series, although he did produce two other television pilots during this period, The Long Hunt of April Savage and Police Story), but it's hard to blame him for forgetting a few details almost fifty years later. Memory Alpha indicates that Butler turned down the "envelope" as it was called because "he disliked the series" based on this interview, but I think that interpretation is a little unfair (Butler does admit to some "disdain" for the first pilot, but says this was good for him to have as a director, because it allowed him to approach the material with objectivity).

Butler also commented on the two-part season one episode, 'The Menagerie,' that incorporated footage from the first pilot:
I looked at 'The Menagerie' the other night. I thought a lot of the manipulation was kind of clever. They had this captain, Jeffrey Hunter, as a very distorted remnant of what he used to be, enabling an actor to sit and play him scarred and in the present at that time answering with light signals and so on.  It was kind of creepy and probably a very good idea at the time.
Butler immediately followed those comments by discussing the show's tone and its time period:
Incidentally, fifty years ago I saw a lot of innocence and sweetness and trust and less cynicism than we see now. Not that I endorse either one, but this is very aimed at us fifty years ago when we were more acceptable. I mean, the special effects are a little questionable in spots and of course we can see budgetary [restrictions] all over the screen compared to what we see today and yet those legs, that willing suspension of disbelief that we all seem to do, happens again. We follow the damned thing. It has some beckon for us that it works.
Butler seemed pleased with the pilot, which he watched in the audience. He was especially fond of two scenes early on that provided the series with the crucial "legs" it needed to succeed:
When the first shot kind of goes into the flight deck and we see the crew sitting there in control, and then there's that subsequent doctor-Pike scene that's so good. We've seen that scene thirty, sixty, a thousand times, the innervated hero needs a lift confessing to his mentor, whomever, and yet that beckon was in there. Those legs were playing, and in spite of the (chuckles) directorial superiority, the damned thing works! It's okay.
Mark Quigley, from the UCLA Film & Television Archive, mentioned teasing Butler about his proposed title change for the series, which Butler recounted:
Yes, I thought Star Trek was heavy. I tried to get Gene to change the title to Star Track. That seemed lighter and freer. It's not my business to be able to do that, and yet I was trying to convince him. I believed in it and, you know, water off a duck's back, which is okay.
When asked about the "make it dirty" philosophy he brought to Hill Street Blues, Butler spoke for a minute about the look of Star Trek:
I hated cleanliness. Star Trek was so [clean], I tried to get the scenery butchered up as though it had been in use, and I couldn't do it. The production designer was already working and I lost that argument. It's largely as many arguments as you can win. The more arguments you can win, the more singularity the yarn has. It's not rocket surgery, it's singularity, recognition of people at work and at play consistently and clearly and understandably. That's what we're trying to do, so we win as many arguments as we can.
That's just about six minutes of the Q&A. Butler went on to speak for an additional thirty-five minutes about the origins of his career as an usher at CBS, a stage manager at Studio City during the Golden Age of television, a busy director-for-hire (for such programs as The Twilight Zone and The Lieutenant, created by Gene Roddenberry), and ultimately an in-demand director of television pilots, including Hogan's HeroesBatman, Hill Street Blues, and Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman.

Since this is a blog devoted to Star Trek, I haven't transcribed Butler's other comments, but if there's sufficient interest, I would consider it.

--

Author's Note: I've continued writing hard-hitting journalism for What Culture this week. So, if you're in the mood for some silly writing about television, I've linked to my latest work below.

January 29: 10 Silliest Things On 24 (And The Lessons To Be Learned From Them)
January 27: 5 TV Cliffhangers That Had Terrible Resolutions
January 26: Star Trek: 20 Worst Episodes Ever
January 23: Star Trek: 5 Great Storylines The Show Left Hanging
January 21: 10 Episodes That Should Have Changed Star Trek Forever – But Didn’t

An Evening with Robert Butler: Full Transcript

$
0
0
Director Robert Butler and Archivist Mark Quigley (January 24, 2014)

Last month I promised I would transcribe the rest of the Q&A with director Bob Butler if there was sufficient interest. There was, and today I finally finished that transcription. Enjoy!

(Recorded January 24, 2014 at the Billy Wilder Theater in Los Angeles, California)

Robert Butler: I don’t see any costumes.

(Audience laughter)

Butler: I welcome you whole-heartedly, with the confession, with the admission that I have spent a couple hours lately on the Star Trek DVDs that show the gatherings in various cities around the country. I was trying to figure out you, the Trekkies, and the legs, the popularity, the quick popularity of the show. The thought I’m left with is that I found you Trekkies a little less weird than I thought you might be.

(Audience laughter)

Butler: I drew the conclusion that between us normal civilians and weirdness and Trekkies and civility must be a measure that’s identical.

(Audience laughter)

Butler: Anyway, welcome Trekkies, whoever you may be. We’ll find you out!

(Audience laughter)

Mark Quigley: So, this pilot, NBC decided they wanted another pilot. You had already worked with Gene Roddenberry on The Lieutenant. Do you remember the reaction to this pilot? You were offered the subsequent pilot, but you turned it down.

Butler: Yeah, I turned it down simply because I’d been there. I think it was a couple years later. We were talking about that. Gene had gone ahead, I think, and produced more of a television series that he had on the air at the time and I moved on to other things. And then he came to me with the offer and I passed because I’d been there. I had heard, at the time, probably reasonably, that the network thought and said, “We like it, we believe it, we don’t understand it, do it again.”

(Audience laughter)

Butler: So Gene moonlit another script as he was making his subsequent existence, work, and the show was the result of that.

Quigley: And then this episode ended up getting cannibalized when they ran out of money later in the season with 'The Menagerie.'

Butler: Yes. I looked at 'The Menagerie' the other night and thought a lot of the manipulation was kind of clever. They had this Captain, Jeffrey Hunter, as a very distorted remnant of what he used to be, enabling an actor to sit and play him scarred and in the present at that time, answering with light signals and so on. It was kind of creepy and probably a very good idea at the time. Incidentally, fifty years ago, I saw a lot of innocence and sweetness and trust and less cynicism than we see now. Not that I endorse either one, but this is very aimed at us fifty years ago, when we were more acceptable. I mean, the special effects are a little questionable in spots, and we can see budgetary all over the screen compared to what we see today, and yet those legs, that suspension of willing disbelief that we all seem to do, happens again. We follow the damn thing. It has some beckon for us that works.

I felt that when the first shot kind of goes into the flight deck and we see the crew there, sitting there in control, and then there’s that subsequent Doctor-Pike scene that’s so good. We’ve seen that scene thirty, sixty, a thousand times – the enervated hero needs a lift, confessing to his mentor, whomever – and yet, that beckon was in there. Those legs were playing and (chuckles), in spite of the directorial superiority, the damned thing works. It’s okay!

Quigley: I had fun teasing you about this the other day, but let’s talk about your proposed title change for the series.

Butler: Yes, I thought Star Trek was heavy. I tried to get Gene to change the title to Star Track. That seemed lighter and freer.

(Audience laughter)

Butler: It’s not my business to be able to do that, and yet I was trying to convince him. I believed in it and, you know, water off a duck’s back!

(Audience laughter)

Butler: Which is okay.

Quigley: Let’s spend a few minutes going back, because you have the type of storybook beginning that people can only dream about now. This really wouldn’t be possible. You started as an usher at CBS.

Butler: Yes, I sure did. I wore a uniform for about a week with the Uni High quarterback with whom I shared some celebrity at Uni High. He and I, Ray Bindorff and I, put on the blue uniform and passed out the tickets on Hollywood and Vine to get people to come to the radio and occasional television shows. That’s pretty fascinating. Ray is here somewhere.

Then, seven years later he was on into his business career and I left TV City to take a job with my next partner, Gene Reynolds, with whom we shared an early comedy, Hennesy. We alternated for six episodes until we were both dumped and then we were out on the marketplace wailing away. Ray was there first, Gene was there second, and we’re all here now together, which is good.

(Audience applause)

Quigley: In between your being an usher and working on Hennesy, you worked your way up through what we now call the Golden Age of Television, as an associate and assistant director on Climax!and Playhouse 90. That was where you cut your teeth.

Butler: Television city at Fairfax and Beverly was the best kindergarten for learning the alphabet of storytelling that you can imagine. It was live, you went on the air every week, every other week, whatever, you saw your results that night. I watched terrific directors, associate directors, producers, writers, actors – I mean the whole operation. The cast being put together as the story told unit was just 3-D schooling. It was breathtaking and I learned a lot in those seven years. A lot of it shows, some of it’s still pretty green here, beyond the green dancer.

(Audience laughter)

Butler: But that was a great experience.

Quigley: I think you were telling me, you threw one of the first cues out of TV City onto television – the first broadcast from TV City.

Butler: Great point. TV City was being constructed and finished and was to go on the air on a given night. Shower of the Stars was to go on at seven or eight or whatever, and at that time I was a stage manager and I threw the first cue to the background projectionist who rolled the film that projected starbursts on a screen in front of which our host stood. So, I started that.

(Audience laughter and applause)

Quigley: Now, from there, after Hennesy you did The Dick Van Dyke Show [and] The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis. How did you become the go-to guy for TV pilots? How did that start?

Butler: Well, after crediting Television City and all that good experience, I happened on a pilot where the director had gotten gun shy or something and needed to be replaced on a given afternoon. They weren’t shooting yet, they were in preparation, and my agent said, “I’m going to get you a show.” He got me into that producer, and we talked, and I got the job of Hogan’s Heroes. A half-hour, one camera comedy, in black and white, and black and white helped the Nazi comedy, if that isn’t an oxymoron.

(Audience laughter)

Butler: But, it was a terrific experience and that was early in my working life. I don’t remember what the second pilot was, but with that start, and that good, hit reaction that that show made, I’m sure that’s in the mix there, somehow an issue.

Quigley: And then, shortly after that, would have come Batman.

Butler: Yeah…

(Audience laughter)

Butler: I say that out of admiration for preposterousness because that’s totally what that was. Lorenzo Semple was a good family friend – a terrific writer, a well-known craze-o, intellectual, creative guy – whether Lorenzo turned that crank or the reputation about pilotry [sic] was at work, I don’t really know. I remember thinking that the material had to be treated very genuinely because it was so crazy. I mean, Batman explains the villain to the police commissioner, the Riddler, “He contrives his plots like artichokes. You have to strip off spiny leaves to reach the heart.”

(Audience laughter)

Butler: Well, that isn’t a joke, exactly, but it sure ain’t reality, either. So I was aware it had to be carefully handled and I did, with good support from the studio boss at that time, Bill Dozier, who was very wise to have hired Lorenzo in the first place. I mean, that’s crazy writing, and really good, and your friendly director got it, and understood it, and delivered it in an appropriate style for it.

Quigley: You came up with the motifs of having the canted angles for the villains and some other things that just stayed with the series – became hallmarks of the series?

Butler: I just felt we couldn’t not, because when you opened a Batman comic book, which I certainly did as a younger kid, why, the pows, and the zowies, and the biffs and bapps were highlights of the action sequences in the comic strip. Well, how do you do that in Technicolor without biff, boom, bang? You know, [we] just had to. It sounds like an innovation, and honest to God it’s just something that we were conditioned to do. We couldn’t not, so that’s directorial genius again.

(Audience laughter)

Quigley: Now, you and I have talked about this, but Batman was a cultural phenomenon at the time, but for you it was just – you moved on relatively quickly. You did, I think, three sets of two, and one of your villains was George Sanders?

Butler: Yes, yes.

Quigley: But you didn’t get caught up in the cultural phenomenon that was Batman at the time?

Butler: No. I’m paid not to. You know, I’m paid to get that story told and delivered and the disbelief suspended as effectively as I possibly can, and that’s what I do and always did concentrate on, maybe to a fault, but that was my interest: the story, the behavior of the characters, the assistance to the actors in doing what they were trying to do, and the delivery of all that to the audience. There aren’t any tens, there’s no pure vacuum, and the actor is never quite right, the scene is never quite right, [and] the finish has not been applied until take two plus all the post-production and the appreciation. Then it gets…closer to good or excellent or perfect. Perfect is just way below what I’m talking about, somewhere else.

Director Robert Butler and Archivist Mark Quigley (January 24, 2014)
Quigley: Decades after Batman, you’re called to launch another comic book series with The Adventures of Lois & Clark.

Butler: Yeah, Lois & Clark was much the same thing. The writing wasn’t as crazy…it wasn’t less established, certainly. Superman was certainly as established as Batman, and yet there was more sadness in Superman, because here was this person from somewhere else, who was trying his best to fit in and being too, too, too exceptional, etc. That rode with that character a lot, and it was in the writing and in the concept, maybe. I don’t remember the comic strip that well. I have a feeling it probably wasn’t included in the comic strip. It probably was increased for the living rooms and the understanding of a superhero. We were always pleased with the thought that Batman was a human being, who had resources and Superman was this invincible…beyond person. One was for sure going to win; the other, Batman, had to engineer and persevere his winnings. But, on the other hand, Superman had the sadness. He was a freak, he was a foreigner. It cracks me up to think of the guy, you know, and that was played, granted, not a lot, but that’s in there. That brought legs. The audience is being carried in the suspension of disbelief being pursued and realized.

Quigley: In the history of TV, statistically, I mean I haven’t done the analysis, but I really don’t think there’s any other director that directed as many different series as you did. Part of that was by design. You didn’t like to stay in one place too long, but if you look at the scope and scale, you went from Batman to Ironside to Kung Fu to Hawaii 5-0, just to rattle them all of. What was it that propelled you to all these different [shows]? You were welcome wherever you went, you could do any show you wanted, and you did as many, it seems, as you could.

Butler: Well, the freelancing I adored. Doing different things, not knowing what two months was going to bring, and where the pay window was. I loved the freedom and the disconnection of all of that. I mean, it took me a year and a half to get used to it because, you know, I was a middle class kid raised on order and process and repetition and all the rest of it. As a young kid musician I may have gotten into that less known pattern, and maybe that’s why, and I really adored that and was confident that it would turn up in three weeks or three months. It was luck. One can’t dismiss the marketeering and concentrate on the issue. You’ve got to do both and for some reason I did much more of the storytelling preoccupation than the marketeering of myself and the results were good enough so that positive results followed me, or something.

Quigley: I think one of the other most remarkable things about your career is that decades after you started you had reinvented the medium with Batman in the sixties and with Star Trekand then this kind of all culminates in Hill Street Blues, which, again, is something that redefined television, and redefined television in the eighties. Let’s talk about Hill Street Blues and let’s talk about that whole philosophy of “making it dirty.”

Butler: It was a great collision of a number of elements. Timing, of course, had a lot to do with everything. I was at a point where I could act on some of my hatreds, namely, cleanliness. I hated cleanliness. Star Trek was so cleanly [sic]. I tried to get the scenery butchered up as though it had been in use, and I couldn’t do it. The production designer was already working, and I lost that argument. It’s largely as many arguments as you can win. The more arguments you win, the more singularity the yarn has. It’s not rocket surgery, it’s singularity, recognition of people at work and at play consistently and clearly and understandably. That’s what we’re trying to do, so we win as many arguments as we can.

I took Remington Steele to Grant Tinker, who was a friend of mine on The Dick Van Dyke Show. We’d known each other a long time. And he said, before I give you an answer on Remington Steele, let me give you a script, and he sent Hill Street Blues to me. And, immediately, the directorial disdain surfaced.

(Audience laughter)

Director Robert Butler and Archivist Mark Quigley (January 24, 2014)
Butler: Do we really need another cop show? So that kind of cleared my head and I knew I had to go to work again. And, I had the boss’s ear. Grant Tinker was the boss. I had the certainty, which was that cleanliness was hideous and messiness was appropriate, and more real and more recognizable also, so I was able to shake that execution of that story up, overlap the dialogue, [and] make the lighting look kind of routine and hideous and improper in places. Truly, the cinematographer, a very knowledgeable Hollywood guy, knew when I said, “Look, let’s make this thing look awful. I want it to look awful.” He knew I was talking about Hollywood awful.

I mean, we were going to be able to see everybody, it was going to work fine, but it just was going to be less shiny, glossy, perfect, surface-y, clean. So he would come up to me, I think just to assure himself, and he would say, “Listen, man, it’s looking pretty bad.”

(Audience laughter)

Butler: And I would always say, “Good. Make it look worse.”

(Audience laughter)

Butler: And that’s really the truth of the way we worked. You know, the show had legs. Let’s face it, it had legs. I remember the fourth act in the hour form having not much action. There’s a tie-down situation around a liquor store where there’s some hostages inside. That’s not a very big opportunity for a chase with people tied down and movies finish with some form of action, chase, gunfight, whatever, and I remember mentioning to the guys, “Guys, we’ve got a talky fourth act.” I mean, sure, the EATers, Emergency Action Team that Howard Hunter, Jim Sikking, he’s here tonight with us, were active and they blew up the back door and then shot up the liquor bottles, etc., but it was clever and it was wordy and it was somewhat action-less. I expressed this as humbly, secretly, arrogantly, as I possibly could, and blank faces. You try to win an argument three times and if you don’t you forget it and move on because the clock is ticking, the sun’s going down, the teacher is going to take the kids away from you, and you have to get the damned thing shot. So, I gave in, and your friendly director was wrong, man, because the fourth act played great. So bet on me less than a hundred percent of the time.

Quigley: Well, they invited you back to direct more than just the pilot of Hill Street, so you did something right. We have time to take some questions and then we want to come back to introduce Columbo, but let’s first take some questions.

Audience Member #1: Hi, you said you went to Uni High here in West Los Angeles. What were your goals as a high school student, and how did you get into directing? You started as an usher, but what was your experience in directing, and did you learn directing in college like they do these days? What were your goals when you were in Uni High?

Butler: My answer, the director’s answer, is get as close to the scene as you possibly can. The making of the scene – the actors, the directors, what’s happening there. That’s where the action is. That’s where the storytelling takes place. You combine the page with the actor with the cinematography and all of it, and you deliver that to the audience. I knew in high school with my dance bands, because I led them easily and got good results in the rehearsals and so on, that I was some kind of idea man, but I didn’t know what, so I sent letters out to studios and got no results and went to work at CBS as an usher and, more importantly, got into production, got near the storytelling. Not at it yet, but near it. Usher, receptionist, production clerk – a couple, three years of production clerk. What lenses are to be ordered, what cable pullers are to be ordered, how many extra cameras, production, how you do it, the tools that make it work – production assistant. Then stage manager, handling the cast, being there during rehearsals, and watching the director and the actors put the show together and make it recognizable and kind of real and believable. I stood right next to the directors as that was happening as a stage manager. Then, co-pilot, associate director. I did it with directors and now I’m in the booth, in the control room, with the pilot, and I’m like the co-pilot, readying the shots and taking care of the crew, all well-rehearsed under the director’s captaincy, of course, but then co-piloting and then getting a break on Hennesy. Those are the steps.

Sidebar – I’m sitting at NBC playing trombone with the teenagers on a radio show. That’s radio show.

(Audience laughter)

Butler: I’m watching this guy called a contact producer – he’s the director – Ed Cashman, apparently a very well-liked, effective guy. Brooks Brothers suits, kind of jazzy, I knew it wasn’t totally sincere, his act. I realized there was a lot of frosting going on there, but I was watching this guy. He fascinated me, and the idea dawned on me, and this is partly in answer to your question, he’s having fun while he’s working for a living. Ding!

(Audience laughter)

Butler: That was new to me at age sixteen or seventeen, and I carried that with me, and have told our kids, “Don’t work for a living. Find another way.” That’s in the mix, but that’s a capsule of moi.

