Harlan Ellison and Lennier
Justin Bacon
Ellison's original script for CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER, Harlan Ellison's
introdudction to his original script, and Season 5 of Babylon 5. ]
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
u
v
w
x
y
z
I was reading Harlan Ellison's original screenplay for CITY ON THE EDGE OF
FOREVER, along with its introduction, and one of the comments he makes in the
introduction got me thinking about Lennier's horrendous moral misstep in Season
5 (p. 20 of the hardback):
"I was told: 'Our character wouldn't act like that.'
"Bull. Who *knows* how someone will act when pressed to the final, ineluctable
confrontation with himself? I felt it vastly deepened the one-dimensional
character of Kirk-the-rock-jawed, and made a point about mortality and the
necessity for love that television seldom considers."
(For those of you who don't know, Ellison's original script for CITY ON THE
EDGE OF FOREVER had a murdering drug dealer go back in time, not McCoy. The
drug dealer, despite being an evil, contemptuous man, nevertheless ends up
saving Edith Keeler selflessly. Kirk and Spock go back in time; Kirk falls in
love; and when the time comes to save Edith or let her die... Kirk can't bring
himself to do it. Spock, acting purely on logic, stops the drug dealer instead.
It's a brilliant script with every strength of the eviscerated version which
would eventually be televised, and many more besides. If you haven't read it,
you should.)
(If you don't know what CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER is, go watch the episode.)
But to digress: This got me thinking about Lennier. In Ellison's script Kirk
can't let Edith die, and so he dooms the universe. Lennier, OTOH, can't bring
himself to save Sheridan (although he later turns around to correct his
mistake). They are, in some ways, polar opposites -- in others kindred spirits.
I still argue that this presentation of Lennier is 100% correct, and makes the
character far more powerful and compelling.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
BRETNTRACI
Yes, I agree totally.
Some have used the word homicidal in context with Lennier's actions. I
disagree.
Let's take that old argument "if you could go back in time and kill Hitler as
an infant would you do it?" I don't know if I could or not. Yes it would save
lives but at that time he is an innocent. BUT I *would* be able to stop my self
from interfearing if some one else did the deed. A fine line but one none the
less.
I don't see Lennier as homicidal. I don't think he would actually try to kill
Sheridan, but if by inaction he knew Sheridan would die -- leaving him with his
only shot at *true* love, I think he would not act -- this is his first impulse
(his second impulse is to try to save him).
BTW -- HE's story CotEoF is *so good* that even the deluted version is one of
the best Treks ever.
And yes I know it is unfair to put Sheridan in the Hitler role ;-)
Von Bruno
ineluctable
I would say the creator and executive producer of the series (along with the
other producers involved with the production of the series) have every right
decide what they feel is in keeping with the characters they have created.
Is it your contention that when JMS commissions a script that he is obligated
to go along with whatever the writer dictates for HIS characters or is this
just another anti-Trek rant?
Many of TPTB for ST: TOS have said all along that Harlan's original script was
an excellent piece, however, it simply did not meet their budgetary restraints
nor did the characters behave in a manner exceptable for what they were trying
to convey and establish.
Also, the script that Ellison submitted to the WGA for consideration was NOT
the one he submitted to Roddenberry and company. He revised and "polished" it.
Not very honest or honorable in my opinion.
<<I felt it vastly deepened the one-dimensional character of
Kirk-the-rock-jawed, and made a point about mortality and the necessity for
love that television seldom considers.">>
As produced, "City on the Edge of Forever" was absolutely brilliant. Gene Coon
and others did a marvelous job saving Harlan's teleplay. Kirk's ultimate
sacrifice was incredibly powerful and poignant.
-Von Bruno-
Ben Varkentine
>I would say the creator and executive producer of the series (along with the
>other producers involved with the production of the series) have every right
>decide what they feel is in keeping with the characters they have created.
Sure. But they don't have every right to lie about the reasons for it for over
a quarter of a century.
>
>Is it your contention that when JMS commissions a script that he is obligated
>to go along with whatever the writer dictates for HIS characters or is this
>just another anti-Trek rant?
The two situations are not comparable in the way that you are trying to make
them, and I don't think the original writer was either. He was merely making
the point, using Ellison's words for effect, that it *is* difficult-nearly
imposible-to predict how anyone will react to an extreme situation. There's
also the difference that JMS wrote the episode with Lennier's action (or
inaction), Roddenberry didn't write "City". He worked on it after Ellison had
had the idea, and Coon and Fontanna had worked on it.
Or is this just another "Roddenbery was God" rant?
>
>Many of TPTB for ST: TOS have said all along that Harlan's original script
>was
>an excellent piece, however, it simply did not meet their budgetary
>restraints
Yes, and those self-same PTB (Roddenberry) increased the amount Ellison's
script was supposed to have gone over budget every time he spoke of it, ignored
the facts that much of the increase was due to elements he asked to be
included, and that it is simply not a writers responsibility to "meet budgetary
restraints".
>nor did the characters behave in a manner exceptable for what they were
>trying
>to convey and establish.
You're gonna have to be more specific here. Please tell me you're talking
about the whole "Scotty dealing drugs" lie. That one's the easiest to demolish
of all.
>
>Also, the script that Ellison submitted to the WGA for consideration was NOT
>the one he submitted to Roddenberry and company. He revised and "polished"
>it.
>Not very honest or honorable in my opinion.
That is a lie. And either you know it is a lie, or you have believed the lie
as presented in "Inside Star Trek", quoting Don Ingalls. The lie that to
believe, you have to believe that Ellison boasted about this after a few
drinks. Ignoring the fact that Ellison is, and has been for almost four
decades and more, quite vocal and visible about being a teetotaler.
>As produced, "City on the Edge of Forever" was absolutely brilliant. Gene
>Coon
>and others did a marvelous job saving Harlan's teleplay.
Contradiction. If, as you say above, they admit it was an excellent piece, why
would they need to "save" it?
Ben Varkentine
"The freedom of expression goes only one direction? Sorry, Von Bruno...that
doesn't wash. Either it's a level playing field or it ain't. Go repress
somebody else."-JMS
Von Bruno
over
According to everyones account I have read (Roddenberry, Coon, Solow, Shatner,
Nimoy, Justman, etc...), except Ellison's, the same overall sentiment is
expressed. Harlan's script, as submitted to TPTB, was simply not ST: TOS as
TPTB wanted it to be, therefore, it was obviously reworked in order to meet
their needs (as was their right to do).
<<The two situations are not comparable in the way that you are trying to make
them ...>>
They are comparable in terms of how the original poster of this thread, Mr.
Bacon, used Ellision and "City on the Edge" within his post. I responded soley
to what he said and within the context and commentary of how and what he said.
<<Roddenberry didn't write "City".>>
I didn't say he did.
<<He worked on it after Ellison had
had the idea, and Coon and Fontanna had worked on it.>>
Which is basicly what I stated in my post. SO?
<<Or is this just another "Roddenbery was God" rant?>>
Not at all. While I am apreciative of Gene Roddenberry's creation and initial
work on ST: TOS, however, I also believe that after a certain point GR became
more a liability and detriment to Trek. He wasn't perfect by any stretch of the
imagination and I recognise that much of what people loved about the classic
Star Trek series wasn't of his own creation.
<<Yes, and those self-same PTB (Roddenberry) increased the amount Ellison's
script was supposed to have gone over budget every time he spoke of it>>
GR may very well have exagerrated the budgetary over run of the episode over
the years, so what?
According to Herb Solow, VP of Television production at Desilu, and Robert
Justman, associate producer of Trek, both have stated that the episode produced
was, though still over budget, made at far below what it would cost to shoot as
Ellison originally wrote it.
<<You're gonna have to be more specific here. Please tell me you're talking
about the whole "Scotty dealing drugs" lie.>>
No, I am not talking about the "Scotty dealing drugs" bit, and GR did, in fact,
publicly apologise for that faulty recollection.
TPTB did in fact take issue with Ellsion's script having a crewmember indulge
in recreational drug use, and that is something they simply didn't want to
have within their show.
TPTB had a vision of what they wanted their show to be, Ellison's script wasn't
in tune with that vision so TPTB tailored it to meet their requirements and
vision (as was their right), and the the end result was, in my opinion,
fantastic.