(Audience applause)

Audience Member #2: As you look over your respected career being the director of so many pilots, I wanted to ask, as you look as the pilots transitioned to series, did you agree or disagree within any casting changes between the pilot and the series, and on those few pilots like Sirens, The Brotherhood, and Our Family Honor that were not a success that Star Trek and Batman and Hogan’s Heroes were, did you understand, perhaps, why those pilots or series did not follow the success of your initial presentation?

Butler: The second part of the question very much has to do with legs. Does it work? Is it believable? Do the audiences recognize the people? Do they sympathize with them? Do they pull for them? Does the notion have legs? Does it carry its audience? Certain ideas just do and certain do less so. Cop shows, wearying as they may be, have legs. The doctor shows used to have, more than currently in our lives, legs. And that’s very mysterious. Only you really know what legs are. We’re trying to figure them out and label them, but you know, and we, as we sit with you in test nights, we can – it’s amazing the way you speak to us as we’re watching a piece of work – where you’re quiet, where you’re fidgety, where you chuckle, where you laugh, whether you’re quiet as a cemetery. All that is clear beyond our knowledge – you know what legs are and we’re always trying to figure out legs and retrospectively, I can see largely, that some of the shows, have better legs than the other[s].

The first part of the question I think has to do with casting and execution further down the line. That’s very personal. That has to do with winning arguments, as I say. You’ve got the character on the page, and the actor walks in, and in eighty percent of the cases you can tell within the first six footsteps across the room whether that actor is going to be in the neighborhood for this part or not be. It’s very clear and it’s very personal. You have to win the argument with the others in the room, the producer and the network, whomever. That’s kind of wordy. What it has to do with is, as you’re telling that initial story, you try to make it as clear as you possibly can with the use of the casting trickery, whatever that may be. Later, as you watch the show, you don’t care, man, you’re on to other things. You’re interested in the next job, not the last one, the next one, or something.

Audience Member #3: What was your technique with the actors, and did it change if it was a pilot, or did it change according to the actor?

Butler: Yes, it did change with almost each actor, slightly. What you’re trying to do is get the actor to be his or her best. I don’t necessarily mean shriekiest [sic] or loudest or more teary or with bigger whimpers. There’s something else inside that’s organic that they are expressing, the character they have read on the page, with who they are. Relaxation, like in sports, is the best way to get there. I ‘m told that in baseball, when you hit the home run, there’s not a crash or a bang or a crunch, there’s a click. All the energy is channeled and it’s efficient and the thing goes over the fence. If you’ve got the actors confidence to the extent that he/she can relax and believe what you’re saying, or question what you’re saying, and go 180 to argue with you. If they’re comfortable enough so that they can get conversant and comfortable with what they’re trying to do, and you chose them or didn’t in those first seven steps across the office, then you’re doing a good job with them. As it changed through the years…

[At this point, my phone reached its recording limit, resulting in about 30 seconds of missing audio.]

Butler: You’ve realized that they’ve done semblances of what they’re going to do with you thirty, fifty, a hundred and fifty times. They know how to do that. Now, the thing’s that different, is that the words are different and their partner is different. So you’re getting a new combination of a recognizably comfortable character like Tilly who lives down the street or George on the next street over. You recognize those people and you don’t want to get beyond, too far, you want to be a little beyond the recognition, which is another point I grant, but you want to be a little beyond the recognition so it’s fresh and unusual and slightly startling. Slightly– not usually startling because you don’t know what the hell you’re looking at, except it’s an odd combination of the discreet sell-out (chuckles). The intelligent sell-out with the audience being considered at every turn, every single constant turn, only the audiences know for sure.

Director Robert Butler and Archivist Mark Quigley (January 24, 2014)
Quigley: That’s a perfect segue to talk about one of the most distinctive shows, if not the most distinctive television series of the seventies, which is Columbo. [It] basically broke a lot of rules, and there was a lot of reasons why it worked and a lot of it had to do with the directors that were working on it and the star as well.

Butler: Yeah, I was going pretty well, so it wasn’t unreasonable of me to be offered a Columbo or two and the producer was a terribly good guy and a funny guy and so on. Peter, as a trained accountant, with his accountant and lawyer, had determined before I got on the scene in the third or fourth season that everybody was making a zillion dollars and he didn’t have to grind them out so bad. They were all scheduled at nine days, and they all went ten, eleven, twelve, and nobody was saying anything. You go over a day or two and boy, they’re on your back, they’re above you like flies, and I kept looking around and there was nobody there. I had a good time, but it was odd and questionable, and really fun. The content was fun, Peter was fun, very respectful, interested guy, who said, “Great, let’s move on. Oh, oh, oh, no, man, let’s just, let’s just, do we have time for one…” [Peter was] always sane, reasonable, encouraging, [and] respectful. “Do we have time for one more shoot?” What am I going to say? No?

(Audience laughter)

Butler: “Yeah man, sure, let’s do it! Go, guys, let’s go.” That’s where the time goes – Peter perfecting and refining. Again, there’s no perfect, it’s refining what he’s doing for that audience. And I said, to Roland Kibbee, the producer, because of the conditions I’ve outlined to you, [it] was strange, I said, “You know, this is really a good show. I’d love to direct one sometime.” And he said, “Yeah, I’ve got a lot of writers not writing ‘em, too.”

(Audience laughter)

Quigley: Really quickly, your take on the Columbo character that you can enlightened Peter Falk a little bit, in a way, is pretty interesting.

Butler: Yeah, Peter hadn’t thought of an idea that was obvious to me, and I hung my interpretation on, and that was that Columbo wanted everybody he dealt with not to be guilty. He wanted them to be innocent (chuckles). I mean, you know the scene. “Listen, Mr. Stone, I’m so sorry that I had bad thoughts about you. I promise that I won’t do that again, sir. Really, good luck in your life, and all your thievery, and all the rest of it.”

(Audience laughter)

Butler: “I just want to say it’s been an honor being with you, sir.” And he walks to the door, and he stops, and he turns around and says, “There’s just one thing…”

(Audience laughter)

Butler: And you know that in the next three minutes the villain is going to get it in the neck. That’s the way the show was built. In answer to Mark’s question, it was an absolutely magnificent marriage of the man on the page and the actor. Whether all that fiddideling [sic] that Peter did was in the original material, or whether it was just suggested, I don’t know, but his training, his orientation, his positivism, I guess, with that character was just strong as an ox. As we will see, he is irresistible. The people around him are good, the performances are good, good people are hired, Jim Sikking is in one of the scenes… It’s just a very, very well-mounted, well-organized, supremely performed show. Now, we can get snobby and say it gets a little cute at times, and what he does is a little redundant, but try and resist it. Try and resist it! You can’t, man. The guy knows the character, he knows the show, and he knows how to reach us, and he did time after time after time.

Watch for one scene. Mariette Hartley, a very nice actress, plays an editor in the show [‘Publish or Perish,’ a season three episode of Columbo], and she and he have a scene that’s just very quiet and natural. It’s not unlike the Doc and our Star Trek hero, Jeff Hunter, that early scene that I’ve said we’ve all seen many times before. There’s a solidity and a familiarity and an ease by them and by us because we know what they’re dealing with and what they’re doing is so terrific and solid. You’ll notice that scene with Mariette and Peter in Columbo.

Finding a Composer for Star Trek's First Pilot

$
0
0
Still from 'Requiem for Methuselah' (1969)
The process of hiring a composer to score 'The Menagerie' was an arduous one. According to Herb Solow, "We approached agents and managers, only to discover their top film and pilot composers were working elsewhere or not interested." After so many rejections, Solow says, "Wilbur [Hatch] came to us with a suggestion, volunteering the name of an arranger working at Twentieth Century Fox." The name of that arranger was Alexander Courage, and rest is history.

Almost fifty years later, however, it's fascinating to read the names of some of the other composers who were considered for Star Trek's first pilot, which we have thanks to notes taken during a music meeting held on December 8. 1964. As music historian Neil Lerner points out, the list is a fascinating mix of "well-established names (such as Franz Waxman, David Raksin, Hugo Friedhofer, and Elmer Bernstein) and up-and-comers who have since become quite famous, like Jerry Goldsmith and John Williams."

This behind-the-scenes document has been printed before, in Lerner's informative essay, "Hearing the Boldly Goings: Tracking the Title Themes of the Star Trek Television Franchise, 1966-2005," although the version found there has been edited from the original.  What follows is a complete transcription of the original document, found in the Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series papers held by UCLA. The misspellings are the work of whoever originally typed up the notes, possibly D.C. Fontana, who was Roddenberry's secretary at the time. My notes are in brackets.

NOTES ON MUSIC MEETING - 12/8/64

1 - Jerry Goldsmith - Not Available [Eventually hired by Roddenberry to score Star Trek--The Motion Picture in 1979]

2 - Elmer Bernstein - Interested - likes pilot - wants to read script. Wilbur sending script to Bernstein.

3 - Harry Sukman - MGM - Available [Scored an episode of The Lieutenant and the unsold pilot 333 Montgomery Street, both for Roddenberry]

4 - Les Baxter - Available - Wilbur Hatch reluctant to recommend.

5 - Dominic Tronteri - Available [Scored multiple episodes of The Outer Limits, which involved associate producer Byron Haskin and assistant director Robert H. Justman]

6 - Franz Waxman - Available

7 - Sy Coleman - Suggested by Oscar Katz - Wilbur checking him out.

8 - Alexander Courage - Young composer - up and coming.

9 - Hugh Friedholder - Did some of the original music on Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.

10 - David Raxton - Wrote Laura. Works closely with the producer.

11 - Johnny Green - Would love to do a series. Did music for Empire.

12 - Leith Stevens - Doing Novack. Did the last few shows for Empire. Score a feature with a Science Fiction theme. [Scored Roddenberry's unsold pilot, A.P.O. 923, as well as the Haskin-directed The War of the Worlds (1953)]

13 - Johnny Williams - Did Checkmate - Presently doing music for "Baby Makes Three" pilot for Bing Crosby Prods.

14 - Jack Elliott - Suggested by Oscar Katz - Feels that he has great potential. Wilbur checking him out.

15 - Wilbur Hatch checking out the composer of "The Man from Iphania" [The identity of this composer remains a mystery to me]

16 - Will Markowitz - Wilbur checking him out. [Richard Markowitz was later hired to score episodes of Mission: Impossible and Mannix for Desilu]

17 - Lalo Shiffrin - Recommended by Wilbur Hatch and Herb Solow - Wilbur checking him out. [Later hired to score Desilu's two other successful pilots from this era -- Mission: Impossible and Mannix]

18 - Nathan Van Cleave - Wilbur checking him out. [Van Cleave had previously worked with Byron Haskin on two features, Conquest of Space (1955) and Robinson Crusoe on Mars (1964)]

Image courtesy of Trek Core.

Sources:

The Gene Roddenberry Star Trek Television Series Collection (1964-1969)

Inside Star Trek : The Real Story (Herbert F. Solow and Robert H. Justman, 1996)

Music in Science Fiction Television: Tuned to the Future (edited by K.J. Donnelly and Philip Hayward, 2013)

Unseen Trek: "The V.I.Ps" by Gene Lesser & Malachi Throne

$
0
0
Malachi Throne in "The Menagerie, Part II" (1966)
Story Outline by Gene Lesser & Malachi Throne (undated)
Review and analysis by David Eversole
Originally Posted at Orion Press 

THE OPENING PARAGRAPH OF THE OUTLINE:

The civilization of an unexplored galaxy – existing unseen... and unknown... in the black end of the light spectrum – almost incinerates the Enterprise and its crew when it arrests the ship’s course to capture it.

SYNOPSIS:

Soon Tares (of the planet Thades, a member of the Thedusian System) communicates his desire to study the ship and its inhabitants. The Thedusians live on a different "light wave length" and they and their planetary system cannot be seen by those living on different light wave lengths. Kirk agrees to host the visitors, despite the manner in which his attention was gained. 

Three "AMORPHIC LIGHT-HAZE" Thedusian V.I.P.s (Tares, himself, among them) arrive on the ship and are given a tour. Despite their outward kindness and pleasant voices, their presence makes the humans aboard fill distinctly ill at ease. The feeling grows to near hysteria. Even Kirk and Bones feel uneasy, but manage to control it. Only Spock is unaffected. The VIPS leave because of the fear they are inducing.

Tares still wishes to know more and insists the Enterprise visit his world. Kirk reluctantly agrees and the ship is put through a "light wave warp affect [sic]" and Kirk  sees for the first time the six Thedusian planets which have been moved into a spherical shell nearer to their sun to maximize its beneficial effects.

Tares informs Kirk that his people once visited Earth thousands of years ago, and even attempted to help the humans. However their advances were repelled and they left. He was surprised to discover an Earth ship passing through their system, and stopped it out of curiosity to see if humans had made any progress. He admits that they have advanced "some."

Tares goes on to tell of how his people planted colonies in those long ago days in the "Earth Galaxy" and his people have been curious as to how they evolved. Imagine his surprise when they detected a descendant of one of those seeded worlds onboard the Enterprise… Mr. Spock. They hope his development can provide an answer to one of their most pressing problems.

Furthermore, since they fear their existence would become known and invite invaders, the Enterprisecannot be allowed to leave the Thedusian system.

Kirk attempts to assure Tares that the people of the Earth Galaxy are no longer war-like, but he will not listen. Tares reminds Kirk of how everybody on the Enterprise reacted in fear and uneasiness when he and his two fellow light creatures came aboard. Plus, they have a great secret that must not be known. And Tares, the gentle being of light, begins to change… into a leathery-skinned, cloven-hoofed creature. A DEVIL. (Dave intrudes -- Hey, these CAPS are not my own, okay?)

A separate city simulating Earth conditions will be built for the crew of the Enterprise. All will live out their lives in peace and harmony.

Tares wants to know exactly which planet in the Earth Galaxy (I love typing that) Spock hails from. Once known, the Thedusians will locate planets of similar chemical make-up, go there and be able to change their appearance so that everybody they meet won't hate them.

(Okay…)

What if you can't find similar planets, Kirk asks. Tares hesitates. Spock surmises that the Thedusians would then seek out his home world and take it over. Therefore Spock refuses to tell them which planet in the Earth Galaxy he is from.

Tares pleads, and Spock is sympathetic. He agrees to tell which planet in the Earth Galaxy he is from… if Tares will release Kirk and the others. Kirk is having none of it, and denies Spock's sacrifice. Tares grows angry, his body pulsates with heat, fire erupts from it, threatening to engulf every crewman on the ship. Kirk ain't impressed. But he does offer to make a deal.

If the Enterpriseis released back to their light wave length, he will make a "memory tape" of Spock's mind and transmit it to Tares. Tares huffs and puffs and pulsates, but, you see, its just a show. He really couldn't hurt anyone. He agrees.

Back on the Enterprise, Kirk has McCoy hook Spock to an electrode cap with wires leading to an ionized leaden container to tape his memories. Once done, they transmit it to Tares, and the Enterpriseleaps into "ram-warp" speed to escape. But the ship shudders with a "tremendous electronic shock blast," and everyone is stunned "into comatose." 

When Kirk revives he sees that Spock is still sitting there, unmoving, mindless, with the electrode cap on his head. McCoy moves to him, notes the wires which run to the container which is labeled "SPOCK TAPE." McCoy feeds the Spock tape back into Spock's brain -- he revives as well and opines that the escape attempt from the Thedusians was obviously successful.

Huh?  What? What are Thedusians?

FROM THE OUTLINE:

Spock looks at his colleagues – realizing the truth. He mumbles something about having had a dream...Kirk agrees...the heat band they just passed through was a rough one. A report comes through from communications. In checking the tapes – they’ve discovered every tape aboard ship shows a blank.... since hitting the heat wave...but the tapes appear to have run through a two-day period – and they seem to have been wiped clean...simoultaneously [sic].

Kirk looks questioningly at Spock – who merely shrugs. It must have been the heat....“Correct our course for Athosargasa...”


THOUGHTS:

I have nothing but admiration for the acting talents of the late, great Malachi Throne (in fact I wish I had such a cool name -- show me a name more euphonious and impressive than MALACHI THRONE!). He was a fine, fine character actor whose presence lent a gravitas to roles others would have been forgettable in, but as a writer...

Pass.

--------------

Editor's Note: Although Malachi Throne (1928-2013) had a prolific career as an actor, as far as I've been able to determine, he never had a produced screenplay or teleplay. Gene Lesser (born 1925) appears to have been active as a television writer from 1958 to 1968, during which time he wrote for Death Valley Days, Zane Grey Theater, and Lock Up.

Image courtesy of Trek Core.

Review originally posted at Orion Press.

Unseen Trek: Star Trek Stories by Gene Roddenberry

$
0
0
Gene Roddenberry on the set of "The Menagerie" (1964)
Stories written by Gene Roddenberry (undated, possibly 1966)
Review and Analysis by David Eversole
Originally posted at Orion Press

THE STORIES:

This collection of short (one-half to two-thirds of a page each, single-spaced) premises are springboards from which longer outlines could be written. They laid out the bare bones of the plot, usually only from Kirk's viewpoint.

"MACHINE X1004"

On a world paralleling 1966 Earth, an Enterprise landing party goes in search of an earlier landing party which has disappeared. They find a world where every action seems scripted. The people go through their life's routines, never missing a beat. Any deviation is punished, and it is surmised that the earlier landing party was so punished. Soon we discover that these are actually robots emulating the behavior of their long-dead creators.

But a few nonconformist robots have developed sentience and do not play along.

"REGULATION 11"

Kirk is more than a bit angry when Earth Base replaces Mr. Spock with an irritating new officer -- one who seems bent on inciting mutiny and in general upsetting the normal routines of the ship. Kirk begins to wonder if the guy is an alien planted there to bring his ship down.

But no, just the opposite. The guy is a loyal officer, placed there to ferret out suspected aliens bent on bringing the ship down.

"PASSENGERS FOR DIMOS"

The Enterprise is assigned the duty of transporting prisoners to Dimos, a penal planet. But a young officer falls in love with a prisoner who insists she is innocent. Complications arise when Kirk discovers that there might be an alien race living on Dimos who will destroy the prisoners once the Enterprise departs.

"STAR TREK TIME MACHINE"

The Enterprise discovers a planet where time travel has been realized. A guest star crewman steals a time machine, goes back in time and does something that affects the present. Kirk and Spock go back and stop him. They return to find everything has been set right.

It ends with a suggestion that this could be the pilot for a Star Trek "Time Machine" spin-off series.

"VALLEY OF THE GIANTS"

The Enterprise discovers a world where the super intellects amuse themselves by bringing back to life great men from Earth's past. Luminaries such as Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Washington, Lincoln, Richard Wagner and Bluebeard. Kirk and crew are pitted against these giants in a life and death struggle.

"GHOSTS"

No storyline is presented in this one sentence premise. Roddenberry simply proposes a world where ghosts are the norm and the living are the interlopers.

"TURNABOUT"

A planet where a "sex warp" switches the gender of anyone going ashore. Roddenberry wonders if they can pull off a story with Bill Shatner playing a woman without becoming too "fey."

ANALYSIS:

Good heavens, the worst of the lot actually made it to air! Minus the "Sex Warp," thank goodness.

As these are merely springboards, one wonders if they could have been given to other writers to develop… The time machine sounds a lot like "The City on the Edge of Forever," but then again, most time travel stories sound like that if you break them down to the bare bones. Could it have come early in Roddenberry's musings for "Assignment: Earth?" And yes, "Machine X1004" does have a few slight similarities to "The Return of The Archons," though I'd be hard-pressed to say if the story originated there. "Valley of the Giants" is reminiscent of "The Savage Curtain." Could "Passengers For Dimos" been the notion behind "Dagger of The Mind" or did "Regulation 11" lead to "I, Mudd?" The connections are tenuous at best, I know, but it is fun speculating.

--------------

Editor's Note: Although "Machine X1004" may have a few similarities to "The Return of The Archons," that episode's origins are much earlier, as one of Roddenberry's three original outlines submitted to NBC in 1964 as candidates to be developed into the first pilot.

Image courtesy of Trek Core.

Review originally posted at Orion Press.

'While He Wanders His Galaxy' -- Gene Roddenberry's Controversial Star Trek Lyrics

$
0
0


Alexander Courage's credit on "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (1965)
In June, I wrote an article about Alexander Courage's time on Star Trek, and some of the incorrect information that has circulated about his contributions to the series. In that piece, one of the topics discussed was the friction that occurred between the composer and Gene Roddenberry, due to the controversial lyrics Roddenberry penned for the show's theme music. Since publishing that piece, I have found further documentation which more fully illustrates what happened, and confirms a few of the claims made in Herb Solow and Bob Justman's book, Inside Star Trek: The Real Story (1996).

To begin with, here is the version of events related by Herb Solow in that book:
When Sandy Courage was given his contract to write the Star Trek music, he was unaware of a two-sentence clause toward the end of the agreement. Thinking it was more of the usual boilerplate, Sandy signed the agreement without reading it fully. The clause, inserted by Gene's attorney, Leonard Maizlish, gave Gene the right to write a lyric to Courage's theme.
Almost two years later, after NBC put Star Trek on its schedule, Sandy received a call from Leonard Maizlish: "Listen, from now on we will be collecting one-half of your royalties." Sandy, confused as to how this could happen, spoke to Desilu Music Department head Wilbur Hatch and Desilu attorney Ed Perlstein. "They told me there was nothing that could be done, legally," said Sandy, and when he questioned Roddenberry, Gene explained, "Hey, I have to get some money somewhere. I'm sure not going to get it out of the profits of Star Trek."
-- Herb Solow, Inside Star Trek: The Real Story (1966), p.185 
And here's what David Alexander's authorized biography of Roddenberry has to say on the subject:
In early December [1965], Gene finished the lyrics to the Star Trek theme and sent them to Ed Perlstein. The lyrics would be a small source of income, but it cut the royalty in half for the writer of the music, Alexander Courage, and engendered some bitterness on his part. Two and a half years later, on October 3, 1967, Gent wrote to Courage in an attempt to straighten things out. 
--David Alexander, Star Trek Creator: The Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry (1994), p.235 
These two accounts are somewhat contradictory. According to Solow's account, Roddenberry did not write his lyrics until Star Trek had been placed on NBC's schedule; in Alexander's version, however, Roddenberry's lyrics were written in December of 1965, a few months before NBC ordered the first season. Luckily, the archival evidence is enough to point us in the direction of the version closer to the truth.

On December 16, 1964, Desilu attorney Ed Perlstein sent a memo to Shirley Stahnke asking her to draw up two contracts with Alexander Courage, "one covering his services as conductor and arranger, and the other covering his compositions in respect to the one-hour pilot film 'Star Trek' for a total fee of $2,000 or scale, whichever is greater." In the very next paragraph, Perlstein addressed the issue of royalties, writing, "Please provide the 50-50 split with respect to monies received from exploitation of the music other than from BMI (Desilu is to receive the BMI publisher's share of royalties and Mr. Courage will receive composer's BMI royalties)."

This initial (and typical) royalty split, however, did not last long. Two weeks later, on December 30, 1964, Perlstein sent Stahnke another memo asking her to revise the terms of Courage's contract:
Please alter the Alexander Courage contract with Desilu for the "Star Trek" pilot to indicate that Gene Roddenberry has the right to write lyrics for the theme music and continuity music, and that in the event Gene Roddenberry writes lyrics for the theme music and/or continuity music, Gene Roddenberry will receive one-half of the composer's share of the BMI royalties for the theme music whether or not such lyrics are used on the television series; and if Gene Roddenberry writes lyrics for the continuity music and such lyrics are utilized on the series, then Gene Roddenberry shall also share the composer's BMI royalties with Alexander Courage for the series.
According to Courage, he didn't read his contract fully, and was therefore unaware of this last-minute addition to it. Star Trek's first score was recorded a few weeks later, on January 21, 1965.  The response to the music seems to have been quite positive, and there's no evidence of any friction between Courage and Roddenberry a this point. In a March 5, 1965 letter from Roddenberry to Courage, for example, the writer-producer wrote:
The reaction to the music you composed and directed for STAR TREK has been so universally outstanding that I thought I owed you this letter. What we have had is not just an occasional compliment but rather consistent praise. 
You successfully avoided all of the stylizations [sic] and other traps of science fiction, successfully blended feelings of past and present and personal identification, in short did really outstanding work. You've made a lot of admirers and friends during this job.
On March 29, 1965, Roddenberry sent Courage a short letter informing him that NBC had ordered a second pilot episode for the series and on July 6, 1965 he sent the composer a complementary letter along with the script for "Where No Man Has Gone Before." In that letter, Roddenberry wrote:
There has never been any question in my mind that you are the man to do this one too -- and I have hopes this episode will put us over the top and into a long association together. 
As you probably know by now, one of the primary things we must prove in this episode is that we can bring STAR TREK in on budget. As a result, budget and cost is very important to us on this one. My hope is that we can use at least fifty percent of the music from the previous show and devise the rest with an eye to doing the best possible job at the least in men and time. Because this is so important, it is probably wise that you have this script well in advance so that you can begin to do some thinking on it. 
Assume the deal has been made -- if not, or if there are any problems, please let me know immediately. I the meantime, looking forward to seeing you soon.
The production's plan to reuse music from the first pilot in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" was ultimately abandoned. On November 29, 1965 (the same day Courage recorded his score for the second pilot), Ed Perlstein wrote a memo to Shirley Stahnke explaining the change in plans:
In as much as we will not be using any of the music with respect to the first "Star Trek" pilot film in connection with the second "Star Trek" pilot film and the amount of original music that will be composed, arranged and conducted by Alexander Courage will be equal to, if not more than the original 25 to 26 minutes of music originally scored, it is agreed that Alexander Courage will receive a fee of $2,000 instead of $1,2500 for conducting, composing and arranging for the second "Star Trek" pilot film.
Alexander Courage's score for the second Star Trek pilot featured a new theme, although the production ultimately opted to use Courage's theme music from "The Menagerie" when Star Trek became a weekly series. December 1965, the month after the score was recorded, is when David Alexander claims Roddenberry wrote his lyrics to Courage's (first) Star Trek theme, but in fact, Roddenberry wouldn't pen his lyrics until a full year after this date.

At some point in late 1966, Desilu made an agreement with Dot Records to have Charles Randolph Grean record a pop version of the Star Trek theme. On December 2, 1966, Ed Perlstein sent a memo to Howard Rayfiel, the resident counsel for Desilu Productions, along with the Dot Records contract for the recording of the Star Trek theme:
The contract indicated the composer as Alexander Courage but I inserted the name of Gene Roddenberry with Alexander Courage because Gene is writing the lyrics to the Star Trek theme even though the record which has been prepared for distribution, which, incidentally, will be released within the next week or so, does not contain lyrics. The proper composers and lyricists for receipt of their share of royalties are Alexander Courage and Gene Roddenberry. 
Gene has advised me he is currently writing the lyrics and will be submitting them shortly. The covering letter requests that we furnish Dot with the author, which we have, the publisher, which is the Bruin Music Company, and copyright registration data, which I am sure you have, and two copies of the music and lyrics of said composition. I am enclosing herewith two copies of the music for the composition.
The contracts cannot be returned to Dot until we have the lyrics and I am sure, by copy of this memo, Gene will get to it and get the lyrics to you as quickly as possible.
A week later, on December 9, 1966, as the record was about to be released, Roddenberry sent his lyrics to Perlstein along with a short note:
Per your request, attached are my STAR TREK lyrics. 
Is this sufficient?
Although Roddenberry's lyrics have been printed elsewhere (Inside Star Trek: The Real Story includes the sheet music with the lyrics on pages 179-182), eagle-eyed fans will notice a slight difference between Roddenberry's initial version of the lyrics (below) and those which were later printed on the sheet music and reproduced elsewhere:
    STAR TREK     
(lyrics) 
Beyond the rim of the star light
My love is wandering in star flight
I know he'll find in star clustered reaches
Love, strange love, a star woman teaches 
I know his journey ends never
His star trek will go on forever
But tell him while he wanders his galaxy
Remember
Remember me
Although the album had been recorded and manufactured prior to the date when Roddenberry actually wrote the lyrics, contractually, that didn't matter -- Roddenberry would receive half the music royalties related to the record, in addition to any other use of the theme.

The record in question -- only Courage, not Roddenberry, is credited
The arrangement between Star Trek and Dot Records and Charles Randolph Grean appears to have gone well. On December 14, 1966, Herb Solow sent Ed Perlstein a memo encouraging him to pursue the record deal with Dot Records, because "the more time we can get the name 'STAR TREK' in front of the buying public, the better it is for all of us." Ten days after he submitted his lyrics, on December 19, 1966, Roddenberry sent Ed Perlstein a memo requesting promotional copies of the record and inquiring about a proposed album by Leonard Nimoy:
Reference promotional copies of the STAR TREK theme record, this office could use five dozen of them for “thank you” give-aways to science fiction “greats” who are currently helping us out on a mail campaign, and other similar places. 
In the matter of the Leonard Nimoy album, since it will undoubtedly contain something of the STAR TREK theme, I would expect to receive a lyric royalty. And, since “Mr. Spock” is a creation of mine (maintained against some odds) I would like to have some voice in the nature and direction of this album, nor do I feel that a special arrangement with myself and Norway Corporation on profits from that album would be at all out of order. 
Reference both items in the preceding paragraph, would very much appreciate an answering memo on them at your earliest convenience. 
-- Quoted by Herb Solow and Bob Justman, Inside Star Trek: The Real Story (1966), p.184 
When the promotional records finally arrived at Desilu, Ed Perlstein sent Gene Roddenberry a memo, dated January 11, 1967:
I am delivering to you some four to six dozen records (I haven't counted them) which were ordered by me from Dot at a cost of 15¢ per record which we are charging to earnings from the Dot recording deal and any other record deals we may make on STAR TREK. This is per your request for submitting records to various science fiction writers, etc. 
In a previous letter which I forwarded to you which included a letter from Dot, Dot indicated they had neglected to put your name down as author of the lyrics in the first Dot release but will do so in connection with future releases of this Dot record.
The Masterpiece (1972) also neglected to credit Roddenberry
Although Dot Records would credit Roddenberry on at least one other version of the Star Trek theme they released (1967's Mr. Spock's Music from Outer Space), subsequent re-releases of the version recorded by The Charles R. Grean Sounde in 1972 and 1975 still omitted Roddenberry's name, crediting only Courage.

The Leonard Nimoy record deal, of course, went through and led to a number of successful albums. After concluding the recording sessions on the first, Charles Grean wrote to Ed Perlstein in which he praised Nimoy's performance.
The finished album has eleven numbers -- six of them vocals and recitations by Leonard (who, incidentally, did a wonderful job and was most cooperative). Although it is really no concern of mine, I think Nimoy should be given a higher percentage than you have offered him, since he actually performs on more than half of the album, and since he worked so hard and so efficiently to make this an outstanding record. He also will do a great promotion job for the album, and has shown the ability to do this while in New York the past few days. Again, I say, this probably isn't any of my business, but since Desilu will receive money from four copyrights, I think Leonard deserves his proportionate share. I have not discussed this with him.
Nimoy's first album -- the aforementioned Mr. Spock's Music from Outer Space -- included a version of Courage's Star Trek theme. When the royalty money from the record arrived at Desilu, Ed Perlstein issued a memo to Art Baron (with royalty recipients Gene Roddenberry, Gene Coon, Wilbur Hatch, Lalo Schifrin, and Alexander Courage on carbon copy) detailing money to be paid to the composers of the various compositions on the album. When Courage saw the following line item, it must have prompted him to call Roddenberry and ask him to explain the situation:
STAR TREK THEME
Alexander Courage (composer) $ 77.06 
Gene Roddenberry (lyricist)    77.05 
Bruin Music Company          154.11 
$308.22
The content of that conversation is unknown, but Roddenberry's written follow-up to Courage, dated October 3, 1967, is not:
Dear Sandy: 
After the telephone conversation with you, I sat down and spent some time going over old notes and jogging my memory regarding our conversations so long ago regarding STAR TREK music. Perhaps this will help refresh your memory -- in my old office, the small bungalow across the lot, you and I sat down one afternoon and discussed sharing the credits on the music. I recall very distinctly that you shook your head and stated you would naturally prefer not to split the money on the theme but, on the other hand, since this was the way it was and since we were working closely together on the concept you would go along with it. You may recall that shortly afterwards I assigned you to do the theme on POLICE STORY, unfortunately not sold, and did not ask for a similar arrangement since I had no strong notions about that music and did not expect to work as closely with you on it. 
I think you know it has never been my way or policy to be unfair. On the other hand, I have always considered handshake agreements not only to be as binding as written agreements but also more important. I am certain you feel the same way and intend no effort to violate such agreement. 
I am sending the enclosed to you in all hopes that a reference to your old notes on the subject will recall to your mind that conversation.
Although Inside Star Trek: The Real Story indicated that Courage's absence* during the second season was due to the composer being upset over splitting the royalties, as I wrote previously, the vast majority of the second season's original scores had already been recorded by the time Courage seems to have been made aware of anything unusual with his royalties from the theme music.

*As several readers have pointed out -- and as I wrote about last year -- Courage wasn't totally absent during the second season, as was asserted by Solow and Justman in Inside Star Trek: The Real Story and has been repeated in various places online. In fact, on June 16, 1967, he conducted thirty minutes of library music (much of it newly composed), as well as a new arrangement of the Star Trek theme.

Image from 'Where No Man Has Gone Before' courtesy of Trek Core.

Editor's Note: A few readers have asked if I will be reviewing Marc Cushman's These Are The Voyages - TOS: Season Two. If I get my hands on a copy of the book, I will certainly take a look at it, but I won't be spending any money on it. In other news, I'll be moving next week. While I'm getting settled in my new place, it might be a while until I manage to write anything new. If you'd like to drop me a line while I'm away, ask me a question, or send me behind-the-scenes documents, feel free to contact me using the form to the right.

Sources:

The Gene Roddenberry Star Trek Television Series Collection (1964-1969)

Star Trek Creator: The Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry (David Alexander, 1994)

Inside Star Trek : The Real Story (Herbert F. Solow and Robert H. Justman, 1996)

Star Trek: The Original Series Soundtrack Collection (Liner Notes by Jeff Bond, 2012)


The Truth About Star Trek and the Ratings

$
0
0
Still from "Court Martial" (1967)
Introduction: Success or Failure?

It’s part of the popular understanding of Star Trek that the original series was a ratings disappointment during its first run, which was cancelled by NBC due to low ratings. This view has been reiterated in memoirs, newspapers, documentaries, and academic studies. As Herb Solow and Bob Justman put it in their book about the making of the series:
From the premiere of 'Man Trap' to the finale 'Turnabout Intruder,' despite all the letter-writing campaigns, marches on and harassment of the network, after all the petitions and phone calls and everything else, Star Trek’s Nielsen ratings had dropped by well over fifty percent from birth to death. 
- Herbert F. Solow and Robert H. Justman, Inside Star Trek: The Real Story (1996), p.415
Recently, however, author Marc Cushman has been challenging this account in a series of self-published books and a flurry of interviews promoting them (my review of Cushman’s first volume, These Are The Voyages: TOS – Season Onecan be found here). In one of those interviews, at Trek Core, Cushman said:
Star Trek was not the [ratings] failure that we had been led to believe. 
It was NBC's top rated Thursday night series and, on many occasions, won its time slot against formidable competition, including Bewitched, ABC's most popular show. And when they banished it to Friday nights, as Book Two will reveal, it was the network's top rated Friday night show. Yet NBC wanted to cancel it! Even when they tried to hide it from the fans at 10 p.m., during Season Three, it's [sic] numbers were not as bad as reported. So, once I made this discovery, then, of course, I needed to find out the real reason for the way the network treated Star Trek, and the documents regarding that, which build as we go from Book One to Two and then Three, are quite fascinating.
Cushman elaborates upon his argument near the end of his first volume, These Are The Voyages: TOS – Season One:
One must wonder why a network would even consider cancelling a Top 40 series that was almost always a solid second place in the ratings -- often hitting the No. 1 spot in its timeslot -- against formidable competition, pulling in, on average, just under 30% of the TVs in use across America. (On the few occasions when it slipped to third place, it was always in a close race for the number two spot.) 
- Marc Cushman with Susan Osborn, These Are The Voyages – TOS: Season One (2013), p. 541
The views expressed in These Are The Voyages about Star Trek's ratings performance are, needless to say, irreconcilable with previous accounts. Either the series was a ratings failure -- as has been so often understood -- or it was, as Cushman argues, a ratings success. In order to determine what is fact and what is fiction, I must first lay out the terrain of television audience measurement in the 1960s, and from there examine the methodology, claims, and reasoning of Cushman's argument in detail.

Still from "Assignment: Earth" (1968)
Television Ratings in the 1960s

For a variety of reasons, the landscape of television ratings has changed dramatically in the past fifty years. In the 1960s, when Star Trek first aired, ninety percent of the television audience was tuned in to one of the three broadcast networks (CBS, NBC, and ABC). Today, with the proliferation of hundreds of cable channels, only about twenty five percent of the television audience watches one of the broadcast networks – of which there are now five – and that percentage continues to decline. In 1960, a program watched by thirty percent of that night's television audience (or, in ratings parlance, a "thirty share") might have been cancelled due to low ratings. Today, a thirty share would indicate a monster hit. Thus, it is nearly impossible to usefully compare ratings from the three network era with those from today.

Additionally, in the 1960s, the A.C. Nielsen company wasn't the only ratings game in town. Although Nielsen was the largest ratings service at that time, it had three notable competitors – American Research Bureau (ARB), Trendex, and Pulse – which published their own ratings reports based on their own research methodologies. ARB and Nielsen largely derived their ratings through the use of an automatic recorder, although at the local level they still used the diary method, or:
...a form on which one household member recorded, in prescribed manner, information on television viewing. It typically asked for such information as program name, channel, and sex of listeners by quarter-hours. Diaries provided total audience ratings, computed by quarter-hours, and so did not yield average minute ratings. To calculate total audience ratings, the number of households counted in fifteen-minute intervals was expressed as a percentage of a specified base, usually the potential television audience.
- Katherine Buzzard, Chains of Gold: Marketing the Ratings and Rating the Markets (1990), p.49
In contrast, Trendex and Pulse derived their ratings reports based on two different types of personal interviews:
...the telephone coincidental...used by Trendex, and the in-home interview used by Pulse. The telephone coincidental questioned in-home respondents about what they were viewing when the phone rang, and secured information as to others watching at that time. In addition to being subject to problems of representiveness [sic] (only telephone homes could be reached), the telephone coincidental was expensive.
The personal in-house interview, by contrast, represented television viewing during the preceding twenty-four hours by individual household members.  It was a recall method and provided a measure of total audience. Details of viewers and household characteristics were collected. Pulse, the firm most identified with this method, used a program schedule to reduce the problem of memory loss. The personal interview method was also criticized for contributing to human error by interviewing one family representative for the entire family’s viewing. Its big advantage was the qualitative information it provided about the purchases of TV audiences. Its high cost limited it mostly to metropolitan areas.
- Katherine Buzzard, Chains of Gold: Marketing the Ratings and Rating the Markets (1990), p.50
The differences between these varying methodologies make it somewhat difficult to directly compare the ratings measured by one ratings service to those of another, and their conclusions were sometimes dramatically different. The September 14, 1966 issue of Daily Variety, for example, pointed out that, "ABC contends it is penalized from 10 to 15% in the national Arbitrons, a contention challenged by the other two networks. CBS and NBC, on the other hand, maintain that Trendex inflates ABC ratings."