<<The lie that to believe, you have to believe that Ellison boasted about this
after a few drinks.>>
And I have good reason to believe its true as a friend of mine, who is a
writer, has attended writing confrences where Ellison has been a guest and has
mentioned to me that Ellison has indeed been known to drink alcoholic beverages
in the past.
If Ellison is indeed claiming he hasn't had a touch of alcohol in the past 40
years than, based on my friend's account, I have even more reason not to
believe what Harlan says regarding this issue.
<<Contradiction. If, as you say above, they admit it was an excellent piece,
why
would they need to "save" it?>>
It is not a contradiction. Herb Solow, for example, stated Ellison's script
would have made a great theatrical motion picture, however, it, as Harlan
submitted it to them. wasn't Trek. Gene Coon and others "saved" it by taking an
unsuitable Trek script and made it Star Trek at its finest. Where's the
contradiction in that?
-Von Bruno-
Ben Varkentine
>writer, has attended writing confrences where Ellison has been a guest and
>has
>mentioned to me that Ellison has indeed been known to drink alcoholic
>beverages
>in the past.
>
>
Your friend, writer or no, stands alone as one of only two people in the
aforementioned four decades and more to claim that Ellison drinks alcoholic
beverages. To the contrary, over the years not only Ellison but others writing
about him have made a point of mentioning "How dry he is."
>I am not talking about the "Scotty dealing drugs" bit, and GR did, in fact,
>publicly apologise for that faulty recollection.
And then repeated it. Time after time. He also gave interviews in which he
claimed responsibility for creating Edith Keeler, & said Ellison's version had
huge crowd scenes.
>According to Herb Solow, VP of Television production at Desilu, and Robert
>Justman, associate producer of Trek, both have stated that the episode
>produced
>was, though still over budget, made at far below what it would cost to shoot
>as
>Ellison originally wrote it.
According to Roddenberry:
"We might have made it for around $20,000 less had I not insisted on
quality..."
>TPTB did in fact take issue with Ellsion's script having a crewmember indulge
>in recreational drug use, and that is something they simply didn't want to
>have within their show.
Only problem with that is, the Dreaming Jewels weren't drugs. The drugs were
introduced by one of the later writers, and were the medicinal kind Dr McCoy
accidentally injects himself with.
>GR may very well have exagerrated the budgetary over run of the episode over
>the years, so what?
So GR was a proven liar, so what? So you were the one holding up the massive
overrun, so what?
Dan
>
> I still argue that this presentation of Lennier is 100% correct, and makes the
> character far more powerful and compelling.
>
> Justin Bacon
> tr...@prairie.lakes.com
I respectfully disagree with your assessment of City on the Edge of
Forever but agree totally with you about Lenier's actions.
It is difficult to say how the original City on the Edge of Forever would
have come out on T.V. but we do know 2 things. One, as originally
written the script has Kirk very much out of character. (I believe the
script was written before the characters were well developed.) Two, the
released City of Forever may be one of the best sci-fi hours ever
produced. By having McCoy (by this time a close friend of Kirk)
inadvertently save Edith thus dooming Earth, the episode combines more
intense drama with cool time travel sci-fi.
I totally agree with you about Lenier. Despite the criticism on this
newsgroup about him, I thought his actions really added to the show. I
thought in a relatively weak season (season 5) this was the one real
dramatic point for me. It was totally unexepected but on the other hand
you could look back afterwards and think yea... I could see how he could
do that. JMS (or whoever wrote this in) at his best.
Dan
James Stutts
Ben Varkentine wrote in message
<19990722145932...@ng-fu1.aol.com>...
>Mistakes at best, lies at worst:
<snip>
>
>Contradiction. If, as you say above, they admit it was an excellent piece,
why
>would they need to "save" it?
>
Perhaps because it wasn't what they wanted? In this case, they were
Ellison's customer.
They have every right to request changes. They're paying for it.
JCS
Von Bruno
Ellison's customer. They have every right to request changes. They're paying
Exactly correct James. Just as JMS would have the right to rewrite, or have
rewritten, a script the he commissioned but found, for whatever reason,
unsuitable.
-Von Bruno-
Von Bruno
Two very good points that individuals here, and elsewhere, should keep in mind.
:)
-Von Bruno-
Von Bruno
Are you sure this was in reference to his consumption of alcoholic beverages?
:)
-Von Bruno-
Gharlane of Eddore
Attribution Lost said:
AL>
AL> I have good reason to believe its true as a friend of mine, who is a
AL> writer, has attended writing confrences where Ellison has been a guest
AL> and has mentioned to me that Ellison has indeed been known to drink
AL> alcoholic beverages in the past.
AL>
Photos or sworn affidavits, names, and dates, please.
In <19990722212456...@ng-cj1.aol.com>
benva...@aol.com (Ben Varkentine) writes:
BV>
BV> Your friend, writer or no, stands alone as one of only two people in
BV> the aforementioned four decades and more to claim that Ellison drinks
BV> alcoholic beverages. To the contrary, over the years not only Ellison
BV> but others writing about him have made a point of mentioning "How dry
BV> he is."
AL> I am not talking about the "Scotty dealing drugs" bit, and GR did,
AL> in fact, publicly apologise for that faulty recollection.
BV> And then repeated it. Time after time. He also gave interviews in which
BV> he claimed responsibility for creating Edith Keeler, & said Ellison's
BV> version had huge crowd scenes.
BV> According to Herb Solow, VP of Television production at Desilu, and Robert
BV> Justman, associate producer of Trek, both have stated that the episode
BV> produced was, though still over budget, made at far below what it would
BV> cost to shoot as Ellison originally wrote it.
BV> According to Roddenberry:
BV> "We might have made it for around $20,000 less had I not insisted on
BV> quality..."
AL> TPTB did in fact take issue with Ellsion's script having a crewmember
AL> indulge in recreational drug use, and that is something they simply
AL> didn't want to have within their show.
BV> Only problem with that is, the Dreaming Jewels weren't drugs. The drugs
BV> were introduced by one of the later writers, and were the medicinal kind
BV> Dr McCoy accidentally injects himself with.
AL> GR may very well have exagerrated the budgetary over run of the episode
AL> over the years, so what?
BV> So GR was a proven liar, so what? So you were the one
BV> holding up the massive overrun, so what?
Jms at B5
>this
>after a few drinks.>>
>
>writer, has attended writing confrences where Ellison has been a guest and
>has
>mentioned to me that Ellison has indeed been known to drink alcoholic
>beverages
>in the past.
>If Ellison is indeed claiming he hasn't had a touch of alcohol in the past 40
>years than, based on my friend's account, I have even more reason not to
>believe what Harlan says regarding this issue.
Von Bruno...your friend is a liar. Pure and simple.
I've known Harlan more than 10 years. I have met others who have known him for
50 or more. He does not drink, ever, and never has. Alcohol literally makes
him ill. This is a man who can literally get nailed by an over-the-counter
painkiller.
Further, when Harlan was putting together the CITY book, he had a lot of the
materials out on his desk and open area where he was working. He showed some
of them to me, including *the actual draft he gave Roddenberry initially*.
It's aged and has all the marks of the submission draft. It's EXACTLY THE SAME
as the one that won the WGA award.
It was NOT polished or changed, and Harlan did NOT say any such nonsense over a
drink because he does not drink. How your friend could have seen something
that no other living person I have met who has known Harlan in 50 years goes
beyond belief.
Your friend knows what he's saying? Then fine: I've put my name on the line
here, have your friend do the same. Tell us who he is. Where and when the
incident took place. If he remembers all this, then surely he must remember
the rest.
He won't be able to. Because what your friend said is purest BS.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
Von Bruno
aforementioned four decades and more to claim that Ellison drinks alcoholic
beverages.>> benva...@aol.com
Well, Ben, I have a correction and apology to make here.
Last night I had occassion to talk with my friend and asked him about his prior
meeting of Harlan Ellison at a writing conference, and he stated Harlan was not
drinking alcohol. I misremebered his story and, as is my policy, I felt it
important to publicly state, in the forum where I misspoke, that I was indeed
wrong on this point.
I also stand up and apologize to Ellison for my faulty recollection on this
matter.
Sincerely,
-Von Bruno-
Von Bruno
drink.>> jms...@aol.com
Since I don't know if this will post before or after my previous one I restate
that I was in error in recalling my friend's experience and encounter with
Harlan Ellison, and I apologize for the mistake. Ellison was not drinking, and
it was purely a faulty recollection on MY part of my friend's encounter.
Sincerely,
-Von Bruno-
Justin Bacon
(BRETNTRACI) writes:
>BTW -- HE's story CotEoF is *so good* that even the deluted version is one of
>the best Treks ever.
Absolutely. That's what makes it so amazing. You watch CotEoF as it was
televised and it is one of the best television dramas ever aired. When you read
the original teleplay you realize that what you saw on the screen has only
about 1/10th the power, drama, character, creativity, and enigma of what you're
reading. It's astonishing.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Justin Bacon
(Von Bruno) writes:
>Is it your contention that when JMS commissions a script that he is obligated
>to go along with whatever the writer dictates for HIS characters or is this
>just another anti-Trek rant?
Anti-Trek rant? What drugs are you on? If HE had written CotEoF for the Beverly
Hillbillies the comments from his introduction would still be pertinent to the
Lennier issue.
The original Trek series is responsible for some of the finest television drama
ever televised (and also some of the worst, but that's another matter), but
Harlan is 100% correct when he discusses the weaknesses Trek had because of
their inability to change, develop, or even challenge their characters in
significant ways.
>Many of TPTB for ST: TOS have said all along that Harlan's original script was
>an excellent piece, however, it simply did not meet their budgetary restraints
>nor did the characters behave in a manner exceptable for what they were trying
>to convey and establish.
Harlan does a rather nice job of eviscerating the budgetary concerns. With the
exception of the space pirates (who were added at Roddenberry's request before
later being excised) the budget for Harlan's episode would have been
practically identical to the budget for the episode as it aired. Watch the
episode. Read the script. The sets he calls for are, for all practical
purposes, identical.
Further, at no point did I say "and Trek's producers had absolutely no right to
reject or change scripts on a whim" -- but it can still be firmly debated
whether or not they *should* have done that.
Finally, none of this gives them (read: Roddenberry) a right to lie about the
reasons these changes were made for a quarter of a century. "Scotty pushing
drugs" indeed.
>Also, the script that Ellison submitted to the WGA for consideration was NOT
>the one he submitted to Roddenberry and company. He revised and "polished" it.
>Not very honest or honorable in my opinion.
The source for the "polishing":
a) Was Harlan's competition for the award that year; and
b) Claimed Harlan was drinking when he told him.
Harlan doesn't drink.
Could Harlan be lying? Sure. He could be a binge drinker for all I know. The
question would be "why?".
Further, even if Harlan did "revise" and "polish" the script before submitting
it, I fail to see how this has any relevance whatsoever. He rewrote the script
for Roddenberry several times before finally giving up because Roddenberry was
asking him to eviscerate the work.
>As produced, "City on the Edge of Forever" was absolutely brilliant. Gene Coon
>and others did a marvelous job saving Harlan's teleplay. Kirk's ultimate
>sacrifice was incredibly powerful and poignant.
And that's all it is -- poignant. As originally written you not only have the
poignancy, but much more.
No one (except possibly Harlan, and he obviously has a bias because all he sees
is the destruction of his creative effort) denies that CotEoF as aired was
excellent. I consider CotEoF as written to be even better -- for the obvious
reason that it possesses all the strengths of the aired version and MORE.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Justin Bacon
(Von Bruno) writes:
>They are comparable in terms of how the original poster of this thread, Mr.
>Bacon, used Ellision and "City on the Edge" within his post. I responded
>soley
>to what he said and within the context and commentary of how and what he
>said.
>
Nonsense. I wasn't even discussing the decision to use or not use HE's script
to CotEoF; I was discussing Harlan's comment about "characters not acting that
way". You pulled in a bunch of excess baggage which must now be discussed.
*My* point was that Lennier's (in)action was completely appropriate and
justified in terms of storytelling. Your point (that the producers of the show
have the right to do whatever the hell they feel like with what they created)
only strengthens my point -- after all, JMS is not only "TPTB", but the writer
of that episode.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Von Bruno
it possesses all the strengths of the aired version and MORE.>>
I disagree. Having Kirk try and save Edith Keeler with Spock holding him back
would have been a travesty and would have seriously undermined the integrity of
the character and the very foundational fabric of the series overall.
Some here may like Ellison's original version of CotEoF (which is fine),
however, it was clearly not Trek. It wasn't the Trek envisioned by Roddenberry
and company and it wasn't the Trek we had come to know and love. For better or
worse it was something completely different, and I find it interesting that
JMS, while rightfully pointing out my previous error concerning Harlan's
consumption of alcohol, does not seem to dispute the fact that TPTB where well
within their rights to reshape HE's script in order to fit their ideal of what
Trek: TOS was (and considering all that came from ST: TOS THEY, and not
Ellison, were correct).
"City on the Edge of Forever," as first written by Ellison, does not possess
the potency or resonance of the teleplay that was actually produced.
-Von Bruno-
BRETNTRACI
><<I consider CotEoF as written to be even better -- for the obvious reason
>that
>it possesses all the strengths of the aired version and MORE.>>
>tria...@aol.com
>
>I disagree. Having Kirk try and save Edith Keeler with Spock holding him back
>would have been a travesty and would have seriously undermined the integrity
>of
>the character and the very foundational fabric of the series overall.
Why? The point of TOS was that despite our advances we are still human beings.
The Harlan's original script would have made Kirk more 3-dimensional and not
the flat character that we knew until TWoK
>Some here may like Ellison's original version of CotEoF (which is fine),
>however, it was clearly not Trek. It wasn't the Trek envisioned by
>Roddenberry
>and company and it wasn't the Trek we had come to know and love.
So What? Do you think TNG, DS9, or Voyager are "Trek envisioned by Roddenberry
and company" In The Star Trek: Phase II writers bible GR tells people to avoid
technobable. A far cry from Trek we've seen over the course of the last decade
last decade.
For better
>or
>worse it was something completely different,
Again I state that all of the post-TOS Trek are completely different that GR
and Co. originally envisioned.
>and I find it interesting that
>JMS, while rightfully pointing out my previous error concerning Harlan's
>consumption of alcohol, does not seem to dispute the fact that TPTB where
>well
>within their rights to reshape HE's script in order to fit their ideal of
>what
>Trek: TOS was (and considering all that came from ST: TOS THEY, and not
>Ellison, were correct).
Cow-cookies!
>"City on the Edge of Forever," as first written by Ellison, does not possess
>the potency or resonance of the teleplay that was actually produced.
On this we agree it "does not possess
the potency or resonance of the teleplay that was actually produced." It had
much more!
And for the record: as filmed, CotEoF is my favorite Trek *ever*
brett
MarcusCoIe
reason.
I do have a question though. Why are you arguing points that were essentially
solved 30 years ago? Is life gonna be extremely better once it's all hashed out
again and again?
Harlan Ellison got paid. ST:TOS got it's best episode. End of story.
Oh, and what does TPTB mean??
Ben Varkentine
>again and again?
Truths must be told, lies must be exposed. Some of us are funny that way.
>
>Harlan Ellison got paid. ST:TOS got it's best episode. End of story.
Ellison got his work lied about, his professionalism insulted, and his ethics
called into question for over 30 years. ST and it's producers got an episode
they reaped greater profits from than he for the same amount of time.
>
>
>Oh, and what does TPTB mean??
The Powers That Be.
Ben
"An individualist speaks only *for* himself. An egoist speaks only *of*
himself."-Tynan
"I have an enjoyment of language...Reverence? Well, I probably do, because I
go into a kind of pain when it's used loosely and inaccurately."-Stoppard.
Brian Watson
> >Harlan Ellison got paid. ST:TOS got it's best episode. End of story.
>
> Ellison got his work lied about, his professionalism insulted, and his ethics
> called into question for over 30 years. ST and it's producers got an episode
> they reaped greater profits from than he for the same amount of time.
Isn't the second point ALWAYS true however? Don't the producers of a show always
get more money out of an episode filmed than the writer of that episode does?