Finally, it is important to understand that Nielsen, which was already the dominant ratings service in the 1960s, published several different kinds of television ratings while Star Trek was on the air. The backbone of Nielsen's ratings service was the National Television Index (NTI), also known as the "national pocketpiece" or the Nielsen national ratings. The NTI measured ratings based on a two week period using the Nielsen Audimeter:
...an unobtrusive little device which can hide in a closet, yet it records all video set usage – is the set off or on, to what channel is it tuned, what switches are made to other channels, is a second or third set also on, or even a portable one in the backyard? 
- Clay Gowran, "TV Today: How Nielsen Arrives at Those TV Ratings," Chicago Tribune (May 26, 1968)
Because of the sample size (1,190 homes), the technology being used (the Audimeter used a film cartridge, which the participant had to remove and mail to the A.C. Nielsen company at the end of each reporting period), and the time it took to generate a ratings report, the NTI took Nielsen two weeks to create once the reporting period was finished. In order to furnish the three networks with more immediate ratings information, however, Nielsen provided two other notable ratings services – the Multi-Network Area ratings (MNAs) and the "overnights."

The MNAs were based on a subset of the homes sampled for the NTI, and were focused on the thirty largest television markets in the country. Nielsen provided the MNAs on a weekly basis, and at a faster pace than the NTI (it took about a week for Nielsen to process the MNAs, compared to two weeks for the National Nielsens). The most immediate Nielsen ratings, however, were the overnights, which were released within twenty-four hours of being measured. The Nielsen overnights were based on a sample taken from the New York area market (measuring about ten percent of the national television audience). The ratings information found in the overnights, which measured a more urban audience, often painted a different picture than the ratings information found in the National Nielsens, which measured more rural television viewers. The Multi-Network Area ratings painted a picture that was somewhat in the middle.

Ratings comparison for Nielsen ratings 9/12/66 to 9/25/66
Consider, for example, the Nielsen ratings measured during the two week period that elapsed from September 12, 1966 to September 25, 1966. During those two weeks, Star Trek broadcast its second and third episodes, "Charlie X" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before." Note that a simple average of thirty market MNA ratings produces different figures than the NTI, which measured a larger audience. Thus, in the MNAs, Star Trek was competitive against My Three Sons during this period, nearly tying it one week and beating it by more than a full ratings point the next. In the National Television Index, however, My Three Sons pulled ahead of Star Trek by nearly 3.5 ratings points, finishing 12th overall in the National Nielsens (Star Trek placed 33rd).

(Note: Nielsen NTI data found in the October 17, 1966 issue of Broadcasting Magazine. Nielsen MNA data found in These Are The Voyages - TOS: Season One.)


Screencapture from the These Are The Voyages website (2014)
Evaluating Cushman's Ratings Thesis

Having set the table in regards to how television ratings worked when Star Trek was on the air, I'll now delve into the arguments laid out in These Are The Voyages. To begin with, here's Marc Cushman's basic understanding of the way ratings worked in the 1960s, from an interview at Trek Movie:

Here’s how it work [sic] back in the 1960s and even the 1970s: There were two ratings services. One was A.C. Nielsen. The other was Home Testing Institute that did TVQ – competitors. Nielsen would send the network the ratings – a page for each night so it was a seven-page report for all three networks, all the prime time shows.

As already established, there weren't two ratings services in the 1960s – there were four – A.C. Nielsen, American Research Bureau, Trendex, and Pulse. Home Testing Institute was not, strictly speaking, a direct competitor of any of the four ratings services, because it measured totally different things (which I will explain in a moment).

Secondly, as previously established, Nielsen didn't just send the networks "a page for each night." In fact, Nielsen sent the networks several different ratings reports – the overnights, the multi-network area ratings, and the National Television Index ratings. The overnights and the MNAs were broken down nightly, but the NTI was an average of a two-week sample.

Home Testing Institute logo (1963)
On the subject of Home Testing Institute's TVQ, Cushman is continually mistaken about what it actually measures. For example, in his chapter about “Miri,” Cushman writes:

As in past airings, Nielsen’s National survey, factoring in rural communities, gave Star Trek a couple of percentage points less than the “overnights” conducted only in metropolitan areas. But Nielsen wasn’t the only service counting noses.

Home Testing Institute, A.C. Nielsen’s competitor, had a survey of its own called TVQ. For the month of October, which “Miri” closed out, TVQ prepared a Top 10 list and ranked Star Trek as being in a three-way tie for the fifth most popular series on TV, under Bonanza, I Spy, Walt Disney and Red Skelton, and tied with Mission: Impossible, Family Affair and the NBC Saturday Night Movie. The Time Tunnel and Gomer Pyle were at nine and ten, respectively.

- Marc Cushman with Susan Osborn, These Are The Voyages – TOS: Season One (2013), p. 260

Cushman makes several errors in this passage. First of all, the ratings he identifies as Nielsen overnights were actually conducted by Trendex, and the ratings he identifies as "Nielsen's National survey" are actually the thirty market MNAs. These sort of mistakes are rampant in These Are The Voyages, which juxtaposes various Trendex, Nielsen, and Arbitron ratings with no explanation as to the different ways these ratings were measured or their various biases. From the revisions made to the second edition of These Are The Voyages – TOS: Season One, it appears that Cushman had trouble keeping the different ratings straight. Eight reports identified as “Trendex 26-city ratings” in the first edition of the book are relabeled as “Nielsen National ratings” in the second edition, and nineteen other reports initially identified as “Nielsen National ratings” have been relabeled “Nielsen 30-Market ratings” as well.

Perhaps a larger error is the characterization of TVQ as a nose-counting service, which is simply false. For reference, here is the TVQ report brought up in These Are The Voyages (printed in the December 5, 1966 issue of Broadcasting Magazine):

TVQ list from Broadcasting Magazine (1966)
To explain what TVQ actually measures, here is a selection from “TV’s Vast Grey Belt,” an article written by Walter Spencer, which appeared in the August 1967 issue of Television Magazine. Note the sentence I have placed in bold:

Another major grey-area yardstick for Klein [the vice president of audience measurement for NBC] is the “Q Number,” a service of TVQ. It is found by taking the number of people who consider a show among their favorites and dividing it by the total number of people who have seen the show. Thus a “high-Q show” has a dedicated following among people who have watched, although it may not have attracted a large audience.

Such a high-Q situation can occur when a good new show is put on the air against an established popular show; it may get a high-Q number as it picks up an interested audience from among those who tune in, while the majority of viewers are so busy watching their old favorite that they don’t soon get around to trying the high-Q show.

In other words, TVQ measures the dedication of a show’s audience, not the size of it. In spite of this fact, Cushman uses TVQ as an indicator of the size of Star Trek’s audience more than once, including in the following passage:

For its fourth week on the air, with “The Naked Time,” according to TVQ Star Trek won its time slot for the entire hour.

- Marc Cushman with Susan Osborn, These Are The Voyages – TOS: Season One (2013), p. 280

Another component of Cushman’s argument is the notion that the three networks were very secretive about ratings information in the 1960s, because they were afraid that if certain stars or producers got a hold of it, they would use the information as leverage to negotiate a bigger payday:

In the 1960s, A.C. Nielsen delivered the gospel that the networks swore by. But there was an air of secrecy surrounding the gospels -- the ratings reports were not for public consumption. Nielsen would “loan” the survey documents to its customers -- NBC, CBS and ABC, who were very selective with whom the information was shared. Unlike today, those all-important life and death numbers for a television series were confidential. The theory was that if an actor, or producer for that matter, knew exactly how popular his show was, he would be all the more difficult to deal with. Time has proven this thinking correct. Consider how much more a star of a popular series is paid today compared to the 1960s. Shatner was a top-dollar star in 1966, but was only making $5,000 per episode. That would be comparable to around $35,000 now, a paycheck that most TV stars wouldn't even get out of bed for.

- Marc Cushman with Susan Osborn, These Are The Voyages – TOS: Season One (2013), p. 279

Many of Cushman's assumptions in this passage are incorrect, and much of his reasoning simply doesn't hold water. The premise that television producers were denied access to Nielsen ratings information when Star Trek was on the air is incorrect. One of the ratings report sent to Roddenberry during the run of the series has been posted online, and others are available in Roddenberry's archival papers at UCLA (the source of most of Cushman's research material). The papers of writer/producer Bruce Geller, who created Star Trek's sister shows at Desilu (Mission: Impossible and Mannix) also include Nielsen ratings reports that he received during the same era.

The premise that the Nielsen ratings "were not for public consumption" is true, but the suggestion that the three networks were the only clients who used the ratings services is false. According to an article in the May 26, 1968 edition of The Chicago Tribune:
The Nielsen company has something like 600 clients–advertisers, advertising agencies, networks, stations, and program producers – who pay from a minimum of perhaps $15,000 a year up to a beautiful maximum of hundreds of thousands of dollars each 12 months for those reports.
The suggestion that Shatner's $5,000 a week salary was chump change doesn't stand up to much scrutiny, either. The cast of Bonanza, which was the number one show on television during Star Trek’s first season, earned no more than $1,000 during their first season of production and, after seven annual raises, were still only earning $12,000 an episode during the 1966-67 season. The complete National Nielsen ratings may have not been printed every week, but the dominance of Bonanza in the top ten was well documented at the time. If access to ratings information was the key to negotiating for a much bigger payday, it raises the question – why did the cast of Bonanza settle for what Cushman seems to think was so little?

The truth of the matter is that for a mostly untested leading man – his previous series, For The People, lasted just thirteen episodes before it was cancelled – Shatner was earning good money (and, contractually, his salary went up each year). Cushman's premise that $35,000 a week would be on the low end for a leading actor of a major series today is certainly true. However, his conclusion that Shatner's salary must have therefore been on the low end is based on the incorrect assumption that television production has kept pace with inflation. In point of fact, the cost of television production has far exceed inflation since the late 1960s.

Star Trek and the Ratings: The First Season (1966-1967)

If you’ve made it this far, you’re probably wondering, how did Star Trek do in the ratings?The way Cushman sees it, Star Trek was a huge success right out of the gate:

“The Man Trap” hit big in the ratings, drawing 46.7% of the TVs in use throughout America. The rating was a triumphant 25.2, compared to the 14.1 attributed to The Tammy Grimes Show and the 9.4 to My Three Sons. (Ratings reflect the total percentage of TVs in use that evening, tuned to a particular show.) Star Trek remained the clear winner at 9 p.m., as well. ABC’s most popular series, Bewitched, drew a 15.8 rating. On The CBS Thursday Night Moviewas The Ladies Man, starring Jerry Lewis. It only managed a 10.7. Star Trek towered above them with a 24.2 rating and 42.2% of the TV audience.

- Marc Cushman with Susan Osborn, These Are The Voyages – TOS: Season One (2013), p. 279-280

Speaking broadly, Cushman is absolutely right – “The Man Trap” debuted to monster ratings. If Star Trek had been able to maintain these numbers, it would have finished squarely in the middle of the top ten for the 1966-67 broadcast season.

TV Guide advertisement for NBC's "advance premiere" week (1966)
There are a number of factors, however, that this gushing analysis of Star Trek’s debut numbers ignores. Chief among them is the fact that NBC decided to air three of their new shows for the 1966-67 season – including Star Trek – as “advanced premieres,” one week before the rest of the broadcast season began. This meant that My Three Sons, Bewitched, and even The CBS Thursday Night Movie were all reruns. Only The Tammy Grimes Show, which made its debut on ABC, would broadcast a new episode against Star Trek. As it turned out, The Tammy Grimes Show wasn't much in terms of competition. In fact, it was such a ratings disaster that ABC pulled The Tammy Grimes Show from its schedule after just four weeks, making it the first show of the season to be cancelled.

A secondary factor tempering this analysis is the fact that the numbers These Are The Voyages prints for "The Man Trap" were the multi-network area ratings, which drew from major metropolitan areas and favored Star Trek over its competition.

A third factor is that the ratings printed in These Are The Voyages are incomplete, since they only indicate how the show rated on the half hour. Luckily, when it comes to "The Man Trap," a more detailed ratings report exists in the UCLA archive to help fill in the blanks. Courtesy of the Gene Roddenberry papers at UCLA, here are the Nielsen MNAs for "The Man Trap," based on thirty television markets:
(Network – Show – Share)
8:30
NBC – STAR TREK – 46.7
ABC – TAMMY GRIMES – 26.1
CBS – MY THREE SONS – 17.4
8:45
NBC – STAR TREK – 43.3
ABC – TAMMY GRIMES – 27.1
CBS – MY THREE SONS – 19.6

9:00
NBC – STAR TREK – 42.2
ABC – BEWITCHED – 27.6
CBS – THURSDAY NIGHT MOVIE – 18.7
9:15
NBC – STAR TREK – 39.8
ABC – BEWITCHED – 29.8
CBS – THURSDAY NIGHT MOVIE – 19.0
These Are The Voyages reports the numbers from 8:30 and 9:00, but not the numbers from 8:45 and 9:15. An analysis of these figures shows that although Star Trek premiered to large numbers, it was shedding viewers every fifteen minutes, with an audience share that dropped from 46.7 at 8:30 to 39.8 by 9:15. By and large, these viewers weren't turning off their television sets when they gave up on Star Trek, but tuning into the competition on ABC and CBS.

When the multi-network area ratings from UCLA for Star Trek's second broadcast episode, "Charlie X," are added to the mix, the downward ratings trend continues:
(Network – Show – Share)
8:30
NBC – STAR TREK – 32.0
ABC – TAMMY GRIMES – 21.4
CBS – MY THREE SONS – 33.4
8:45
NBC – STAR TREK – 31.5
ABC – TAMMY GRIMES – 20.0
CBS – MY THREE SONS – 35.1
9:00
NBC – STAR TREK – 29.2
ABC – BEWITCHED – 25.0
CBS – THURSDAY NIGHT MOVIE – 36.0
9:15
NBC – STAR TREK – 26.6
ABC – BEWITCHED – 28.9
CBS – THURSDAY NIGHT MOVIE – 36.2

To be fair, these numbers represent the series’ ratings performance for only two weeks – specifically, on September 8 and 15, 1966. Unfortunately, the archival record at UCLA is incomplete – picked over by unscrupulous visitors when the library's reading room wasn't as well-monitored as it is today – but this data helps fill in a few blanks without having to absorb the cost of licensing ratings information form Nielsen.

Star Trek in the Top 40?

To truly get a sense of Star Trek’s ratings, you have to look at the numbers over time. As previously quoted, here is These are The Voyages'conclusion as to how the series rated, overall, during its first season:

One must wonder why a network would even consider cancelling a Top 40 series that was almost always a solid second place in the ratings -- often hitting the No. 1 spot in its timeslot -- against formidable competition, pulling in, on average, just under 30% of the TVs in use across America. (On the few occasions when it slipped to third place, it was always in a close race for the number two spot.)

- Marc Cushman with Susan Osborn, These Are The Voyages – TOS: Season One (2013), p. 541

There are a number of claims that could be examined here, but the most eye-catching is the assertion that Star Trek was “a top 40 series” during the 1966-67 broadcast season. As far as I can tell, Cushman comes to this conclusion based on a single Nielsen NTI report from early in the season, covering the two week period of September 12-25, 1966 when "Charlie X" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before" were first shown. This report came from the October 16, 1966 issue of Broadcasting Magazine, which can be viewed online here (the NTI ratings report is found on pages 68-69 of the PDF). For ease of use, I have reproduced the Nielsen NTI report below:

Nielsen NTI rankings for the second and third episodes of Star Trek's first season (1966)
Eagle-eyed viewers will notice a few things about this report. First of all, the version printed in These Are The Voyages (on page 281 of the first edition) omits several programs (mostly news and talk shows, although some remain on the list) beginning with NBC’s Huntley-BrinkleyReportat number 81. This doesn't impact Cushman's argument pertaining to Star Trek, although it is rather sloppy. Secondly, as I pointed out in my comparison of multi-network area ratings with the National Television Index, My Three Sons is a full 3.4 ratings points ahead of Star Trek in this report, despite the earlier MNA numbers Cushman printed for those episodes showing Star Trek barely coming in second against My Three Sonswith “Charlie X” and beating it with “Where No Man Has Gone Before.” The revised, national numbers evident in the NTI report reflect people in rural communities, who watched Star Trek far less than people in metropolitan areas.

Nielsen NTI rankings for the fourth and fifth episodes of Star Trek's first season (1966)

These Are The Voyages is right about one thing. In the NTI report covering September 12-25, Star Trek was in the top 40. It achieved this position, however, against the extremely weak competition of The Tammy Grimes Show, which was removed from the schedule after only four weeks and replaced with The Dating Game, which did far better in the 8:30-9:00pm timeslot on Thursday nights. Indeed, the very next NTI report, published (in part) in the October 25, 1966 edition of TheChicago Tribune, shows Star Trek plummeting from the 33rd spot to the 51st position (see above).

1966-67 programs rated 30-70 in the National Nielsens (1967)
This drop in position makes sense. Even if you only examine the Nielsen MNAs that are presented in These Are The Voyages, it is evident that following the cancellation of The Tammy Grimes Show, Star Trek's ratings position began to decline. Indeed, after ABC pulled The Tammy Grimes Show from its schedule, Star Trek only reached first place in its timeslot with four first run episodes, and only once held the first place position for the entire hour. By the end of its first season, Star Trek’s average ratings position was 52nd place, according to Television Magazine’s August 1967 issue. The show was no longer in the top 40 – it wasn't even in the top 50. At 52nd place, Star Trek was in the middle of the road, ratings-wise, and in the same issue of Television Magazine, it and Mission: Impossible were "cited as examples of marginal shows that got tapped for a second year."

Still from "Bread and Circuses" (1968)

Conclusion: Why Was Star Trek Renewed?

Marc Cushman closes These Are The Voyages – TOS: Season One by asking why NBC would even consider cancelling Star Trek at the end of its first broadcast season. This question, however, is predicated on the assumption that Mr. Cushman's argument about the ratings is correct. I believe I have pointed out enough flaws in his reasoning and presented enough counter-evidence that such claims should be held in considerable doubt. 

Therefore, I believe a more appropriate question to ask would be this: why was Star Trek renewed for a second season? After all, the show was an expensive one to produce, and following an initial flash of success, its ratings had dropped to a level that was nothing to shout about. I can think of three reasons which may have been the tipping point convincing NBC to go forward with the program – although I hope my readers will be able to come up with others that I haven't considered.

First, Star Trek had garnered some awards recognition at the close of its first season, with five Emmy nominations (including the Emmy for Outstanding Drama Series) and a Hugo Award (for "The City on the Edge of Forever"). NBC may have hoped the publicity surrounding this recognition would have translated into increased viewership.