Don't the writers just generally get a check for turning over a script and that's
the end of it?
Ben Varkentine
>Isn't the second point ALWAYS true however? Don't the producers of a show
>always
>get more money out of an episode filmed than the writer of that episode does?
>Don't the writers just generally get a check for turning over a script and
>that's
>the end of it?
Yes, I believe so-but you know perfectly well that's not the main point here.
The argument is not that Ellison should have recieved more money, but that it
was, at the very least, in the worst of taste for the PTB to slander and libel
him all the while they profited from his ideas.
Too many people still try to back and fill over the lies with phrases like
"they had every right..." and "Isn't that the way things are done?"
Brian Watson
> Brian Watson wrote:
>
> >Isn't the second point ALWAYS true however? Don't the producers of a show
> >always
> >get more money out of an episode filmed than the writer of that episode does?
> >Don't the writers just generally get a check for turning over a script and
> >that's
> >the end of it?
>
> Yes, I believe so-but you know perfectly well that's not the main point here.
> The argument is not that Ellison should have recieved more money, but that it
> was, at the very least, in the worst of taste for the PTB to slander and libel
> him all the while they profited from his ideas.
> Too many people still try to back and fill over the lies with phrases like
> "they had every right..." and "Isn't that the way things are done?"
Well then why even bring up the second point? Harlan got paid for the episode,
and that is that. What they said about him, however, is unacceptable and should
have never happened. But mentioning how TPTB got more money from the episode than
Harlan got paid for is just ridiculous.
Ben Varkentine
> why even bring up the second point? Harlan got paid for the episode,
>and that is that. What they said about him, however, is unacceptable and
>should
>have never happened. But mentioning how TPTB got more money from the episode
>than
>Harlan got paid for is just ridiculous.
>
>
Reread the bit about "while profiting from his ideas". What I am suggesting, I
explain again, is that this compounded the offenses of what they said about
him.
Von Bruno
bretn...@aol.com
How?
To say "Kirk is three-dimensional because he would have sacrificed EVERYTHING
and EVERYONE for love" is silly as he is equally made three-dimensional by hiss
willingness to make the greatest of sacrafices for the greater good.
The added dimension of Kirk's character results no matter how "City on the Edge
of Forever" was resolved, however, it is the the direction and form of that
added dimensionality that is the root of this debate.
Roddenberry envisioned Kirk as a classic hero and the crew of the Enterprise as
the "best of the best." Ellison's teleplay violated, actively worked against,
and undermined this vision.
I, for one, can truthfully say that I would not have understood, liked, or
maintained interest in the character of Kirk if, in CotEoF, he had selfishly
attempted to "sacrifice ALL for love."
GR, and company, really dodged a fatal bullet by rewriting Harlan's original
script, however, I do appreciate Ellison's efforts to save Trek prior to this
incident.
-Von Bruno-
BRETNTRACI
>bretn...@aol.com
>
>How?
Uhhhh, by not having him act like the card-board '60 television heroes that
always make the self sacrificing decision for the greater good. Duh.
Michael J. Hennebry
Justin Bacon <tria...@aol.com> wrote:
>Anti-Trek rant? What drugs are you on? If HE had written CotEoF for the Beverly
>Hillbillies the comments from his introduction would still be pertinent to the
>Lennier issue.
Here's a new game: rewriting CotEoF for the Beverly Hillbillies.
What evil would have occured if Jed had managed to find an honest banker?
What if Jethro hadn't been dropped on his head as a baby?
>No one (except possibly Harlan, and he obviously has a bias because all he sees
>is the destruction of his creative effort) denies that CotEoF as aired was
>excellent. I consider CotEoF as written to be even better -- for the obvious
>reason that it possesses all the strengths of the aired version and MORE.
My recollection is that Harlan Ellison said something to the effect
that CotEoF was the best Star Trek episode ever even with 90% of its
guts ripped out. He dearly wanted those guts.
--
Mike henn...@plains.NoDak.edu
ValleyCon 24: http://www.netcenter.net/~jnelson/vc/
To artist letter: http://ndsun.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu/www/hennebry/to.artist.html
"I'm just an old country doctor." -- Bones
Von Bruno
always make the self sacrificing decision for the greater good. Duh.>>
The character of Kirk, in the produced version of "City on the Edge of
Forever," was by no means "card-board," or lacking in dimension, and it is
perhaps only the Ellison bootlicks who would even try making such an erroneous
claim.
There are simply too many great season one and two episodes of Star Trek: TOS
that disprove, and illuminate the lunacy, of your claim. "The Devil in the
Dark," "Balance of Terror," "The Corbamite Maneuver," etc .... In fact, Kirk,
by the end of Trek's original three year network run, had greater depth and was
more fully realised than B5's Captain Sheridan (who by the end of Babylon-5's
fifth season could best be summed up as dangerously incompetant and unfit for
the mantle of Galactic Emperor-for-life).
-Von Bruno-
BRETNTRACI
>always make the self sacrificing decision for the greater good. Duh.>>
>bretn...@aol.com
>
>The character of Kirk, in the produced version of "City on the Edge of
>Forever," was by no means "card-board," or lacking in dimension, and it is
>perhaps only the Ellison bootlicks who would even try making such an
>erroneous
>claim.
>
the 60's. there were no ramifications of his actions and he was *never*
affected by the events of the episode. Name one time they refer to his
emotional decision or angst resulting from it in later episodes. Oh, and stick
to the issues not to name calling.
>There are simply too many great season one and two episodes of Star Trek: TOS
>that disprove, and illuminate the lunacy, of your claim. "The Devil in the
>Dark,"
Oh yea in that one he acted exactly opposite of the way he did in "The Man
Trap."
Which actually supports Ellison's point (mentioned as the start point of this
part of the thread) that when you say a character acts a certain way it
rediculous to say "he wouln't do that" becasue people are capable of anything
at any time. But, alas, seeing that you are on shakey ground you decided to
change to focus of the thread to Ellison vs. Trek producers.
"Balance of Terror," "The Corbamite Maneuver," etc .... In fact, Kirk,
>by the end of Trek's original three year network run, had greater depth and
>was
>more fully realised than B5's Captain Sheridan (who by the end of Babylon-5's
>fifth season could best be summed up as dangerously incompetant and unfit for
>the mantle of Galactic Emperor-for-life).
Actually, I always thought of Sheridan as much more interesting because he
*lived* with his decision. Kirk *never* did until TWoK. And don't ket me wrong.
I like CotEoF *AND* Kirk. I just think the whole thing was mishandeled from the
start. Also again try to stick to the issue instead of drawing me into a
Sheridan vs. Kirk battle -- it has nothting to do with the argument that
Ellison's version was better that what was produced. Of course that wasn't even
the issue to start with it was that Ellison stated in his book that human
beings are chapable of doing unexpected thing and it is nuts to claim
otherwise.
Ben Varkentine
>>Forever," was by no means "card-board," or lacking in dimension, and it is
>>perhaps only the Ellison bootlicks who would even try making such an
>>erroneous
>>claim.
We prefer the term "Ellisonistas."
>.... In fact, Kirk,
>>by the end of Trek's original three year network run, had greater depth and
>>was
>>more fully realised than B5's Captain Sheridan (who by the end of
>Babylon-5's
>>fifth season could best be summed up as dangerously incompetant
When using words like "incompetent," it is well behooved to use a dictionary or
spell-check, lest the irony grow overwhelming.
Ben
"The freedom of expression goes only one direction? Sorry, Von Bruno...that
doesn't wash. Either it's a level playing field or it ain't. Go repress
somebody else."-JMS
Jms at B5
>Forever," was by no means "card-board," or lacking in dimension, and it is
>perhaps only the Ellison bootlicks who would even try making such an
>erroneous
>claim.
1) So anyone who disagrees with your point of view is a bootlick? Does the
phrase ad hominum attack ring a bell?
2) Someone who just came out a few days ago with a totally false rumor about
Harlan drinking, who only recanted when forced up against a wall, should be
careful when throwing around the term "erroneous claim."
John W. Kennedy
>
> >The character of Kirk, in the produced version of "City on the Edge of
> >Forever," was by no means "card-board," or lacking in dimension, and it is
> >perhaps only the Ellison bootlicks who would even try making such an
> >erroneous
> >claim.
>
> 1) So anyone who disagrees with your point of view is a bootlick? Does the
> phrase ad hominum attack ring a bell?
Ouch! Joe, old buddy, first of all, it's "ad hominem", and secondly,
despite the common use of "ad hominem" on the Internet, it doesn't mean
"insulting". An "ad hominem" attack is the logically invalid use of a
(presumably valid) slur on the opposing speaker in default of a valid
argument against what the speaker says. An example of an ad-hominem
argument would be:
"JMS got the East End of London mixed up with the West End, therefore,
his views on Thatcherism are worthless."
(The first person to reply that Latin is a living language and we
mustn't attempt to restrict its evolution gets a visit from the Narn
Lictores Squad.)
...
I am of a somewhat mixed mind on the "City" question. On the one hand,
I will grant that the original version of the story is the more
powerful. On the other hand, although I'm not in the business, I was 19
back then, so I have a pretty good handle on what was and was not
acceptable on network TV at the time, and I think Harlan was a little
nuts to think the original version would be made. Maybe a couple of
years later, when the last season or so of "I Spy" had demonstrated just
how much hell you could put a TV hero through, but not then....
Of course, on the _other_ other hand, I guess you were a little nuts to
think that B5 would be made.
In the immortal words of Lionel Hardcastle, "Rock on!"
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
Von Bruno
Nope, doesn't mean that at all.
<<Does the phrase ad hominum attack ring a bell?>>
Well, I guess there's a little Harlan Ellison in all of us.
<<2) Someone who just came out a few days ago with a totally false rumor about
Harlan drinking, who only recanted when forced up against a wall, should be
careful when throwing around the term "erroneous claim.">>
How was I "forced up against a wall?" I made a statement that, at the time, I
believed correct, upon seeking verification from my friend I discovered I was
wrong, and, as soon as I was able, I posted a retraction, an apology, and took
full responsibilty for my unintentional mistatement of fact.
I have, upon a few occassions, been wrong in the past, and, because I am a
stand up guy, I have always aknowledged them, taken responability for them, and
excepted the heat that comes with such a mistake (which is more than I can say
for most online posters who seem to deflect responsability at every turn).
-Von Bruno-
Gharlane of Eddore
>
> Harlan Ellison got paid. ST:TOS got it's best episode. End of story.
>
OBSP: "its." The possessive contains no apostrophe.
Ben Varkentine wrote:
>
> Ellison got his work lied about, his professionalism insulted, and his
> ethics called into question for over 30 years. ST and it's producers
> got an episode they reaped greater profits from than he for the same
> amount of time.
>
OBSP: "its." The possessive contains no apostrophe.
Let's try to be realistic, here. Ellison spent the better part of
a *YEAR* backing and filling and rewriting, turned it in something
like six to eight months late, and it was unshootable and unfaithful
to the characters and series format. It was a *HECK* of a good
script, and would have played well; but it was not "TREK." That's
why it got passed through the hands of *MULTIPLE* writers, including
Dottie Fontana, John D.F. Black, Gene Coons, and yes, Gene Roddenberry,
the guy who did the marathon several-continuous-days rewrite to get
it into shootable form, ready for duplication, about fifteen minutes
before start of shooting.
Ellison shilly-shallied, acted the twit, took months too long, turned
in an unshootable script, and had it pulled out of the sewer by the
professionalism of the production staff and by one of the best pieces
of rewrite that Goddenberry ever did, back when he still had a brain
to work with.
And even then, it took something like *TEN* days to shoot, and went
so far over average budget that it was the single most expensive
Old Trek ever shot.
And *THEN* Ellison did a rewrite pass or two on his original script
before kicking it in to the Writers' Guild competition, where he
won the award...... so *YOU* have not seen the *original* version,
just the one that Ellison tinkered with while he fine-honed his
memory picture of How Things Happened.
It was good TV, yes. It was exceptional TV-SkiFfy, yes.
It was even marginally decent SF. But for Ellison to complain
about his treatment during the production is laughable, since they
bent over backwards to work with him, and cut him slack and
tolerated what I can only view as his tantrums, for months longer
than they would have with anyone else... and to this day, I'm not
convinced that the results necessarily justified all the hassle
and expense.
And bear in mind that I'm an Ellison fan.
In <379B3BB9...@cris.com> Brian Watson <ke...@cris.com> writes:
>
> Isn't the second point ALWAYS true however? Don't the producers of a
> show always get more money out of an episode filmed than the writer of
> that episode does?
>
If the studio didn't make more out of a TV show than the writer, who'd
bother to make TV shows? Writers are *not* paid well, particularly
in relation to the rest of the budget spent on entertainment.
>
> Don't the writers just generally get a check for turning over a script
> and that's the end of it?
>
Residual rights and such are normally spelled out in the contract.
There is a SWG minimum pay scale that specifies how much you get paid
if you do, or do not, expect residual/reshow rights; and anything
you can negotiate *over* that is fine, as long as it's over minimum
union pay scale. Usually it's not much over.
The last time I was involved with anything like that, the base
contract models specified pay for various lengths and venues of
script, and included *one* rewrite, after which they'd have to
negotiate a new contract with you. ( Some writers will stipulate
at the outset that they will be available for *any* number of
rewrites, in exchange for some degree of control on editing/alteration
of the script. I seem to recall that Ellison claims he rewrote one
"VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA" script for Irwin Allen about
two dozen times. )
Michael J. Hennebry
John W. Kennedy <rri...@ibm.net> wrote:
>Jms at B5 wrote:
>>
>> >The character of Kirk, in the produced version of "City on the Edge of
>> >Forever," was by no means "card-board," or lacking in dimension, and it is
>> >perhaps only the Ellison bootlicks who would even try making such an
>> >erroneous
>> >claim.
>>
>> phrase ad hominum attack ring a bell?
>
>despite the common use of "ad hominem" on the Internet, it doesn't mean
>"insulting". An "ad hominem" attack is the logically invalid use of a
>(presumably valid) slur on the opposing speaker in default of a valid
>argument against what the speaker says. An example of an ad-hominem
>argument would be:
>
>"JMS got the East End of London mixed up with the West End, therefore,
>his views on Thatcherism are worthless."
BZZZT. You're both wrong. The essence of the ad hominem (to the man)
argument is "J is evil therefore his statments are worthless."
The Thatcherism comment actually makes sense. One longer form would be
"JMS got the East End of London mixed up with the West End, therefore
he has trouble getting his facts straight. One must get one's facts
straight to understand Thatcherism, therefore JMS's views on Thatcherism
are worthless." Not a compelling argument, but not senseless either.
Deciding whose views on Thatcherism are worth anything is a process far
removed from even the possibility of strict deductive reasoning. No
doubt this would involve a rather bloody discussion of what is Thatcherism.
The bootlick comment is a rather emphatic form of "You are sooo wrong."
'Tain't an ad hominem argument. 'Tain't even an argument. 'Tis a
characterisation of the holders of an opinion. 'Tis like saying that
people who think Rumpole was a better lawyer than Perry Mason are biased
to the point of derangement.
Justin Bacon
late. ]
In article <7nqjco$q...@news.csus.edu>, ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane
of Eddore) writes:
>Let's try to be realistic, here. Ellison spent the better part of
>a *YEAR* backing and filling and rewriting, turned it in something
>like six to eight months late, and it was unshootable and unfaithful
>to the characters and series format.
1. "Unfaithful" can be debated until the cows come home.
2. "Unshootable" -- highly doubtful. Once you remove the space pirates (added
at Roddenberry's behest), the episode as shot and the episode as written must
have had almost identical budgets.
> It was a *HECK* of a good
>script, and would have played well; but it was not "TREK."
A definition of "Trek" which would later be changed to allow for the making of
The Wrath of Khan. In short, Harlan Ellison was 20 years ahead of his time and
nobody else on the show could see it (least of all Roddenberry).
>Ellison shilly-shallied, acted the twit, took months too long, turned
>in an unshootable script, and had it pulled out of the sewer by the
>professionalism of the production staff and by one of the best pieces
>of rewrite that Goddenberry ever did, back when he still had a brain
>to work with.
This is complete bullshit. Ellison submitted *multiple* *documented* rewrites
and then quite the project before it was assigned to ANYBODY for rewrites.