RCA ad for Star Trek and color television (1967)
Second, as argued by Solow and Justman in their book, Inside Star Trek: The Real Story, at the time the series was produced, RCA was the parent company of NBC, and Star Trek helped sell color television sets for RCA:
In 1966, NBC, at the behest of RCA, commissioned the A.C. Nielsen Company to do a study on the popularity of color television series as opposed to all television series. The results were expected–and very unexpected.
Favorite series were popular whether or not they were viewed in color. For example, NBC's Bonanza series was a top-rated series on the overall national ratings list as well as on the color ratings list.
However, in December 1966, with Star Trek having been on the air only three months, an NBC executive called with some news. The Nielsen research indicated that Star Trek was the highest-rated color series on television. I distributed the information to the Star Trek staff. We thought it was all very interesting, nothing to write home about, and went back to work. We were wrong; we failed to see the importance of the research
Perhaps those initial and subsequent Nielsen color series ratings contributed to giving Star Trek a second year of life. Putting aside low national ratings and lack of sponsors, perhaps a reason for renewing Star Trek, other than all the phone calls, letters, and demonstrations at NBC, was its position as the top-rated color series on the 'full color network.' NBC's parent company was RCA. Star Trek sold color television sets and made money for RCA. 
- Herbert F. Solow, Inside Star Trek: The Real Story (1996), p.305
Third, NBC may have simply had nothing better to replace the series with. Star Trek wasn't generating huge ratings, but the ratings weren't disastrous, either, at least not during its first season. According to Television Magazine in 1967:
Disaster...is the shock word in network programming. One of the best ways to avoid it is to put on even a weak grey-area show [a show ranked 30th-70th in the ratings] rather than take a chance with the least promising of the new batch of programs.
Fourth, renewing the series might have made sense because of the overall younger demographic it appealed to, which even in the late 1960s was becoming more important to advertisers. Paul Klein, the vice president of research for NBC, told Television Magazine in 1967 that "a quality audience – lots of young adult buyers – provides a high level that may make it worth holding onto a program despite low over-all [sic] ratings." He went on to tell the magazine that, "'quality audiences' are what helped both Mission Impossible and Star Trek survive another season." In a later TV Guide interview, Klein specifically mentioned Star Trek again, telling the magazine that the series was renewed in spite of weak ratings, "because it delivers a quality, salable audience...[in particular] upper-income, better-educated males."

Whatever NBC's reasons were for renewing the series, they made a commitment that Star Trek would be back for at least sixteen more episodes during the 1967-68 broadcast season. How the series performed ratings-wise in its second and third seasons may be the subject of a future post, but for now, I'll leave it at that.

Author's Note: Thanks to Dave T., Maurice M., and Kevin K. for reading an early version of this post and offering valuable feedback, which has improved it. Any remaining errors or logic gaps in the final version are entirely my own. If you've noticed any errors or have other feedback, please leave a comment or drop me a line using the contact form to the right. For more information about Star Trek's ratings performance, I can't recommend this piece at Television Obscurities enough. It certainly informed my approach to this post, and led to the discovery of a number of key sources.

Certain images courtesy of Trek Core.

Sources:

The Gene Roddenberry Star Trek Television Series Collection (1964-1969)

Chains of Gold: Marketing the Ratings and Rating the Markets (Katherine Buzzard, 1990)

Inside Star Trek : The Real Story (Herbert F. Solow and Robert H. Justman, 1996)

"Cult Television as Digital Television’s Cutting Edge," in Television as Digital Media (Roberta Pearson, p.105-131, 2010)

These Are The Voyages: TOS, Season One (Marc Cushman with Susan Osborn, 2013)

Unseen Trek: The City on the Edge of Forever by Steven Carabatsos

$
0
0
Still from "The City on the Edge of Forever" (1967)
Written by Steven Carabatsos (re-write of Harlan Ellison's teleplay; undated, probably October, 1966)
Report and Analysis by Dave Eversole
Originally posted at Orion Press

TEASER

The Enterprise approaches a planet near the center of the universe, the fabled ancient home of the time vortex. Energy patterns -- "Dextrite 7 through Y, inclusive" -- are emanating from the planet, causing severe shudders throughout the ship. Sulu's station is hardest hit -- he tumbles to the floor. McCoy is called to the bridge and administers Milikren Adrenaline, which revives Sulu. Another ship shudder and McCoy falls on his hypo, injecting himself. Delusional, convinced that Kirk will kill him, McCoy chokes the captain. Spock applies the SPOCK PINCH and McCoy falls unconscious.

ACT ONE

McCoy is confined to a bed in Sickbay.

Kirk, Spock, Yeoman Linda Bennet, Security Officer James Donelly and Assistant Science Officer Pete Kelso beam down to the barren planet. There they discover that their chronometers are running backward and they are experiencing a kind of time loop. They repeat actions without remembering, or barely remembering that they just did them (Kirk issuing the same orders twice, Donelly forgetting that he was sent to walk a security perimeter about the others, etc.). Spock is least affected, but cannot explain what is happening to them.

Sulu visits McCoy in sickbay. With the Medic attending him gone from the room, he has Sulu bring him an antidote to the adrenalin poisoning from a cabinet. Sulu does so, and McCoy surreptitiously breaks it. Sulu releases the doctor so that he may save some of the antidote. Once released, McCoy slugs Sulu and escapes.

Kirk and party explore and discover the Time Vortex, a pillar of light, from which a voice emanates, introducing itself as the Guardian of Forever. Before the vortex is a squat and massive machine, a corroded computer which records all history, everywhere, throughout the universe -- "the memory for the vortex."

Yeoman Linda tries to contact the Enterprise and discovers that their communicators will not work in the vicinity of the vortex. Kirk is eager to get back to the Enterprise to help McCoy, but Spock wants to study the machine closer. Kirk tells him he has an hour, then leaves with Yeoman Linda to go back to their original beam down point where they know that their communicators will work.

On the bridge Uhura tells Briggs, the acting Captain, that McCoy has overpowered the transporter tech and beamed down to the planet.

McCoy materializes near Kirk and Linda Bennet. He attacks Kirk and they fight. Linda screams and runs off, yelling for Kelso and Donelly to come help the captain.

McCoy bashes Kirk over the head with a rock and runs off in the general direction of the vortex. A moment, Kirk comes to, staggers after him.

McCoy approaches the vortex. Spock and Kirk try to calm him, close in slowly, but he turns and leaps into the pillar of light. (Carabatsos calls for a special effect to show that all time from 1930 to the present has been changed. No real detail, he just asks for one to visualize this.)

Since Kirk and McCoy were near the vortex, they have not been erased from existence by the changes McCoy made in the past. But Linda, Kelso and Donelly, out of range of its influence, are gone, as is the Enterprise.

Kirk realizes they are trapped there forever.

ACT TWO

Spock tells Kirk that he has two recordings in his tricorder. One taken before McCoy went back, and one taken after he went back. He can compare the two and find the divergence, find what McCoy did that changed time. So Kirk and Spock walk through the vortex and emerge on a street in New York in the 1930s.

Trooper, a legless veteran who fought at Verdun, rolls by on his small board with skate-wheels, selling apples. Not understanding the exchange of currency for items, Kirk and Spock take apples, and cannot pay Trooper, who believes they are "swell" rich boys from "uptown," out partying amongst the poor.

Others nearby also decry the two. They wander into a nearby mission where Sister Edith Keeler is helping the homeless and downtrodden. She is arguing with a rodent-like man named Keefer. Keefer blames all his troubles on others. He wants to knock a few of those foreigners' heads together, teach 'em something. He is really quite sick of Edith and her preaching. Edith is equally sick of his phony flag-waving and pretend patriotism.

Kirk and Spock interrupt this argument. Edith also mistakes the two in their nice uniforms for rich boys out slumming and asks them to please leave.

Spock steals some clothes for them from the mission's charity bins, and he and Kirk are chased by an angry mob, but find a basement to hide out in. Since Spock surmises that no one would hire him, Kirk goes out and gets a job as a dishwasher while Spock stays in the basement comparing the two versions of history he has in his tricorder.

One night, after work, Kirk wearily walks home, but stops back in at the mission and talks with Edith. They connect instantly, she forgives him for his and Spock's theft of the clothes and calls him "Jimmy" as she closes up for the night. Happy, Kirk leaves, but is attacked in an alley by Keefer and his thugs.

ACT THREE

Spock rescues Kirk and hurries them back to their basement. He is close to finding out what change McCoy made. He doesn't know exactly what it was, but he does know that it kept the United States out of World War II, allowing Hitler's Germany to win and rule the world.

Kirk is revitalized after meeting Edith, happily goes to work washing dishes. There is a spring in his step now. He has dinner with Edith and drops a line of poetry on her -- "When night proceeds to fall, all men become strangers." When Edith professes her unfamiliarity with the poem, Kirk tells her it is by Coulson Nine, whose work is considered the most beautiful in the galaxy.

Kirk and Edith declare their love for one another.

In the basement Spock reacts to something on his tricorder... something stunning. He grabs his jacket and runs out...

Spock interrupts Kirk and Edith at dinner. There is something he must tell the captain. Edith tells Kirk to go ahead. She needs to check in on a new man living at the mission, one who stumbled in just a few days ago, a cranky sort of fellow who prescribes his own medicine. Kirk asks his name.

Edith replies, "McCoy. He asked to be called Bones."

In the Mission Sick Room, Kirk and Spock are reunited with McCoy. Edith leaves the three friends. Spock explains what he found on the tricorder. Tomorrow night, Sister Edith Keeler will hold a peace rally. It would have been the first of many, and would have kept the United States out of the coming war. But she will be killed by an angry mob, lead by Keefer.

Spock tells them that McCoy changed history by saving her life after she was beaten by the mob. Kirk must not allow this to happen.

Edith Keeler must die.

ACT FOUR

In the mission, Jim and Edith talk. He is distant. She knows that he is going away from her, but can't understand why. She walks away from him and sets up her podium.

Kirk and Spock get McCoy and they leave the mission. McCoy is angry as hell, does not want to let Edith die, cannot understand why they can't just take her back to the future with them, stop her from starting the peace movement. Spock tells him that in her absence, her friends and followers would redouble their efforts in her memory and the result would be the same.  She must die.

They wait on the street outside the mission. A song from within, a lovely beautiful song. Soon Edith is singing solo and it breaks Kirk's and McCoy's hearts as Keefer and his thugs rush in. They listen as Edith screams in pain as she is beaten. McCoy makes to go inside, but Kirk grabs him, holds him, will not let him go to her.

Finally Kirk can stand it no longer, and rushes in, followed by Spock and McCoy. They disperse the mob, and Kirk holds the badly beaten Edith in his arms, assures her of his everlasting love as she dies.

They are instantly jerked forward in time and stand before the Guardian of Forever. All has been set right. The Enterprise is in orbit as it should be.

On the bridge Spock asks Kirk to come to Vulcan to heal himself of the pain of Edith's loss. McCoy assures Jim that he will forget the pain. Spock tells McCoy, "He was prepared to offer her the universe for love. How can he forget?"

A few thoughts on why this draft just did not work for me.

-- Trooper, a character who actually meant something in Ellison's draft, is wasted here. He rolls by, we feel sorry for him, and he is gone.

-- Spock's role in the story is basically reduced to sitting in the basement, reading. He does not work, does not even have to build any 1930s memory boards, nothing. His commentary on the times is gone, his active role, his concern, all gone.

-- Keefer is beyond nasty. Now I know there are more than a few real-life Keefers out there, blaming their laziness and failure on "damn furriners," but his beating of Edith is just grossly obscene, even though it is off screen. Yeah, getting hit by a truck ain't pretty, either, but it is the damn randomness of the latter that breaks all our hearts.

-- Linda is another fairly inept woman. I much prefer the strong role Ellison originally wrote for Rand.

--------------

Editor's note: Although almost no memos remain in the UCLA collection related to "The City on the Edge of Forever," numerous script and story drafts survive. The only major draft not present in the collection is Harlan Ellison's December 1, 1966 rewrite (according to a memo made available here, this draft wasn't actually delivered until closer to December 20, 1966). Although Ellison made the teaser and first act of this draft (his last) available in his excellent book on the episode in 1996, as far as I know, the rest of the script has never been publicly available. If anyone can prove me wrong, drop me a line using the contact box to the left, or leave a comment below.

Image courtesy of Trek Core.

Review originally posted at Orion Press.

Lieutenant Lee Kelso...on ice!

$
0
0
Paul Carr as Lieutenant Lee Kelso in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (1965)
Amongst the bonus features that accompany the first season of Star Trek on Blu-Ray is a picture-in-picture commentary track dubbed "Starfleet Access." Featured on six episodes -- seven, if you buy the set on the now defunct HD-DVD format -- it includes text information as well as on-camera interviews with cast, crew, and other participants.

On the Starfleet Access track for "Where No Man Has Gone Before," the late Paul Carr talks about his role as the doomed Lieutenant Lee Kelso in the show's second pilot. Recalling a conversation with producer/creator Gene Roddenberry that occurred just before Kelso's death scene was filmed, Carr claims:
[Roddenberry said] 'Don't worry about it, kid. We're gonna freeze you and bring you back!' And they never did.
Until recently, this recollection struck me as rather unlikely, but a discovery in the Gene Roddenberry Star Trek Television Series Collection at UCLA suggests to me that it may have a kernel of truth to it, although it seems to have been greatly exaggerated.

On January 20, 1966, Roddenberry sent off a number of form letters to the cast and crew of "Where No Man Has Gone Before." Roddenberry's letter to Paul Carr, however, was slightly different. The first two paragraphs were exactly the same as the letters sent to everybody else in the production, but Roddenberry added a third paragraph specifically addressing Carr:
Dear Paul:
Just a note to keep you in touch with the STAR TREK situation. As you may know, NBC has a new policy this year in which they view films but give no comments on them until after a network "party line" has been established. But we do have some private comments from good friends there that the showing went well and there was even some enthusiasm. We do know they like the quality of the film and the quality of the performances, and the final verdict will probably now depend upon how it fits into their scheduling, what their audience tests show re attitudes toward sf adventure, etc. But we are encouraged and in fact we have yet to get a negative comment.
I will leave for New York on Tuesday for some sales meetings, hopefully explain the direction of the series, answer questions, etc. As soon as we have any definite news, will let you know.
Paul, the reason I send this note to you is that we were all so much pleased with your performance we hope to resurrect "Lt. Lee Kelso". Some of this will depend on audience test reaction to the character, NBC attitudes and so on, but just wanted you to know I am definitely thinking in that direction.
Sincerely,
Gene Roddenberry
Forty years later, Carr remembered Roddenberry's promise to resurrect Lee Kelso as something that happened while the second pilot was being shot in July 1965, but Roddenberry's letter suggests the thought didn't occur until well after the pilot had been completed and shown to NBC executives in January 1966.

Ultimately, nothing came of the idea, which may have simply been an empty promise of the kind that Gene Roddenberry liked to make to keep actors in his good graces. Carr never appeared on camera as Lee Kelso or any other character on Star Trek again (I've been unable to confirm it, but Carr may have had a small voice over role as a Denevan pilot in "Operation--Annihilate!").

Author's note: Apologies for the title. I couldn't help myself.

Image courtesy of Trek Core.

Source:

The Gene Roddenberry Star Trek Television Series Collection (1964-1969)

Read Gene Roddenberry's Letter to Gene Coon about 'Spectre of the Gun'

$
0
0
Still from "Spectre of the Gun" (1968)

In early July of 1968, Gene Roddenberry was mostly absent from the Star Trek offices on the Paramount lot. Instead, he was at National General Pictures, writing a treatment for a Tarzan feature that ultimately went unproduced. He must have felt the irony. Just the year before, he had been complaining to NBC that Star Trek was being hurt by a poor lead-in. The show in question? None other than Tarzan(1966-68), produced by Banner Productions, a division of National General.

Roddenberry wasn't entirely absent from Star Trek, however. As the show's executive producer, he had certain duties to meet. One of those duties included watching the final cut of each episode as it was completed, and delivering his comments to producer Fred Freiberger and co-producer Bob Justman. After screening 'Spectre of the Gun,' the first episode of the third season to go before the cameras, Roddenberry sent a short letter of appreciation to the episode's writer, former Star Trek producer Gene Coon:

National General Corporation
One Carthay Plaza, Los Angeles California 90048
[phone number redacted]
July 11, 1968
PERSONAL
Mr. Gene Coon
4421 Huesta Court
Encino, California 91316
Dear Gene:
Just wanted you to know I saw a final cut on a rather bizarre type of western, written by a mutual friend of ours, and it looked very good indeed!
Just finished up the Tarzan screen treatment and am appalled to see that it runs over a hundred pages in total. Well, I guess it’s better to write more than I need than less -- easier to take out than to add, I hope.
How are things going? In case you want to get in touch with me and I’m not at Paramount, the National General number is: [phone number redacted] – Ext. 451 or 452.
Give my regards to all of yours.
Best,
Gene Roddenberry

Recently, it has been suggested that Coon and Roddenberry had a professional falling out partway through Star Trek's second season. Given the tenor of this letter, and the fact that the two writers collaborated on the script to The Questor Tapes(1974) just a few years later, I tend to view these claims with a healthy dose of skepticism, but I cannot comment on them definitively.

I can definitively comment, however, on the claim that "the episode is stamped with Gene Coon’s pseudonym, Lee Cronin, a moniker he slapped on all his show’s after leaving the series in the second year, when they were re-written." In actuality, there's no evidence that a writer other than Gene Coon wrote 'Spectre of the Gun' (the collections at UCLA include two story outlines and a teleplay for the episode -- all by Coon). According to Bob Justman:
'The Last Gunfight' was one of the stories that [Gene Coon] was developing at the time he left Star Trek. But now, Coon was working elsewhere on an exclusive contract, and legally he could write only for Universal Television, his new employer. Intending to honor that contract, Coon explained that he would not be able to write the teleplay for 'Gunfight.' Being a man of his word, however, Gene Coon arranged for 'Lee Cronin' to complete the assignment. It was filmed and retitled 'Spectre of the Gun.'
-Bob Justman, Inside Star Trek: The Real Story (1996), p.402 
Image courtesy of Trek Core.

Sources:

The Paramount Collection, UCLA

The Gene Roddenberry Star Trek Television Series Collection (1964-1969)

Inside Star Trek : The Real Story (Herbert F. Solow and Robert H. Justman, 1996)

Read Bob Justman's Resignation Letter from Star Trek (and Gene Roddenberry's Reply)

$
0
0
Gene Roddenberry and Bob Justman (1989)
The third season of Star Trek was not a pleasant time for Bob Justman. Although he had been bumped up from associate producer to co-producer, he felt slighted that Fred Freiberger had been named the show's producer instead of him. Likewise, his friends and collaborators were mostly gone. Gene Roddenberry, Gene Coon, D.C. Fontana, and John Meredyth Lucas all contributed scripts to the third season, but they were no longer a part of the day-to-day process of making the show. Nearly three decades later, Justman would write:
I despaired about the show's loss of quality. By the time episodes were filmed, whatever excitement existed in the original stories and scripts had been diluted by a rewriting process that was no longer overseen by Gene Roddenberry; it was now strictly budget-driven. There were no highs and no lows—just a boring in-between. My never-ending battle to cut costs without compromising quality had failed. The Star Trek I knew, and was proud to be a part of, was no more.
By the midpoint of the production season, I dreaded coming to work every day. It felt like being in prison—and I wanted out.
-Bob Justman, Inside Star Trek: The Real Story (1966), p.407
Nowhere is Justman's disappointment more clearly reflected than in his memos for Star Trek's third season. During the first and second seasons of the series, his nearly daily ritual of lengthy memo writing was as notable for its wry sense of humor as it was for its attention to detail. By the time the third season rolled around, however, many of Justman's memos were short* and humorless. As Justman would later say, "the thrill was gone."

Ultimately, as filming wrapped on 'That Which Survives,' the fourteenth episode of the season, Justman decided to walk away from Star Trek. It would be eighteen years before he was allowed to walk on the Paramount lot again, to help develop Star Trek: The Next Generation. As he was leaving, Justman took the time to write a letter of resignation to Gene Roddenberry, who had offered Justman the job of associate producer in 1964, and finally got him to take the job in 1965:
Mr. Robert Justman
[Address redacted]
Los Angeles 24, California
October 3, 1968
Mr. Gene Roddenberry
National General Corp.
6330 San Vicente
Los Angeles, California 90038
Dear Gene:
Evidently one of the eggs that the Great Bird Of The Galaxy laid a couple of years ago has finally hatched and the fledgling is ready to fly away.
You know that a young bird is always eager to try its wings because it feels it can soar like an eagle.
And yet, this young bird feels its heart wrenching at the thought of leaving the nest. It wants to stay with Poppa Bird and relive all the good and bad times they lived together. It’s funny how bad times either seem never to have existed, or else seem to have been transformed into the very best of times.
However, birds are like human beings. They can’t live their lives over again and the tenderness of their formative years can never really be recaptured. They'll have tender years later on, but they won’t be the same tender years and with the same tender people.
Remember what we said a few years ago? “... To explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no man has gone before.”
You taught me how to fly. I have to go where I've never gone before.
Love,

BOB
To his credit, Roddenberry showed no bitterness in his reply to Justman's resignation:

October 8, 1968
Mr. Robert Justman
Paramount-Gower
780 North Gower Street
Hollywood, California 90038
Dear Bob:
I suppose everyone has a secret dream that he might someday do something important enough to justify a feature biographer rummaging through his papers. Your lovely letter is the kind of thing that he would hope he found there.
Just to keep the record straight, however, I learned a great deal from you during the years you mention. Star Trek could never have been made without your considerable talent and knowledge. Most important of all, I had your friendship.
Go boldly!
Best,

Gene
Special thanks to TrekBBS user and TOSGRAPHICS.COM proprietor feek61 for passing along the Bob Justman Profiles in History auction catalog from 2002, which includes a legible photograph of Roddenberry's reply to Justman's letter.

*When Bob Justman sold most of his original Star Trek files as part of a Profile in History auction in 2002, according to averages derived from figures in the auction catalog, he wrote 12.2 pages per episode in season one, 15.5 pages per episode in season two, and 5.9 pages per episode in season three (counting only the episodes that credit Justman as co-producer). Those aren't precise figures, since they only reflect what Mr. Justman put up for auction in 2002, but if the materials he donated to UCLA are any indication, his collection was remarkably intact at that time.

Image courtesy of Trek Core.

Sources:

The Paramount Collection, UCLA

The Gene Roddenberry Star Trek Television Series Collection (1964-1969)

Inside Star Trek : The Real Story (Herbert F. Solow and Robert H. Justman, 1996)

TV's First Interracial Kiss?

$
0
0
Still from "Plato's Stepchildren" (1968)
Last weekend, The Agony Booth posted an article which examined the familiar claim that William Shatner and Nichelle Nichols' kiss in the Star Trek episode "Plato's Stepchildren" was the first interracial kiss on television. There is a lot of worthwhile research to be found in the article, which I encourage you to read in full, but the author ultimately reaches this conclusion about the infamous scene between the Enterprise's captain and communication officer:
...short of watching hundreds of hours of TV programming produced prior to 1968, much of which isn't currently available to watch in any form, there’s no way to conclusively state that any of these kisses were truly 'the first.' But simply going by the list above, were Kirk and Uhura really TV’s first interracial kiss? Heck, no; it’s Emergency — Ward 10 all the way. I think even that episode of Sea Hunt is far more deserving of the title than Star Trek.
Unfortunately for Star Trek fans, Shatner and Nichols may have to settle for the qualified title of 'first black/white kiss on a scripted American TV drama,' which doesn't quite roll off the tongue. But this may be our answer for why the kiss, as brave and daring as it was, went almost completely unnoticed by the public for years: there were so many noteworthy kisses that came before it that by the time Star Trek shattered that particular taboo, it wasn't much of a taboo anymore. And I think recognizing that fact is far more important than bestowing a questionable accolade upon a TV show decades later.
In general, I find the author's argument here to be well-supported, and I think it's especially valuable to point out the difficulty of making claims about television firsts when so much of television history is unavailable. However, I do think it's worth pointing out a couple of Star Trek-related details that the author gets wrong. At one point, for example, they make the following claim:
As it turns out, the first references to Star Trek having 'TV’s first interracial kiss' don’t show up until the 1980s, and the mainstream media didn't take notice until the early 1990s, which was not-so-coincidentally about the same time Shatner and Nichols were putting out memoirs that talked about filming the episode.
This is actually a revised version of the passage, which originally stated, "the first references to Star Trek having 'TV’s first interracial kiss' don’t show up until the early 1990s." Eagle eyed readers at the TrekBBS* quickly pointed out that Alan Asherman's Star Trek Compendium (first published in January of 1981) described the scene as "the first interracial kiss on network television." Not long after those comments were made, the passage in question was updated.

However, even the updated version isn't entirely accurate. A brief search of newspapers from 1968 to the present (utilizing ProQuest) brings up a number of references to Star Trek depicting the first interracial kiss on TV in the mainstream media, the first of which predates Asherman's book by more than two years. The three pictured articles below are the oldest publications to show up in ProQuest when searching for "Star Trek" and "interracial kiss."
No Title (The Chicago Tribune, January 4, 1987)
"Nichelle Nichols zooms thru space on Star Trek II" (New Amsterdam News, June 19, 1982)
"A Visit to Star Trek's Movie Launch" (Boston Globe, December 10, 1978)
ProQuest also locates a dozen other articles from several mainstream publications from 1990-1992, which describe the moment as "television's first interracial kiss." All of these articles were printed at least a year before the publication of the relevant memoirs by William Shatner and Nichelle Nichols (Shatner's Star Trek Memories was published in October 1993; Nichols' Beyond Uhura was published in October 1994), which makes it hard to buy the claim that the mainstream media didn't take notice of the kiss and its alleged relevance until those memoirs came out.

That said, I think the author is absolutely right in their judgment that "TV's first interracial kiss" was a retroactive label applied to "Plato's Stepchildren," not one used at the time of the episode's first broadcast. Although a few ProQuest searches are far from definitive, the fact that the first two instances I've found where Star Trek is lauded for depicting the first interracial kiss on television appear in pieces promoting Star Trek--The Motion Picture and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan leads me to wonder if this chestnut was generated by Paramount's publicity machine? Decades after the fact, it may be impossible to locate its origin (although I welcome comments below if somebody can find earlier instances of the claim, or knows more than I do).

Another claim made in the article is something I've addressed before, but it is worth briefly tackling again. The author writes:
There’s a long, documented history of skittish network executives and censors meddling in the creative affairs of TV shows, and pretty famously in the case of Star Trek, too.
For one obvious example, season one’s “The Alternative Factor” cast a black actress as a Starfleet officer who was originally supposed to have a romance with the episode’s white villain Lazarus. That aspect of the plot was mysteriously jettisoned at the last minute, leaving huge holes in the plot and lots of downtime to be filled by pointless shots of Lazarus wandering around a planet’s surface (and now you know the real reason why “The Alternative Factor” ended up so incoherent).
There actually isn't any evidence to support the theory that an NBC executive or a censor in standards and practices had the script to "The Alternative Factor" gutted at the last minute to eliminate a potential black/white romance. It's plausible, and others have suggested it before -- Alan Asherman speculated this may have happened in 1981's Star Trek Compendium, and Dave Eversole similarly speculated as such in an article about the script currently available at Orion Press -- but I've been looking for a memo or an interview actually confirming that speculation for years now, and have yet to locate one. Indeed, the closest piece of evidence I've found thus far, a Roddenberry story memo, suggests the romance was dropped because of similarities to "Space Seed," not because of any network or studio interference (and, again, I'm happy to be proven wrong here; if somebody has been able to turn up something that I haven't, I'd love to hear about it in the comments below).

*Author's note: I currently post on the Trek BBS under the username Harvey. Thanks to Trek BBS users Indysolo (for pointing out the passage from Alan Asherman's book, and sending me scans of the pages in question) and Ssosmcin (for noting that this language first appeared in the original, 1981 edition of the book).

Top image courtesy of Trek Core.

Sources:

The Gene Roddenberry Star Trek Television Series Collection (1964-1969)

Star Trek Memories (William Shatner with Chris Kreski, 1993)

Beyond Uhura (Nichelle Nichols, 1994)

Recommendations: Space Doubt and Return to Tomorrow

$
0
0

Still from "Assignment: Earth" (1968)
I haven't been writing much lately -- I've been rather busy with real life, although I do have a few pieces in the works -- but I wanted to take a moment and recommend a couple of Star Trek related items that should be of interest to readers of this blog.

First up is a series of blog posts that I've been enjoying this week over at Space Ghost. That blog's author, who calls himself "Sham Mountebank," has been doing research into a mostly undocumented portion of Star Trek history: the show's initial and subsequent transmissions on the BBC. These began in 1969, not long after the show was cancelled by NBC, and continued throughout much of the 1970s. Star Trek's initial run on the BBC wasn't without a little controversy, as it turns out.

Mountebank has written five pieces on Star Trek so far, covering the show's transmission on the BBC in 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, and 1974-76.

A painting by Roger Stine, which adorns the cover of Return to Tomorrow (2014) 
Secondly, I'm recommending the new book from Creature Features publishing, Return to Tomorrow, which isn't just a great book about the making of Star Trek--The Motion Picture, but is a remarkable piece of nonfiction, period. The author, Preston Neal Jones, does an superb job of juxtaposing interviews with countless members of the cast and crew into a compelling and rich narrative, and he does it with a minimum of editorializing. Better yet, these interviews were all conducted during the film's lengthy post-production process, leaving the memories of all involved fresh and detailed.

Love or hate the film (and, to be honest, I've always been a bit indifferent, although the movie has grown on me), Star Trek fans won't want to miss out on this remarkable book, which is limited to 1,000 copies.

Hopefully, by the end of this weekend, I'll be able to finish my piece fact-checking some of the claims made in the newest issue of CBS Watch, which is dedicated to the original Star Trek. Suffice it to say, many of the images inside are beautiful and well-worth the $9.99 list price of the magazine, but some of the claims in the text leave this fact-checker scratching his head.

Update (12/27/2014): According to Creature Features, the first edition of Return to Tomorrow has sold out, but they "are now taking orders for an upcoming second edition, projected for arrival in February/March."

Images courtesy of Trek Core.

Fact Check: CBS Watch! Magazine (Star Trek Special Issue)

$
0
0
December 2014/January 2015 issue of CBS Watch! Magazine

If you've paid a visit to the supermarket this month, you may have seen the latest issue of CBS Watch! magazine, which is devoted to the original Star Trek television series. As I indicated last weekend, although the magazine is filled with beautiful and rare photographs taken during the production of the series, the text often leaves something to be desired. Rather than write a more traditional review, I've decided to do a fact-check of some of the magazine's more bizarre claims, in the order that they appear in the magazine. The text of each claim is quoted as it appears in the magazine, not paraphrased.

Without further ado...

Selections from Roddenberry's RIT lecture can be found on Inside Star Trek (1976)
Claim: At a lecture at the Rochester Institute of Technology in 1976, Roddenberry joked about the original failure of his dream. "The first pilot was rejected on the basis of being too intellectual for all you slobs out in the television audience," he said. "It did go on to win the international Hugo award, but I suppose many things turned down by networks would win awards." (Page 12)

Verdict: False. Although it incorporates much of the footage from the first pilot, "The Menagerie, Parts I and II" was awarded the Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation in 1967, not Roddenberry's original pilot. Star Trek's only two-parter beat out "The Corbomite Maneuver" and "The Naked Time," which were also nominated, along with Francois Truffaut's adaptation of Fahrenheit 451 and Richard Fleischer's film, Fantastic Voyage.

The impressive bridge set built for "The Menagerie" (1964)
Claim: "We spent more on those sets [for the first pilot] than any studio in television had ever spent before in building a comparable thing. I think probably we spent more than even any motion picture had spent," Gene Roddenberry later said in Star Trek: The Making of the TV Series, which he co-wrote with Stephen E. Whitfield. (Page 14)

Verdict: Partly true. Although the first pilot was enormously expensive for television -- the final budget came in at $615,781.56 -- this number simply doesn't compare to the money being spent on contemporary A-pictures. Consider the costs of films like 1963's Cleopatra($32 million), 1962's Mutiny on the Bounty($19 million), and 1959's Ben-Hur($15 million), the cost of producing television sets (even for an expensive show like Star Trek) just doesn't compare.

Ricardo Montalban in "Space Seed" (1967)
Claim:"I don't think Gene had ever written science fiction before," [Samuel] Peeples told author Joel Engel for the biography Gene Roddenberry: The Myth and the Man Behind Star Trek. (Page 16)

Verdict: False. Roddenberry's familiarity with science fiction before Star Trek is debatable, but he had written science fiction at least once prior to Star Trek. Roddenberry's script for “The Secret Weapon of 117,″ part of the anthology program Stage 7, first aired on March 6, 1956. Although the episode is not currently available for public viewing, it reportedly stars Ricardo Montalban "as one of a pair of aliens trying to assess whether or not Earth has the technology to retaliate against infiltration and invasion by their species" and was definitely science fiction.

Leonard Nimoy as Spock in "The Menagerie" (1964)
Claim: Nimoy's Spock was one of the few crossovers from the original pilot to the later incarnation of Star Trek: The Original Series.

Verdict: Partly true. Although a few performers from the first pilot (Edward Madden, Jon Lormer, Robert Johnson, Majel Barrett, Janos Prohaska, and Malachi Throne) later appeared as different characters in subsequent episodes, Nimoy was the only actor to reprise his role from the first pilot in a subsequent episode. Although the character of Christopher Pike appears in "The Menagerie, Parts I and II," he's played in those episodes by Sean Kenney, not Jeffrey Hunter.

Still from "Arena" (1967)
Claim:"Arena," most memorable for its battle sequence, was adapted by scriptwriter Gene L. Coon from a short story by popular science fiction writer Fredric Brown. (Page 18)

Verdict: Partly true. Although Brown gets screen credit, Coon wrote "Arena" as an original teleplay. Credit was awarded to Brown only after de Forest Research pointed out numerous similarities to Brown's short story that could result in litigation against Desilu. Chalk it up to a case of cryptomnesia on Coon's part.

Jeffrey Hunter in "The Menagerie" (1964)
Claim: After his role as Christopher Pike, Hunter returned to feature film acting. While filming a movie in Spain in 1969, Hunter was severely injured, and he died during surgery on May 27, just a week before the airing of Star Trek's finale. (Page 21)

Verdict: Partly true. Although the story goes that Hunter turned down the second Star Trek pilot to focus on feature film roles, he continued to work in television thereafter, even going as far to star in another pilot (Journey into Fear) in 1965. Hunter was seriously injured during the filming of ¡Viva América! (1969), but his death actually happened several months later, when he fell at his home in Van Nuys and hit his head on a banister.
Gene Roddenberry's original Star Trek pitch document (1964)
Claim: Roddenberry's pitch even included some eerily familiar ideas for future episodes, including "The Day Charlie Became God," which saw one of the Enterprise crew members given incredible powers, much like the second Star Trek pilot, "Where No Man Has Gone Before." (Page 22)

Verdict: True. Roddenberry's original pitch document, available here, includes six one sentence story concepts and nineteen longer story ideas, a number of which became the basis of later episodes. "The Day Charlie Became God" was later developed into a teleplay by D.C. Fontana called "Charlie's Law," and produced as the first season episode "Charlie X."

John Hoyt as Dr. Philip Boyce in "The Menagerie" (1964)
Claim: Dr. Phillip "Bones" Boyce, played by John Hoyt, whose nickname would carry over to DeForest Kelley's Leonard McCoy... (Page 24)

Verdict: True. Although Boyce isn't identified by his nickname in any final dialogue, Roddenberry's aforementioned original pitch document from early 1964 identifies the doctor as, "Captain April's only real confidant, 'Bones' Boyce considers himself the only realist aboard, measures each new landing in terms of the annoyances it will personally create for him."

Still from "The Menagerie" (1964)
Claim: For the production of "The Cage," the southern California desert became the planet Talos IV--known as Clesik to its native inhabitants. (Page 27)

Verdict: False. Behind the scenes photos (which can be seen on birdofthegalaxy's fabulous flickr page, here and here) show that the exterior of Talos IV was actually built on a soundstage with a painted backdrop, which is pretty obvious in the episode itself. Pages 6-10 of Bob Justman's shooting schedule (available here) confirm these "exteriors" were actually shot on stage 16 at Culver Studios.

Leonard Nimoy and Peter Duryea in "The Menagerie" (1964)
Claim: Leonard Nimoy's Spock looks on as Peter Duryea's Lt. José Tyler fires his phaser... (Page 28)

Verdict: False. Dedicated fans know that the term "phaser" wasn't coined until after the first pilot was completed. Captain Pike and company carry "Laser pistols" according to the revised teleplay dated November 20, 1964, and dialogue in the complete episode refers to "hand lasers." The same caption also refers to Number One leading an "away team," a term which wouldn't be used until Star Trek: The Next Generation; Star Trek instead referred to "landing parties."

Majel Barrett in "The Menagerie" (1964)
Claim: Her [Number One's] presence was one element of the pilot that caused NBC to pass on it, asserting that it wasn't "believable for a woman to be in charge." (Page 32)

Verdict: Probably false. Roddenberry often repeated this claim, which can be found in print in The Making of Star Trek(1968) and heard on Inside Star Trek(1976), but Herb Solow vehemently denied it in Inside Star Trek: The Real Story (1996) and elsewhere. Recalling NBC's response after the first pilot, Solow says the network told the production, "We support the concept of a woman in a strong, leading role, but we have serious doubts as to Majel Barrett's abilities to 'carry' the show as its costar" (Inside Star Trek: The Real Story, page 60).

Still from "The Savage Curtain" (1969)
Claim: In July 2014, former Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue cover girl Bar Rafaeli [sic] made a bit of a blunder when she posted a quote attributed to President Lincoln to her Instagram feed. not realizing that the words were Gene Roddenberry's from "The Savage Curtain" script, not really Lincoln's. (Page 39)

Verdict: Partly true; partly unknown. Bar Refaeli did quote from the script to "The Savage Curtain" in a July 16, 2014 Twitter post, mistaking it for a genuine Abraham Lincoln quote. However, the teleplay to "The Savage Curtain" was written by Gene Roddenberry and Arthur Heinemann; without examining the various script drafts of the episode, it's hard to say if the quoted words were Roddenberry's alone, as the magazine claims.