>And even then, it took something like *TEN* days to shoot, and went
>so far over average budget that it was the single most expensive
>Old Trek ever shot.
And if you compare, scene for scene, the script to the version seen on TV you
will see that set-by-set and character-by-character (with the exception of
Trooper and the drug dealer, who was removed in Ellison's final rewrite) the
scripts match up.
>And *THEN* Ellison did a rewrite pass or two on his original script
>before kicking it in to the Writers' Guild competition, where he
>won the award......
Which is also bullshit -- the only confirmation of which is a highly biased
source (he was Ellison's competition) whose story doesn't check out against
known facts (Ellison's aversion to alcohol).
>It was good TV, yes. It was exceptional TV-SkiFfy, yes.
>It was even marginally decent SF. But for Ellison to complain
>about his treatment during the production is laughable, since they
>bent over backwards to work with him, and cut him slack and
>tolerated what I can only view as his tantrums, for months longer
>than they would have with anyone else... and to this day, I'm not
>convinced that the results necessarily justified all the hassle
>and expense.
All garbage, as the afterwords to Ellison's book by several people involved
with Trek back in those days can testify.
And none of this legitimates the outright lies and slander which have been
perpetrated on Ellison over the past 30 years.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Von Bruno
(Justin Bacon)
I disagree as it is up to the executive producer of the series, at the specific
point in time the episode was to be produced, to define what is or is not
"faithful." Gene Roddenberry deemed it not to be "faithful," therefore it was
not and this point is not truly debatable.
<<2. "Unshootable" -- highly doubtful. Once you remove the space pirates (added
at Roddenberry's behest), the episode as shot and the episode as written must
have had almost identical budgets.>>
According to Herb Solow and Robert Justman, two folks who would know, say your
point is incorrect.
<<A definition of "Trek" which would later be changed to allow for the making
of
The Wrath of Khan. In short, Harlan Ellison was 20 years ahead of his time
...>>
Your point is a specious one as a) after ST: TMP Roddenberry's role was not
what it was during the ST: TOS freshman season on NBC, b) Star-Trek was not
Harlan Ellison's creation or series, and c) their is no evidence that TPTB
would have produced "City on the Edge of Forever," as Ellison first wrote it,
20 (or 30) years later.
There are more reasons, however, I have only so much time.
<<... the only confirmation of which is a highly biased source (he was
Ellison's competition) whose story doesn't check out against known facts
(Ellison's aversion to alcohol).>>
Actually in Solow and Justman's book it doesn't say that Ellision was drinking
alcohol only that Don Ingalls said "after a few drinks Ellison boasted ..."
Ellison could have been drinking Lemonade. We do know Ellison does not require
the excuse of booze to be boastful.
-Von Bruno-
Ben Varkentine
>drinking
>alcohol only that Don Ingalls said "after a few drinks Ellison boasted ..."
>Ellison could have been drinking Lemonade.
Oh come now. You know very well that if I say "VonBruno and I went into a bar
and after a few drinks he began playing pick-up pretzels with his butt cheeks,"
the implication is that you've been drinking alcohol.
What's more, that is *exactly* the implication you tried to make when you first
started this mean little digression: That Ellison had been drinking alcohol.
Until it was pointed out to you by a handful of people that this does not jibe
with *any* description of Ellison save Ingall's.
>We do know Ellison does not require
>the excuse of booze to be boastful.
Indeed. He requires no such 'excuse' because he has much to be boastful about.
As did Roddenberry and the other PTB; which is why it is so inexcusable that
they chose to steal credit not their own, and allow distorted versions of the
truth into print apparently without so much as a second thought
Ben Varkentine
Read my drama criticism column, "A Particular Entertainment" in the Seattle
Liberal Arts Review: http://www.slar.org/particular
"Call me Judge, call me Shah
Call me King, call me Tsar
Call Me God"-Song of Daedalus, Joe Jackson
John W. Kennedy
> Actually in Solow and Justman's book it doesn't say that Ellision was drinking
> alcohol only that Don Ingalls said "after a few drinks Ellison boasted ..."
> Ellison could have been drinking Lemonade.
That is a contemptible equivocation.
Steve Brinich
> Actually in Solow and Justman's book it doesn't say that Ellision
> was drinking alcohol only that Don Ingalls said "after a few drinks
> Ellison boasted ..." Ellison could have been drinking Lemonade.
Oh, puh-leeze. Obviously, the phrasing implies that the "drinks" were
intoxicating beverages -- this sort of "it depends on what the meaning of
'is' is" type resort to tortured semantics simply makes the perpetrator
look ridiculous.
--
Steve Brinich <ste...@Radix.Net> If the government wants us
http://www.Radix.Net/~steveb to respect the law
89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E it should set a better example
Brian Watson
> Von Bruno wrote:
>
> > Actually in Solow and Justman's book it doesn't say that Ellision
> > was drinking alcohol only that Don Ingalls said "after a few drinks
> > Ellison boasted ..." Ellison could have been drinking Lemonade.
>
> Oh, puh-leeze. Obviously, the phrasing implies that the "drinks" were
> intoxicating beverages -- this sort of "it depends on what the meaning of
> 'is' is" type resort to tortured semantics simply makes the perpetrator
> look ridiculous.
Oh, puh-leeze. Did the writer say they were in a bar and Ellison had a
alcoholic drink in his hand? The fact is, you are assuming quite a bit by
saying that he was drinking alcohol. I go out with friends often and have
drinks with them. But does that mean I drink alcohol? No, I almost never
drink alcohol, at most once or twice a year. You don't know Ellison, you
weren't there, you don't know Solow or Justman (???) and you don't know
jack. So stop making an ASS-umption of yourself.
Ben Varkentine
>Oh, puh-leeze. Did the writer say they were in a bar and Ellison had a
>alcoholic drink in his hand? The fact is, you are assuming quite a bit by
>saying that he was drinking alcohol.
Let's take a look at the fulll quote in question, shall we?
"Ellison was in a bar when he ran into writer Don Ingalls. "Fandango," a
script Ingalls wrote for Gunsmoke, was one of the four other contenders that
lost out to Ellison's script. Ingalls had also written for Star Trek, and they
discussed not only the series but Ellison's award-winning script. After a few
drinks Harlan boasted that, before submitting his own final draft for
consideration, he had "Polished it up a little bit to make it even better."
Now, if you know a non-convuluted way of reading that other than it implying
Ellison drinking alcohol, I'd like to hear it.
>You don't know Ellison, you
>weren't there, you don't know Solow or Justman (???) and you don't know
>jack. So stop making an ASS-umption of yourself.
I don't know Ellison personally. But I know enough about him both through his
own words and, signifigantly, words others have written about him (In
introductions, interviews and the like) to know this: His not drinking is a
large enough part of his public persona that if he did it would be reported in
more than one place. And as I keep coming back to, Ingalls remains the *only*
person to claim he has seen Ellison drink.
Ever. So either there's a huge conspiracy devoted to covering up the fact that
he does, in fact, imbibe...or the incident never took place.
Hmm...what are the odds?
Von Bruno
bar
I wouldn't necessarily jump to the conclusion that the person in question was
drinking alcohol ... perhaps it was a real bubbly non-alcoholic spritzer.
<<That Ellison had been drinking alcohol.
Until it was pointed out to you by a handful of people that this does not jibe
with *any* description of Ellison save Ingall's.>>
However, that was not me making an assumption, rather, that was me
misremembering something I had been told sometime ago. An innocent error and
leaping to a conclusion are two seperate things.
<<He requires no such 'excuse' because he has much to be boastful about.>>
I would, in principal, agree with that. I have never said that Ellison hasn't
accomplished quite a bit. I do doubt whether much of it will survive him after
he passes (at least at the level of Mr. Roddenberry or Star-Trek), though,
ironicly enough I'm sure he'll be mentioned as a footnote crediting him as
writer of "City on the Edge of Forever."
<<That is a contemptible equivocation.>> rri...@ibm.net
Are you saying my point is a "contemptible equivocation" or Don Ingalls
remembrance is?
<<Oh, puh-leeze. Obviously, the phrasing implies that the "drinks" were
intoxicating beverages>>
Maybe. Maybe not. I guess it depends on how one looks at these things.