Lucille Ball
Claim: Lucille Ball, the comedy legend and star of I Love Lucy, was a producer on Star Trek because of her position at the studio and, because she was a big believer in the show, was instrumental in helping Roddenberry keep it alive. Using her pull as a studio head -- a rare amount of power for a female in the 1960s -- Ball was able to convince the higher ups to give Star Trek a second chance. (Page 46)

Verdict: False. Ball was the head of Desilu, and in that position, instrumental in getting Star Trek made, but she was not in any useful sense of the word a "producer" on Star Trek. Also, according to Herb Solow, Ball had little to do with convincing NBC to order a second pilot. In Inside Star Trek: The Real Story, Solow recounts a meeting with Mort Werner, held soon after the NBC schedule was announced for the fall of 1965 (and Star Trek wasn't on it):
Mort, Grant [Tinker], and Jerry [Stanley] were still taken by what we'd accomplished. And Mort had a complaint: 'Herb, you guys gave us a problem.'
'Sorry, Mort, we tried our best.'
'That's the problem. I didn't think Desilu was capable of making Star Trek, so when we looked over the pilot stories you gave us, we chose the most complicated and most difficult of the bunch. We recognize now it wasn't necessarily a story that properly showcased Star Trek's series potential. So the reason the pilot didn't sell was my fault, not yours. You guys just did your job too well. And I screwed up.'
I shook my head in awe. No, no, this wasn't a network executive talking to me. This was the Good Witch of the East come to lay gold at our feet. I conjured up all my good thoughts. 'So let's do another pilot.'
'That's exactly why we're here. We'll agree on some mutual story and script approval, and then, if the scripts are good, we'll give you some more money for another pilot.'
-Herbert F. Solow, Inside Star Trek: The Real Story (1996), page 60
It appears that this myth about Lucille Ball first originated in an online piece by Will Stape in 2007, and has been repeated in several other places online since, including this piece from blastr in 2013.

Leonard Nimoy in an early Star Trek publicity photo (1964)
Claim: Nimoy used these small parts as stepping stones to bigger television roles, including a memorable guest spot on Gene Roddenberry's The Lieutenant in 1964, where the writer and producer was already starting to cast the nascent Star Trek. (Pages 57-58)

Verdict: False. Nimoy's guest appearance on The Lieutenant, in an episode titled "In the Highest Tradition," first aired on February 29, 1964, and probably was filmed in late 1963. Roddenberry's written pitch for Star Trek wasn't completed until March 11, 1964, and he didn't have a meeting (or sign a deal) with Herb Solow at Desilu until April of 1964. Whenever Roddenberry began considering Nimoy for the part, he certainly wasn't starting to actually cast the series when Nimoy guest starred on The Lieutenant. Moreover, actor Gary Lockwood claims he's the one who suggested Nimoy for the part to Roddenberry, but only afterThe Lieutenant was off the air (the last episode of the series aired on April 18, 1964).

Gene Roddenberry, DeForest Kelley, and Jake Ehrlich, Sr. (1960)
Claim: [DeForest Kelley] worked steadily in TV and film until 1960, when he auditioned for a Gene Roddenberry-directed pilot called "Sam Benedict." The role ultimately did not go to Kelley, but Roddenberry kept him in mind for future roles and invited him to the premiere of "The Cage." (Page 63)

Verdict: False. Gene Roddenberry never worked as a director in film or television, and he never wrote a pilot called Sam Benedict. Roddenberry did write a pilot in 1960 called 333 Montgomery, based on a book about famous lawyer Jake Ehrlich, which starred DeForest Kelley. Ehrlich's life later became the inspiration for the short-lived series Sam Benedict, which aired during the 1962-63 season, but that show didn't involve Roddenberry or Kelley. 333 Montgomery is currently available on YouTube in three parts: here, here, and here.

Walter Koenig as Chekov in "Catspaw" (1967)
Claim: In 1965, the Soviet media had criticized the "utopian"Star Trek's marked absence of Russians. Agreeing that the other space power of the day should be represented on the U.S.S. Enterprise, Roddenberry began the search for a suitably Slavic ensign. (Page 67)

Verdict: Contested. Roddenberry did write a letter to the editor of Pravda on October 10, 1967 in which he said, "about ten months ago one of the stars of our television show, STAR TREK, informed us he had heard that the youth edition of your newspaper had published an article regarding STAR TREK to the effect that the only nationality we were missing aboard our USS Enterprise was a Russian." Whether or not the editorial in the alleged youth-edition of Pravda actually existed remains an open question, but Roddenberry's letter suggests the story was more than a publicity stunt. More can be read about the issue at Snopes.

Still from "Plato's Stepchildren" (1968)
Claim: [Recalling "Plato's Stepchildren," Nichelle Nichols says,] "That is how the first interracial kiss happened on TV." (Page 68)

Verdict: False. This myth was pretty thoroughly debunked by The Agony Booth last month, and I offered some additional comments regarding the scene here.

Still from "The Trouble with Tribbles" (1967)
Claim: It wasn't until the first episode of the second season, "The Trouble with Tribbles," that the [Klingon] race began to emerge as the perfect foil to Kirk and Co. (Page 76)

Verdict: False. The Klingons, established in season one's "Errand of Mercy," first re-appeared in season two's "Friday's Child," the third episode produced for the second season and the eleventh to air. The Klingons actually make their third appearance on Star Trek in "The Trouble with Tribbles," which was the fifteenth episode aired during season two, and the thirteenth produced. As for the first episode of the second season, "Amok Time" was the first episode to be aired in season two, and "Catspaw" was the first produced.

Lawrence Montaigne in "Amok Time" (1967)
Claim: [Lawrence] Montaigne, who was originally considered for the role of Spock before Leonard Nimoy decided to leave Mission: Impossible for Star Trek, played the Vulcan Stonn in "Amok Time" as well as the Romulan Decius in "Balance of Terror." (Page 98)

Verdict: False. Although Desilu did have Montaigne at the ready in early 1967, in case contract negotiations with Nimoy for the second season fell through, there's no evidence that Montaigne was in the running for the role of Spock in 1964 and Nimoy never left Mission: Impossiblefor Star Trek. Indeed, Nimoy didn't appear on Mission: Impossibleuntil after Star Trek was cancelled, when the actor joined the cast as Paris for two seasons from 1969 to 1971.

Special thanks to blog reader Neil B. for loaning me his copy of the magazine for review, and suggesting this article in the first place.

Select images courtesy of Trek Core.

Sources:

The Gene Roddenberry Star Trek Television Series Collection (1964-1969)

The Making of Star Trek (Stephen Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry, 1968)

Inside Star Trek : The Real Story (Herbert F. Solow and Robert H. Justman, 1996)

CBS Watch! Magazine (December/January 2015)

On Pickups and Lifts in 'The Man Trap'

$
0
0
Still from 'The Man Trap' (1966)
This one is in response to a question from blog reader Neil B., who writes, "In 'The Man Trap' chapter in These Are The Voyages — TOS: Season One, Marc Cushman and Susan Osborn say a shot of Nimoy in the command chair was postponed and done as a pick-up while shooting 'The Naked Time.' Isn't it possible that it's just a lift from 'The Naked Time' that was edited into 'The Man Trap' at a later date?"

Like many questions I get from readers, I didn't immediately know the answer, but I thought there was a good chance I could find out. For whatever reason, the production records for 'The Man Trap' are exceptionally intact in the Roddenberry and Justman collections available for public viewing at the University of California, Los Angeles. I traveled there a few weeks ago looking for answers.

For reference, this is what it says in the revised and expanded edition of These Are The Voyages:
Day 2, Thursday. The first full day of production was also spent on the bridge, with the camera rolling between 8 a.m. and 6:50 p.m. Daniels was one-quarter day behind when he took his last shot. Two scenes had been postponed and would be filmed during production of the next episode -- "The Naked Time." One was the brief shot in the teaser, of Spock in the command chair and the unusual placement of Lt. Uhura and Lt. Leslie at the helm -- the plot for "The Naked Time" explaining why. With the addition of the Captain's log entry that opens the episode -- not in the shooting script, but written and recorded later -- Roddenberry felt the audience needed to see Spock on the bridge when Kirk refers to him. He was right. 
--Marc Cushman with Susan Osborn, These Are The Voyages — TOS: Season One (Second Edition, December 2013), p.199.
This is identical to the way the passage reads in the first edition of the book, except for one sentence at the end that has been omitted:
The second scene -- Kirk's first visit to the bridge in this episode -- features Bruce Hyde (as Lt. Kevin Riley) at the helm, a character introduced in the next episode. 
--Marc Cushman with Susan Osborn, These Are The Voyages — TOS: Season One (First Edition, August 2013), p.173
Although clunky — the book now refers to a pair of postponed scenes, but identifies only one — Cushman and Osborn were wise to omit this sentence. As previously mentioned on this blog, Bruce Hyde isn't in "The Man Trap" at all.

Unfortunately, just about everything the authors have left intact in this passage is wrong, too. Cushman and Osborn claim that the second day of production on "The Man Trap"— Thursday, June 23, 1966 — was spent shooting on the bridge, but this is incorrect. Per the daily production report, this day was actually spent filming in the botany section, the transporter room, the corridor, and in McCoy's quarters. Scenes on the bridge were taken on the first and fourth days of filming (Wednesday, June 22, 1966 and Monday, June 27, 1966).

Moreover, although the June 23, 1966 shooting call was at 8 o'clock in the morning, the first shot wasn't taken until 8:15. George Takei, Garrison True, and three unidentified extras were not dismissed until 7 o'clock at night, not 6:50.

Regarding the supposed pick-ups done a week later for the teaser, the first place I looked was the shooting script — revised on June 17, 1966 — which reads as follows:

"THE MAN TRAP"

TEASER

FADE IN:

1 EXT. PLANET (STOCK)

Rotates in space...

2 & 3 OMITTED

4 EXT. CRATER'S CAMP - DAY - WIDE ANGLE

ESTABLISHING Planet M-113. The planet largely barren, some unusual low vegetation. The Crater campsite is a crumbling remains of what might once have been a weird sort of temple. There is considerable sign of archaeological digging around it. In the far distance, barely seen, are other crumbling remains of a civilization which must have existed here once. Also a shed, a heaping of tools, supplies and archaeological artifacts, statues, carvings, and so on, leading to a doorway in the temple, a room of which has obviously been converted to Crater's living quarters. (TRANSPORTER EFFECT) as CAPTAIN JAMES KIRK, DOCTOR McCOY, and a Crewman DARNELL SHIMMER into existence. They look about them, reacting to the surface of this new planet. As they move toward the stone door opening to the living quarters:

                                                        KIRK
                                       Shall we stop to pick some
                                       flowers, Doctor? When a man
                                       visits an old girlfriend, she
                                       usually expects something like
                                       that.

Still from "The Man Trap" (1966)
As evident from this excerpt, no shots on the bridge were scripted for the opening scenes of "The Man Trap"—  or the rest of the teaser, for that matter — at least in the shooting script associate producer Bob Justman donated to UCLA, along with many other production files from the show.

By the time the episode's shooting schedule had been prepared (June 20, 1966), the earliest scenes on the bridge planned to go before the cameras were numbered 32-34. These moments were described in the shooting schedule as, "Kirk [sic] & Uhura argue-announcement from Landing Party re: death stuns Uhura-she exits." They were far removed from the episode's teaser. After examining the daily production reports for both "The Man Trap" and "The Naked Time," I found no evidence that any shots from the former were delayed and picked up during the filming of the latter.

When, then, were these shots aboard the bridge added? Post-production. On August 1, 1966, (Cushman and Osborn incorrectly date this as August 10, 1966) Bob Justman wrote to Gene Roddenberry about the state of the episode's teaser:
After viewing "THE MAN TRAP" with Sandy Courage this afternoon, I am of the opinion that we need Narration for the opening of the TEASER. The TEASER starts out with a shot of the Enterprise orbiting about a planet and then we DISSOLVE FROM that to an ESTABLISHING SHOT of planet surface and then from that to a shot of Kirk and his companions materializing on the surface of the planet. These three shots take quite a bit of time on the screen.
And since this is liable to be our first or second show on the air, I think it would be wise to establish where we are and what we are doing, over these opening shots. Therefore, feel free to write a lengthy narration for Captain Kirk. It could run as much as half a minute, if you wished it. 
Roddenberry's hand-written response was simple, "Agree. Am writing it." Justman's memo makes one thing clear: as of August 1, the beginning of the episode's teaser still matched the shooting script, dissolving directly from an optical of the Enterprise to an establishing shot of the planet surface. On August 4, 1966, seven pages of editing notes were delivered, and the newly revised teaser was scripted for the first time:
REEL 1
Teaser voice over begins over SHOT of ship in orbit.
                                                        KIRK'S VOICE OVER
                                       Captain's log Star Date 1513.1. Our
                                       position...orbiting Planet M-113, the
                                       home of an ancient and long-dead
                                       civilization. On the Enterprise,
                                       Mister Spock temporarily in command
                                       while ship's surgeon McCoy and
                                       myself beam down to the planet
                                       surface.
Voice over will carry through ESTABLISHING SHOT of Bridge, CLOSER ON MISTER SPOCK as he eyes the ship's viewing screen, ANGLE ON SHIP'S VIEWING SCREEN showing the planet slowly rotating there; then to ESTABLISHING SHOT of the planet surface which leads to materialization of the landing party.
These revisions were scripted at some point during the period of August 1-4, 1966. Marc Daniels simply couldn't have filmed the suggested pick-ups during "The Naked Time," which was shot from June 30-July 11, 1966. At that point, the revised teaser hadn't even been scripted.

When, then, were these pick-ups shot? As it turns out, they weren't pick-up shots at all, but editorial lifts from other episodes. The wide shot is from "The Naked Time," as Cushman and Osborn point out. The close-up, however, is from "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" (which was filmed from July 28 to August 9, 1966, with the bridge material already in the can by the time Roddenberry and Justman were tweaking "The Man Trap"). The camera framing in "The Man Trap" is a little different than in "What Are Little Girls Are Made Of?"— suggesting it's an outtake — but the lighting, the folds on Spock's shirt, and the position of his hands all strongly suggest it's the exact same set-up. Compare the shots for yourself below.

Still from "The Man Trap" (1966)
Still from "The Naked Time" (1966)
Still from "The Man Trap" (1966)
Still from "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" (1966)
Images courtesy of Trek Core.

Thanks to Neil B. for suggesting this post, and identifying the close-up of Spock in "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" His suggestions helped improve this piece; any errors that remain are entirely my own.

Sources:

The Gene Roddenberry Star Trek Television Series Collection (1964-1969)

The Robert H. Justman Collection of Star Trek Television Series Scripts (1966-1968)

These Are The Voyages: TOS, Season One (Marc Cushman with Susan Osborn, August 2013)

These Are The Voyages: TOS, Season One [Revised and Expanded Edition] (Marc Cushman with Susan Osborn, December 2013)

Leonard Nimoy: 1931-2015

$
0
0
Leonard Nimoy's first close-up as Spock in "The Menagerie" (1964)
Frequent readers of this blog will know that I'm not usually at a loss for words, but on the subject of Leonard Nimoy's death, I am almost speechless. For as long as I can remember, Star Trek and Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock have been a part of my life. Now Nimoy is gone.

I had the pleasure of seeing Mr. Nimoy in person twice in my life  in the early 2000s, at a Seattle-area Star Trek convention alongside William Shatner, and more recently, at a Hammer Museum event where he spoke about his career as a photographer alongside fellow Star Trek (2009) actor Zachary Quinto. On both occasions, I was struck by the depth of the man's intelligence, the warmth of his sense of humor, and the genuine affection he showed for both his friends and his fans.

True to his character's now iconic salutation, Mr. Nimoy lived long and prospered, finding success as an actor, director, author, poet, singer, and photographer in a career that spanned seven decades. He may be most famous for portraying Mr. Spock on Star Trek (a role which garnered him three consecutive Emmy nominations), but Nimoy leaves behind a tremendous body of work far beyond this role. He'll be long remembered and deeply missed by many.

Goodbye, Mr. Nimoy.

Image Courtesy of Trek Core.

And On The Seventh Day: Conflicting Production Accounts of Star Trek's Second Season

$
0
0
Still from "I, Mudd" (1967)
In early 2012, a friend sent me a spreadsheet which listed the shooting dates for every episode of Star Trek (1966-69). It had been meticulously compiled based on hundreds of production slates which have appeared in film trims sold by Lincoln Enterprises over the years (such as this one, for example).

A few months after receiving this document, I prepared my own spreadsheet of production dates based on various documents (daily production budget reports supplemented by daily production reports and call sheets, when available) from the Gene Roddenberry Star Trek collection at the University of California, Los Angeles. These helped fill in a few gaps, and I have relied heavily on both spreadsheets since whenever I've written about the production history of Star Trek.

Flash forward to earlier this year, when I read Marc Cushman and Susan Osborn's These Are The Voyages — TOS: Season Two (2014) for the first time. As with the authors' previous volume, a number of claims made in the book left me (pardon the phrase) raising an eyebrow. I couldn't possibly address all of those claims at once without ending up with a book of my own, so I hope you'll allow me to narrow my focus (for the moment) towards the book's "production diaries" (essentially, accounts of what scenes were shot when).

Until recently, I presumed there was little reason to doubt the shooting dates offered in These Are The Voyages, but since conducting the research for that earlier post and now this one, I have become much more skeptical of Cushman and Osborn's production diaries. I first began to suspect that the authors' production diaries did not match my own chronology  after reading a passage from the chapter devoted to "I, Mudd." Regarding that episode, Cushman and Osborn write:
The consensus was that “I, Mudd,” with all the trick photography that was needed, would take longer to film than the usual Star Trek, so an extra day was allocated. A seven-day shooting schedule was a luxury for Marc Daniels, but he would need every minute. 
--Marc Cushman with Susan Osborn, These Are The Voyages — TOS: Season Two (eBook Edition, March 2014)
This brief passage stood out to me for a couple of reasons. First, as broadcast, "I, Mudd" doesn't have many trick photography shots in it. In point of fact, beyond six stock shots of the Enterprise, there are only three special photographic effects in the whole episode. One of the three is a standard transporter materialization — an expensive, but ultimately routine effect by this point in the series. The other two are split screen shots, which showcase a multitude of androids with the help of a locked off camera and an optical printer (and of course, twins). Incidentally, although Cushman and Osborn twice claim that these split screens were accomplished without an optical printer, my sources at Star Trek History have confirmed otherwise. I have included stills of all three shots below. Second, my own information (the spreadsheets I previously described) indicates that "I, Mudd" filmed over the course of six days, not seven, going before the cameras on August 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 21, 1967.

Still from "I, Mudd" (Scene 31, 1967)
Still from "I, Mudd" (Scene 39, 1967)
Still from "I, Mudd" (Scene 85, 1967)
Regarding the episode's use of trick photography, I consulted with the production paperwork for "I, Mudd" available in the Robert Justman Star Trek collection at UCLA, for more information. Although the final episode does not contain a great deal of special photographic effects work, I recognized the possibility that other effects may have been planned, only to be discarded during filming or editing. Therefore, I needed to find out how much trick photography was actually planned for "I, Mudd." To answer that question, I turned to the episode's special photographic effects memo, which was prepared just prior to production on August 10, 1967:
Scene 1: OPTICAL HOUSE - Standard Enterprise Flyby
Scene 10: OPTICAL HOUSE - Standard Enterprise Flyby
Scene 13: OPTICAL HOUSE - MATTE stars into shot shooting past Sulu. We may not need this shot, but if we do, one was made for "METAMORPHOSIS."
Scene 14: OPTICAL HOUSE - Standard Enterprise Turn or Peel Off.
Scene 24: OPTICAL HOUSE - Standard Enterprise Flyby
Scene 27: OPTICAL HOUSE - MATTE approach to planet onto Main Viewing Screen. Use the grey planet in Library.
Scene 30: OPTICAL HOUSE - Standard Enterprise orbit of planet.
Scene 31: STAGE - Tied down camera. Standard "STAR TREK" MATERIALIZATION. Actors should not overlap each other when in the materialization position.
Scene 39: STAGE - Tied down camera. This will be a SPLIT-SCREEN to create many Alice Androids. This will probably be a 3-way split in an attempt to show as many Alices as possible. The outside edges of the frame could have a girl on the frame line to indicate there are more. PleasecallEddieMilkis&FrankVanderveerwhenreadytomaketheshotforScs. 39-50-85.
Scene 50: STAGE - Tied down camera. Shot made same as Scene 39 above.
Scene 85: STAGE - Tied down camera. Shot made same as Scene 39 and 50 above.
Scene 86: OPTICAL HOUSE: Standard Enterprise Flyby.
Based on this document, twelve special photographic effects shots were planned for "I, Mudd," only eight of which appeared in the final episode (scene 86, a stock shot of the Enterprise leaving orbit, became two stock shots). The special photographic effects shots planned for scenes 13, 24 and 27 were abandoned, but these were all intended stock shots. Ultimately, only one new special photographic effects shot planned for "I, Mudd" was abandoned: scene 50, a tied down camera shot (in which the camera was locked into place to allow for multiple shots to be taken that would later be combined into one shot by using an optical printer) that would have been similar to the effect used in scenes 39 and 85 (both pictured above). In light of that fact, it's safe to say that "I, Mudd" wasn't filled with time-consuming trick photography that would have slowed down the schedule. There's certainly no evidence in the files at UCLA that there was any "consensus" that the episode would need seven days to complete because of its special photographic effects needs.