<<Now, if you know a non-convuluted way of reading that other than it implying
Ellison drinking alcohol, I'd like to hear it.>> benva...@aol.com
Well, I have known many people who have no problem going into a bar and
drinking a non-alcoholic beverage. I have never heard of anyone claiming that
Ellison has never stepped inside a bar or gone to a cocktail party before and
chatted with people ... have you?
-Von Bruno-
Von Bruno
I tried clicking the hot link but all I kept getting was a "HTTP error 404"
message stating the item couldn't be located and to notify the system
administrator.
-Von Bruno-
Justin Bacon
(Von Bruno) writes:
><<1. "Unfaithful" can be debated until the cows come home>>tria...@aol.com
>(Justin Bacon)
>
>I disagree as it is up to the executive producer of the series, at the
>specific point in time the episode was to be produced, to define what is or is
not
>"faithful." Gene Roddenberry deemed it not to be "faithful," therefore it was
>not and this point is not truly debatable.
Not exactly. Roddenberry could, obviously, make any decision he wanted to --
but it I think it safe to say that it was impossible for Ellison to know
BEFOREHAND that Roddenberry would make that decision.
Particularly since Roddenberry okayed the original outline Ellison gave him for
the episode before Ellison proceeded to write the script.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Von Bruno
BEFOREHAND that Roddenberry would make that decision>> tria...@aol.com
However, none of that goes to the point of whether HE's first draft script was
"faithful" to the vision of Star-Trek and its characters that GR had at that
time.
Whether Harlan knew what GR's reaction to his original script was going to be
beforehand or not doesn't bolster HE's side of the discussion as, by virtue of
his closer association to Trek at that time, he should have. He should have
delivered something that was closer to the mark.
Besides, it is Harlan who, either directly or through his minions, has
perpetuated and magnified this insignificant matter for 30+ years now. I
realize a large chunk of HE's schtick is ranting against the various PTB, but I
believe this one has been pushed to the limits of absurdity.
-Von Bruno-
Ben Varkentine
>perpetuated and magnified this insignificant matter for 30+ years now.
No. Try to grasp this: Credit for Ellison's script has been claimed by
someone who didn't invent an element of it. The content of his script was lied
about. By Gene Roddenberry. For 30+ years. Ellison, as would most any writer
with an ounce of self-respect, got rather irritated by this.
Ben Varkentine
Read my drama criticism column, "A Particular Entertainment" in the Seattle
Liberal Arts Review: http://www.slar.org/
"Call me Judge, call me Shah
Ben Varkentine
>message stating the item couldn't be located and to notify the system
>administrator.
Thanks for telling me. The corrected version should work.
John W. Kennedy
> I wouldn't necessarily jump to the conclusion that the person in question was
> drinking alcohol ... perhaps it was a real bubbly non-alcoholic spritzer.
English isn't your first language, then?
> <<That is a contemptible equivocation.>> rri...@ibm.net
>
> Are you saying my point is a "contemptible equivocation" or Don Ingalls
> remembrance is?
That depends. If those are Ingalls's (Ingall's?) words, and he defends
them in the same way, then it is a contemptible equivocation on his
part, and contemptible to defend. If, on the other hand, he intended
merely to lie, then, of course, it is not an equivocation, but it was
still contemptible, and still contemptible to defend. Or, perhaps, it
is merely his memory that is at fault, in which case I leave the matter,
as it touches him, to his doctor and his clergyman, if any, but it is
still disingenuous beyond the bounds of decency to defend it as an
Brian Watson
> Brian Watson wrote:
>
> >Oh, puh-leeze. Did the writer say they were in a bar and Ellison had a
> >alcoholic drink in his hand? The fact is, you are assuming quite a bit by
> >saying that he was drinking alcohol.
>
> Let's take a look at the fulll quote in question, shall we?
>
> "Ellison was in a bar when he ran into writer Don Ingalls. "Fandango," a
> script Ingalls wrote for Gunsmoke, was one of the four other contenders that
> lost out to Ellison's script. Ingalls had also written for Star Trek, and they
> discussed not only the series but Ellison's award-winning script. After a few
> drinks Harlan boasted that, before submitting his own final draft for
> consideration, he had "Polished it up a little bit to make it even better."
>
> Now, if you know a non-convuluted way of reading that other than it implying
> Ellison drinking alcohol, I'd like to hear it.
Does it SAY that he had an alcoholic drink in his hand? An implication, an
insinuation, or an assumption on your part does not reality make.
> >You don't know Ellison, you
> >weren't there, you don't know Solow or Justman (???) and you don't know
> >jack. So stop making an ASS-umption of yourself.
>
> I don't know Ellison personally. But I know enough about him both through his
> own words and, signifigantly, words others have written about him (In
> introductions, interviews and the like) to know this: His not drinking is a
> large enough part of his public persona that if he did it would be reported in
> more than one place. And as I keep coming back to, Ingalls remains the *only*
> person to claim he has seen Ellison drink.
> Ever. So either there's a huge conspiracy devoted to covering up the fact that
> he does, in fact, imbibe...or the incident never took place.
> Hmm...what are the odds?
Easily the odds are that he did /not/ drink alcohol. Why is it so hard for you or
others to believe that he does not drink alcohol? Many people don't touch it,
ever, and the instance of one quotation that MAY imply he had a drink (though any
literal interpretation of the quote ONLY leaves it in doubt of what he drunk,
neither proves nor disproves that he had alcohol) is not enough to go against the
word of JMS, the words of so many others that know the man personally.
Daryl Nash
> Steve Brinich wrote:
>
> > Von Bruno wrote:
> >
> > > Actually in Solow and Justman's book it doesn't say that Ellision
> > > was drinking alcohol only that Don Ingalls said "after a few drinks
> > > Ellison boasted ..." Ellison could have been drinking Lemonade.
> >
> > Oh, puh-leeze. Obviously, the phrasing implies that the "drinks" were
> > intoxicating beverages -- this sort of "it depends on what the meaning of
> > 'is' is" type resort to tortured semantics simply makes the perpetrator
> > look ridiculous.
>
> Oh, puh-leeze. Did the writer say they were in a bar and Ellison had a
> alcoholic drink in his hand? The fact is, you are assuming quite a bit by
> saying that he was drinking alcohol. I go out with friends often and have
> drinks with them. But does that mean I drink alcohol? No, I almost never
> drink alcohol, at most once or twice a year. You don't know Ellison, you
> weren't there, you don't know Solow or Justman (???) and you don't know
> jack. So stop making an ASS-umption of yourself.
The only rational reading of "after a few drinks Ellison boasted..." is that he
had been loosened up by the consumption of alcohol enough to admit to something
he ordinarily wouldn't have. Any other reading is a slaughter of semantics,
and shows a complete ignorance of the power of implication.
Can we end this discussion now, or at least turn it back to the relative merits
of the produced version of "City" vs. the script version? Preferences for one
or the other are defensible positions. This endless trampling upon the English
language in blindly literalist fashion is not defensible, and is downright
silly.
Daryl
Brian Watson
> Brian Watson wrote:
> > Steve Brinich wrote:
> > > Von Bruno wrote:
> > >
> > > > Actually in Solow and Justman's book it doesn't say that Ellision
> > > > was drinking alcohol only that Don Ingalls said "after a few drinks
> > > > Ellison boasted ..." Ellison could have been drinking Lemonade.
> > >
> > > Oh, puh-leeze. Obviously, the phrasing implies that the "drinks" were
> > > intoxicating beverages -- this sort of "it depends on what the meaning of
> > > 'is' is" type resort to tortured semantics simply makes the perpetrator
> > > look ridiculous.
> >
> > Oh, puh-leeze. Did the writer say they were in a bar and Ellison had a
> > alcoholic drink in his hand? The fact is, you are assuming quite a bit by
> > saying that he was drinking alcohol. I go out with friends often and have
> > drinks with them. But does that mean I drink alcohol? No, I almost never
> > drink alcohol, at most once or twice a year. You don't know Ellison, you
> > weren't there, you don't know Solow or Justman (???) and you don't know
> > jack. So stop making an ASS-umption of yourself.
>
> The only rational reading of "after a few drinks Ellison boasted..." is that he
> had been loosened up by the consumption of alcohol enough to admit to something
> he ordinarily wouldn't have. Any other reading is a slaughter of semantics,
> and shows a complete ignorance of the power of implication.
So what do you think of libellous comments to a man who does not drink, but who's
every statement in the past to the effect that he doesn't drink is being challenged
by one man's quotation? Until you provide some evidence of proof that Harlan was
drinking, besides one man's quotation, that can disprove the very numerous reports
of people who KNOW Harlan that he doesn't drink, you have nothing to stand on.
>
Ben Varkentine
>Until you provide some evidence of proof that Harlan was
>drinking, besides one man's quotation, that can disprove the very numerous
>reports
>of people who KNOW Harlan that he doesn't drink, you have nothing to stand
>on.
Um...
This is similar enough to your earlier reply to me that I think I'll answer it
here: Who are you talking to? I (And, to the best of my understanding, Daryl
and Steve) am not arguing that Ellison was drinking. In fact, quite the
opposite. We are arguing that Ingalls comments as quoted in Solow & Justman's
book (Inside Star Trek) are definitely meant to imply that he was-something
which one or two people have tried to evade semantically. As you say (And
indeed, as I've said) the idea of Ellison drinking is at odds with virtually
everything known about the man.
Daryl Nash
> by one man's quotation? Until you provide some evidence of proof that Harlan was
> drinking, besides one man's quotation, that can disprove the very numerous reports
> of people who KNOW Harlan that he doesn't drink, you have nothing to stand on.
>
> >
Sorry, you missed my point. By a long shot. I've read in many places and heard Harlan
say many times that he does not drink. (I even recall the instance he recounted that
happened to him as a teenager that made him swear never to drink, but that would be a
digression.) The only time I've ever heard it said that he _does_ drink is in this one
quotation that is of shaky reliability at best.
I'm simply saying it's silly to say that "after a few drinks Harlan boasted" might by
any stretch of the imagination mean that Harlan was drinking lemonade or any such
non-alcoholic drink, which is what other people in this thread have suggested.
Best,
Daryl
Von Bruno
he
had been loosened up by the consumption of alcohol enough to admit to something
Not true. If the person in question is famous for not drinking alcohol than one
would merely note that after a period of scintilating conversation he loosened
up and let the "cat out of the bag."
As they say, "Loose lips sink ships."
-Von Bruno-
Daryl Nash
Jeez, it's all clear now. And here I always thought that "drinks" in that context
implied alcoholic drinks. But if the person is "famous for not drinking alcohol"
then the implication no longer applies.
Gotcha.
(Aside: to clarify my sarcasm, since a recent post was completely
misconstrued--Harlan is moderately famous for many things, but "not drinking
alcohol" is not one of them. Among Star Trek fans, in fact, I'd bet fewer than
half even know much more about him than that he wrote "City on the Edge of
Forever." So a statement in a book about Star Trek which states "after a few
drinks Ellison boasted..." was intended to imply Ellison got drunk. And if the
person who made that statement knew that Ellison was drinking non-alcoholic drinks,
then he was _implying_ otherwise. Or he's lousy with the English language.
Implication is a powerful tool--in the absense of direct evidence, it can be used
to convict someone of a crime. Use it wisely, and don't ignore it.)
Daryl
Patriarch
Von Bruno wrote:
> <<The only rational reading of "after a few drinks Ellison boasted..." is that
> he
> had been loosened up by the consumption of alcohol enough to admit to something
> he ordinarily wouldn't have.>>Daryl Nash
>
> Not true. If the person in question is famous for not drinking alcohol than one
> would merely note that after a period of scintilating conversation he loosened
> up and let the "cat out of the bag."
>
> As they say, "Loose lips sink ships."
>
> -Von Bruno-
Okay, well let me tell you a story. My dog died today. He died suddenly right
before I logged onto my computer, and right before I sat down here I had blood on
my hands and soaked into my shirt. But it's okay that he's gone, you know.
Because now I don't have to hear his endless barking anymore. I would have done
almost anything to end that constant barking....
Now I'll tell you,(Yes this story is fictional and only made to illustrate this
point) I didn't kill my dog. I heard his barking suddenly turn into a sharp
wimper, I went outside and found him impailed on the fence outside, appearantly
after trying to jump over, and his old bones not being able to make the leap. I
pulled him off and set him down, got a shovel and prepared to bury him. But what
was my intention when I described the situation above? It's completely clear that
my intent was to make you think I had killed him.
It's simple addition, you have A) My dog died + B) There was my dog's blood on my
shirt + C) I had a motive for getting rid of him. It was not unintended that it
was laid out in that fasion. Just as with the Ellison story. A)He was in a bar, a
place that brings up the image of drinking alcohol + B) He had a few drinks + C)
After those drinks he was reported to have loosened up, which brings up the concept
that alcohol impairs judgement and loosens the lips. You could take it apart as a
lawyer would in court, saying he never actually said Ellison was drinking alcoholic
beverages, and therefore you could say that the man may not be lying per se. Yes,
you could indeed say that, and may even have a moron or two who'll buy it.
I could pretty much "imply" anything I wanted to and say that was a mere accident.
That you are reading things in there that weren't part of my original intent. But
when you go back to the *purpose* behind what is said, you start to see things as
they really were intended. In someone who has almost no language skills, you could
say that the phrase "after a few drinks..." would simply just be a flat description
of events. But this quote, unless I am mistaken is wrote by people in the TeeVee
biz. In the biz of making up stories. So if, this person wrote in a script:
INT. LOCAL BAR
ELLISON
(After a few drinks, boastfully)
You know, I polished up that script
before sending
it along to the WGA people! Buahahah!
Now tell me, what would this person's directions to the editor be? To have him
drink lemonade? To have him drinking coffee out of a thermos? These are people
who make story telling their business, they know how to imply things and they know
how to say things to bring up that exact image. There is no way that they would
make that mistake.
So I agree that we should get off topic. Common sense will tell you exactly what
that man meant when he said that Ellison was drinking, but there's no way to prove
either way. But we all can agree, Ellison's aversion to drinking is well known,
been in many of his essays, been in documentaries about him, and has been
reiterated by the people who know him best. So whether it was implied that he was
drinking or not, it's not true.
But as of now I'm ignoring this thread, it's going nowhere.
Nitflegal
Oh, horseshit. Rodenberry was spouting off about this until he died.
>From the Museum of Broadcasting, 1988 presentation "Harlan got a chance on the
first show and wrote a $350,000.00 estimated budget show (which is false
according to the actual budget worked up for the episode, which resurfaced
after Gene's death) when I only had, in those days, $186,000.00. And when I
told him to cut the budget, he sent me back the script, saying in parenthesis
to do it with special effects. I rewrote the script for Harlan (later, it was
admitted that Gene Coon and Dorthy Fontana had written the revised script) and
it won the Nebula award (which is won for the submitted script, not what
appeared on tv. That's how it worked, Ellison's draft was what was submitted),
which he rushed up on stage and took credit for too."
-Gene Rodenberry
So here you have Gene, 2 decades after the show aired, at the big
event/presentation for the TV industry, still spouting off that Harlan can't
write a script properly, can't handle a budget, and steals awards from poor
suffering people like Rodenberry, who, it should be mentioned, could have
easily won the award if he had presented evidence to support his assertations.
They would have yanked it back from Ellison in a hot heartbeat.
So Gene was still spouting this for twenty years, as were some of his more
rabid fans. I remember one goober in an I Grok Spock T-shirt at a late 80's SF
writers con, badgering Harlan about it during the Q&A.
Pretend you're a surgeon, and for twenty years, frequently and without
provocation, the chief surgeon of Brighams and Womens Hospital spouts that you
can't do surgery aseptically, would lose your patients if he hadn't stepped in
to save them, and the heart transplant that you developed was actually
developed by him. That's called slander, and I would imagine that you would be
pissed off as well. Harlan can hold a grudge, but when Gene in public forums
continually spouts that crap, how do you put it behind you?
And in case you haven't noticed, literally everyone who worked with Roddenberry
except for a few of the actors has gone on record that Rodenberry liberally
stole ideas and credit from them, and was hugely difficult and unpleasant to
work for. The myth and the man don't match up to well.