What then, led Cushman and Osborn to conclude that the episode was planned as a seven day shoot, if there weren't plans for a plethora of time-consuming shots? Judging by the evidence in the archival record at UCLA, it was almost certainly the episode's shooting schedule that led the author's astray. To give you an idea what a shooting schedule from Star Trek looks like, I have reproduced the entire shooting schedule for "I, Mudd" below.








At first glance, the above schedule seems to confirm that "I, Mudd" was intended to shoot in seven days, rather than the usual six. Upon closer inspection, however, it becomes clear that Cushman and Osborn have overlooked a crucial piece of information: more than half of the schedule's first day  — 5 and 2/8 pages, to be exact — wasn't spent on "I, Mudd" at all. Instead, it was dedicated to picking up several scenes with Barbara Luna for "Mirror, Mirror" that had been postponed two weeks before when the actress developed a sudden illness.

Here is how Cushman and Osborn briefly describe the first day of filming on "I, Mudd" in the second volume of These Are The Voyages:
Filming began Monday, August 14, 1967, on Stage 9, for the Enterprise sets. William Shatner had the day off. Nimoy and Kelley were present for their brief encounter with Norman in the corridor. James Doohan was needed for his physical confrontation with Norman in engineering. Also shot was Norman in “Emergency Manual Control,” the upper deck of engineering. 
--Marc Cushman with Susan Osborn, These Are The Voyages — TOS: Season Two (eBook Edition, March 2014).
This account, along with the rest of the author's production diary for "I, Mudd," was almost certainly drawn from the episode's shooting schedule. Based upon conflicting information found in a number of film trims generously provided by Star Trek History, as well contradictory filming dates indicated in a February 10, 1968 post-production report sourced from the Gene Roddenberry collection, it's highly unlikely that Cushman and Osborn had access to the episode's daily production reports or call sheets. This makes sense, as (unfortunately) neither of these documents survive in the public files at UCLA.

Unfortunately, using a shooting schedule — a document prepared before production begins — to find out what actually happened during production is rather unreliable, to say the least. To draw an appropriate analogy, this would be like relying on a contractor's estimate as a precise account of the day-to-day construction of a building from the ground up.

William Shatner  filming a scene from "I, Mudd" on August 14, 1967 (courtesy of Star Trek History)

Indeed, Cushman and Osborn's chronology runs into trouble the moment you compare it to slates found in film trims from "I, Mudd." For example, the authors claim that William Shatner was given the day off on August 14, 1967; two film clips of slates dated 8-14-67 prove that Shatner was on set and working that day (see above). The authors also claim that the brief scene from the teaser between Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, and Richard Tatro (as Norman) in the Enterprise corridor was filmed on August 14, 1967; another film trim shows that the scene was actually taken on August 18, 1967. In fact, none of the film clips provided by my friends at Star Trek History match the filming dates printed in Cushman and Osborn's book. Even the date on this clip, which actually appears in These Are The Voyages, does not line up with the authors' text!

For a complete account of these discrepancies, I have created the table below. "Film Clip" indicates the date found on production slates provided by Star Trek History, "Schedule" indicates the date planned in the shooting schedule, and "TATV" indicates the date described in the text of These Are The Voyages.


Based on the dates from these eleven film clips, it seems that the production actually followed the shooting schedule for "I, Mudd" fairly closely, with one notable exception — the eight scenes from the episode that had originally been penciled in for August 11, 1967. Those scenes ended up being delayed when filming on "The Deadly Years" went over schedule by approximately half a day. Rather than move on to "I, Mudd" after "The Deadly Years," as originally planned, the production opted to film the scenes with William Shatner and Barbara Luna needed to complete "Mirror, Mirror" instead. In fairness to Cushman and Osborn, These Are The Voyages does correctly note the August 11, 1967 overages on "The Deadly Years," as well as the scenes from "Mirror, Mirror" that were subsequently shot later in the day:
Day 7, Friday, August 11. The production [of "The Deadly Years"] was extended into the first half of a seventh day. For the last scene in sickbay, Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley, and Doohan had to go through the grueling makeup process one more time. At the lunch break, Nimoy, Kelley, and Doohan were dismissed. Pevney checked out, too. Shatner had his old age makeup stripped away for his love scenes with the now healthy Barbara Luna, finishing “Mirror, Mirror” under the direction of Marc Daniels. 
--Marc Cushman with Susan Osborn, These Are The Voyages — TOS: Season Two (eBook Edition, March 2014). 
Beginning with its account of the very next day of filming, however, the chronology in These Are The Voyages starts to really run off the rails. Cushman and Osborn assume that the 2 and 7/8 pages for "I, Mudd" originally scheduled for August 11 were pushed until August 14, and that these pages occupied the episode's entire first day of principal photography. Neither the evidence nor common sense, however, support this view. For example, a film clip provided by Star Trek History shows scene 3 being shot on August 18 (in the completed episode, note that scenes 2 and 3 have been combined into one long take with no coverage, lasting from about 0:07 to 1:14).

Page 3A, "I, Mudd" Cast Sheet (August 1967; personal information omitted)

Additionally, a revised page from the episode's cast sheet (pictured above) shows the stunt engineers needed to film scenes 16, 18, and 19 scheduled for August 21, not August 14. Judging by the straightforward blocking of the eight scenes in question  — scenes 2-3, 4-5, and 17 were each accomplished in a single shot with no coverage; scenes 16 and 18-19 portray an action sequence with only five different set-ups  —  they appear to have been rushed. Tacked on to an already busy schedule (prior to these eight scenes being added, August 18 and 21 already had 16 and 5/8 pages planned between them), it's understandable that Marc Daniels chose to shoot the extra material as simply as possible. There was simply no time for multiple camera set-ups and complex staging.

However, even if this archival evidence did not exist, common sense would still call Cushman and Osborn's timeline into question. It is highly unlikely, for example, that associate producer Bob Justman would have allowed the cast and crew to spend an entire day filming less than three pages of material — material originally scheduled as only part of an 8 and 1/8 page day. The series could not afford such a lapse — it was struggling to finish episodes on time for air dates as it was. To illustrate this point in anther fashion, even "Amok Time," which at seven days was the most generously scheduled episode of season two, never planned to shoot less than 4 1/2 pages in a day — and that relatively low figure was to allow for the completion of the episode's complex fight choreography occupying its memorable climax. In general, most days on Star Trek had between 7-10 pages planned to go before the cameras.

Common sense calls other portions of Cushman and Osborn’s production timeline into question as well. Their most head-scratching account pertains to the work done in the INT. LOUNGE set, which they claim was done in half a day on Friday, August 18, 1967:
Day 5, Friday. Work continued on Stage 10, now in the “Interior Lounge” for numerous sequences including one complex scene which was left out of the completed episode… While the cast ate lunch, the company moved to Stage 9 where many Enterprise sets had been collapsed to make room for a new set, “Int. Control Room,” which involved Spock, Norman, and one of the Alice models. 
--Marc Cushman with Susan Osborn, These Are The Voyages – TOS: Season Two (eBook Edition, March 2014)
Quite frankly, when you compare this timeline to the shooting schedule, the numbers simply do not add up. In total, 16 3/8 pages were planned for the INT. LOUNGE set, several more pages than Star Trek ever filmed in a single day, let alone half of one. To give those numbers some perspective, consider the fact that "The Doomsday Machine," which was the only episode of the series planned for and shot in five days, scheduled its busiest days with 13 1/8 pages. It comes as no surprise, then, to find out that the INT. LOUNGE scenes were actually scheduled to be shot across two days (Wednesday and Thursday, August 16-17, 1967). Based upon production slates, filming apparently followed the pre-production plan for these scenes fairly closely.

Further complicating matters are the two scenes in the INT. CONTROL CENTER set, which Cushman and Osborn misidentify as "Int. Control Room." The authors' claim these two scenes occupied the rest of the episode's fifth day of shooting after lunch. However, scenes 44 and 44A  (marked with a letter because it was added to the shooting script after the scene numbers had already been locked) cover only 1 1/2 pages of material, a figure that surely would have driven Bob Justman and the studio up the wall if it actually took Marc Daniels half a shooting day to complete. Alongside all the other evidence, the fact that Daniels was asked back to direct four subsequent episodes of Star Trek strongly suggests this didn't happen.

William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy have lunch while shooting Star Trek (circa 1967)
Another problem with Cushman and Osborn's "production diaries" is the way the authors are able to deftly identify which scenes were shot before and after lunch. This happens twice in their account of the filming of "I, Mudd," as well as more than twenty other times in These Are The Voyages – TOS: Season Two. This may seem like a minor point, but when you examine the daily production reports kept while Star Trek was being filmed, it becomes clear that even when these documents have survived (many are completely missing in the UCLA collection, while others are sadly incomplete) there's often no way to determine which scenes book-ended lunch. Occasionally, this information can be deduced based upon when actors were called to the set and what scenes were shot that day, but in many cases even that information won't give you a concrete answer. By constantly inserting details such as these into their books, Cushman and Osborn have created a better flowing narrative, but stands as a poor example of archival history.

I've included a portion of the production report for the second day of filming on "The Devil in the Dark" below to illustrate what can and cannot be ascertained from this paperwork. Unfortunately, the daily production reports for "I, Mudd" and a whole bevy of season two episodes do not currently exist in the Roddenberry or Justman collections at UCLA, but surviving paperwork indicates these reports were consistent during the show's three season run.

Excerpt from the daily production report for "The Devil in the Dark" (January 17, 1967)
These Are The Voyages' insistence that "I, Mudd" finished in seven days rather than six leads to a cascade of further complications when it comes to accounting for the production of "The Trouble with Tribbles," the very next episode produced. Confronted with a production slate indicating a scene from "The Trouble with Tribbles" shot on August 22, 1967 (when Cushman and Osborn claim "I, Mudd" was still filming), the authors suggest the following:
Bob Justman’s production reports state that the medical lab scene was shot on August 23, 1967. The clapboard, held by Bill McGovern as the camera began rolling says August 22. But “I, Mudd” was still filming under the guidance of Marc Daniels on August 22. A possible explanation: as production crews rush through filming, the white tape placed on a clapboard with the date written across it is sometimes accidentally left on from the day before … and it could be several camera “takes” before anyone notices. On a hectic TV production schedule, anything can happen...and quite often does. 
--Marc Cushman with Susan Osborn, These Are The Voyages – TOS: Season Two (eBook Edition, March 2014) 
There are multiple problems with this explanation, however.

(1) At least one other film clip bearing the same date has surfaced, and it's from the filming of "The Trouble with Tribbles," not "I, Mudd." The scene in question (53, set up "K") takes place during Act III of "Tribbles."

(2) The aforementioned production slate pictured in the book shows Scene 33, set-up "A," take 2. This was literally the last scene planned to shoot during the first day of "The Trouble with Tribbles." Assuming the production stuck to the planned schedule (and every production slate made available to me by my friends at Star Trek History, as well as every post-production document in the Roddenberry files at UCLA, supports this assumption), the only way Cushman and Osborn could be correct is if the slate had the wrong date on it for the whole first day of filming on "The Trouble with Tribbles."

(3) As I've argued extensively already, post-production documents (see below) and production stills support the conclusion that "I, Mudd" wrapped production on August 21, 1967. It simply wasn't being filmed on August 22, 1967; by then, the production had moved on to "The Trouble with Tribbles."

In light of all these issues, it seems highly unlikely that Cushman and Osborn even had access to the daily production reports for "The Trouble with Tribbles," like they claim, especially since that documentation is no longer available in the UCLA collections. If they do, I'd sure love to see it.

Excerpt from season 2 post-production report (February 10, 1968)
Although Cushman and Osborn are savvy enough to recognize that they have to provide some sort of explanation for the August 22, 1967 slate for their chronology to work, they offer no explanation for the other slate which illustrates their chapter on "The Trouble with Tribbles." Unfortunately, the information on this slate also contradicts their narrative. Writing about the final day of filming before the labor day break, they put forth the following narrative:
Day 6. Wednesday, August 30. It is an old Hollywood tradition to shoot the fight scenes last, just in case one of the performers gets a black eye. On this day, still on the bar set, the brawl between “Earthers” and Klingons was filmed. 
--Marc Cushman with Susan Osborn, These Are The Voyages – TOS: Season Two (eBook Edition, March 2014)  
The only problem with this account? Scene 41 takes place right in the middle of the bar fight which was scheduled to occupy the episode's final day of filming – and the date on the clapperboard is clearly August 29, 1967, not August 30. To date, no film clips from Star Trek with a slate dated August 30, 1967 have surfaced. The post-production report shown above clearly shows that filming was completed in six days, and wrapped on August 29. Given the preponderance of evidence, it's more than likely that the cast and crew of Star Trek weren't filming at all on August 30, 1967, but were instead enjoying some much needed time off during their labor day break.

Still from "The Trouble with Tribbles" (1967)
Ultimately, the so-called "production diaries" in These Are The Voyages (volumes one and two, at least – I haven't read a word of volume three) are simply too problematic for me to consider them reliable accounts of the making of Star Trek. They present pre-production information as representative of what actually occurred when the cameras were rolling, despite numerous examples of the production having to adapt to delays and other changing circumstances. They frequently ignore the information found on slates in film clips (in many cases, this even includes the film clips used to illustrate the book). In some cases, even when the daily production reports are available, Cushman and Osborn misunderstand or misrepresent what this documentation actually indicates. Such bad assumptions and, worse, outright invention have no place in what is supposed to be the definitive history book about the making of Star Trek.

--

Stills from "I, Mudd" and "The Trouble with Tribbles," as well as the behind-the-scenes image of Shatner and Nimoy at lunch, are courtesy of Trek Core.

The restored film clip from "I, Mudd" is courtesy of Star Trek History.

Special Thanks: The "I, Mudd" shooting schedule was carefully transcribed by the ever-helpful Sandra Bulk, who turned around the document in only a few days, while it took me several weeks to research and write the majority of this piece. David T. and Curt M. of Star Trek History generously provided a great deal of information about numerous film clips in their collection, and even granted me permission to use one of these rare stills here. Kevin K. generously donated his time and industry experience helping me understand and decode various production documents. Finally, I'd like to thank the small group of helpful readers who have donated countless hours proofreading and critiquing this and many other pieces that have appeared on Star Trek Fact Check. They are: Maurice M.David E.David T.Curt M.William S.William J.Neil B.Kevin M.Kevin K., and George N. Star Trek Fact Check started as a one-man operation, but it wouldn't have grown to where it is today without your help. Any errors that remain are entirely my own.

Author's Note: Unlike the print edition, the eBook edition of These Are The Voyages — TOS: Season Two is without pagination. I did not have the print edition available for reference while preparing this post, which is why the passages quoted are not identified by page number.

Sources:


Orion Press Announcement and Plans for the Remainder of 2015

$
0
0
Behind the scenes photograph from the filming of "Amok Time" (1967)
You may have noticed that my output has slowed considerably this year. I've been busier both at work and at home, and carving out the time to research and write material for this blog has been a challenge. I've also been tackling subjects which have required much more research and analysis than almost anything I've written before. I'm proud of the two pieces I've written so far this year (if you haven't had the chance to read them, I think they're among my best work), but this has undeniably slowed my pace. 

In the next seven months, however, I'm hoping to grow the output of this blog considerably. Allow me a moment to explain...

I've been a member of the online Star Trek fan community for almost fifteen years. In all that time, I haven't visited a website more frequently for information about the making of Star Trek than Randall Landers' superlative Orion Press. For the past year and a half, I've had the pleasure of helping Orion Press complete its Unseen Elements of the Original Series webpage, which provides summaries and analyses of the stories and teleplays that went unused (in whole or in part) on Star Trek. It's been a great joy to be able to contribute to that project, which remains an ongoing interest.

Recently, I learned that after decades of publishing Orion Press – which has existed in print or online since 1979 – Randy will be stepping back to focus on Project: Potemkin and other fan films currently in the planning stages. Not wanting Orion Press' numerous pieces of non-fiction to disappear from the web altogether, Randy asked if I would be interested in migrating these articles over to my blog.

Today I am happy to announce that I will begin doing just that. Starting next week, I will begin re-posting articles from Orion Press on this blog alongside my own research, at a rate of one article per week.

These articles were originally published by Orion Press and are reprinted by permission of publisher Randall Landers. All rights revert to the original authors. In a few cases, some minor edits have been made by the original authors of these articles. In a few cases, I have inserted my own commentary (under the heading "editor's note") when my own research has been able to shed additional light on the story or teleplay being discussed.

Some of these articles are more than thirty years old. Although efforts were made to contact the original authors, some have long been lost in the mists of fandom. If any author of material being posted on this blog would like to have it taken down, please let me know, and I will happily remove it.

Film slate from "Shore Leave" (1966)
In addition to the migration of this material from Orion Press, I also have an ambitious slate of new material planned for the rest of this year:
  • A fact check of the various claims made by Richard Arnold about the making of the original Star Trek during his March 10, 2014 appearance on Mission Log: A Roddenberry Star Trek Podcast.
  • A tribute to the late Grace Lee Whitney, debunking various myths that have circulated over the years, and providing some additional context from the archives about her short-lived stint as a regular during Star Trek's first season.
  • A sixth (and, at long last, possibly final) part to my ongoing series about the development and writing of what became the second season episode "A Private Little War."
  • A look at the multiple stories how William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, and DeForest Kelley developed tinnitus after an on-set explosion, and my determination which version is the most believable.
  • A fact check of Marc Cushman and Susan Osborn's claim that Gene Coon, not Norman Spinrad, made the decision to kill Matt Decker in "The Doomsday Machine" late in the rewrite process of that classic episode.
  • An analysis of the claims in Inside Star Trek: The Real Story and These Are The Voyages that NBC made multiple on-air announcements that Star Trek would be returning for another season.
  • An examination of the infamous, original ending to "Who Mourns for Adonais?" and Marc Cushman and Susan Osborn's claim that NBC had the scene scrapped shortly before it was scheduled to be filmed.
As always, however, I'm just as happy to postpone all my plans if it means being able to comb the archives in search of an answer to a reader question. So, if you have a question you want answered, please post it in the comments, or drop me a line using the contact form to the left. One of the great pleasures of writing Star Trek Fact Check has been my interactions with other fans who are as interested in rigorous, archival research about the making of the Star Trek as I am.

Images Courtesy of Trek Core.
Viewing all 43 articles
Browse latest View live