Harlan Ellison's the City on the Edge of Forever: The Original Teleplay That Became the Classic Star Trek Episode

Rating:
Summary: Ridiculous whining and excessive toadying...
Review: ...are the main hallmarks of this book about why Harlan's script was a classic and why Gene and the Star Trek empire are evil. The truly funny thing is that the script is so sparse that it's difficult for me to see how anybody could get so worked up over the changes which were made - we're talking about bare stage directions and a dozen or so pages of material here, not something that rises to the level of literature.

The pats on the back administered with regularity by Ellison were bad enough, but the effusive sucking-up in the foreword and epilogue by other Star Trek "luminaries" made this book seriously painful to read.

I came into this _wanting_ to like Harlan and his version of the script. This book (and seemingly Harlan himself) is so annoying that I'm ready to believe that Gene, though for stupid reasons, made the best decision of his career by snubbing this loser.

Rating:
Summary: Enjoyable, but not as good as I expected!
Review: After hearing all of the praise for Ellison's original script, the script itself was something of a disappointment. Although the basic storyline (which was retained in the the televised version) is wonderful, some of the elements that make the televised episode especially suspenseful had been left out in the original script and some silly stuff added (space pirates indeed!). All told, I almost enjoyed reading Ellison's justifiable, but nasty tirade even more. However, there is no doubt that Ellison is a fine writer who deserved to have been treated better by Roddenberry, who must have been either a habitual liar or a sufferer of chronic memory lapses!

Rating:
Summary: Let it go, get over it.
Review: Although there were some very good parts to this book for the most part it was dull, boring, and extremely bitter. The story was, is, and will be one of the best that I have ever read. Ellison must realize, though, that budget constraints MUST dictate what is and is not put on film. There is only so much that could be done at that time and it is not Gene Roddenberry's fault that Harlan Ellison couldn't understand that budgets could not be expanded to the size of the authors ego. If I were saying this to Ellison I would say get over it. What's done is done. James Kirk might be able to change the past but here on earth it can't be done. At least, not yet. Take out the bitterest foreword I have ever read and a few repeats of the screenplay and this book would be rated MUCH higher

Rating:
Summary: Checkered History: A Writer States His Case
Review: Any fan of the original Star Trek series will probably tell you that "The City On The Edge Of Forever" is among their favorite episodes of the show's entire run. Fans also know of the friction between the episode's writer, Harlan Ellison, and creator/producer Gene Roddenbery over the episode. What folks may not realize is just how much Ellison's original script differs from the televized verson. Being rewritten in television is, of course common practice. But Ellison makes a compelling case and I believe he has some reason to be a bit bitter over how he was treated.

The book begins with a lengthly "introductory essay", in which Ellison talks about his original script, his communications with Roddenberry and the studio, and what went wrong after the show aired. Promises were made and never kept, facts were misrepresented for years, and it all got mucked up in the end. The second part of the book is Harlan's original script-so that you can decide for yourself-if what the author asserts is true. I have to say, that after reading the script, both versions of the episodes are strong, but I think it's a lot like comparing apples and oranges. Having said that though, Ellison backs up a lot of what he states with documentation. For example, claims were made that, one of the reasons the original draft changed so much was that it had "Scotty", (James Doohan) selling drugs. At no time does the character do that very thing. Drug addiction is a part of the story, but, not in the way it was stated. Of course the final version was vastly different and yet, still remains a classic. The final part of the book is a series of Afterwords, written by folks with some authority on the subject. Each one of those essays gives a unique perspective on the events and the 2 versions of the same tale

The book is more than just which version is better. It's about a writer stating a case and letting the reader decide for themselves what they think. The book would never be sanctioned by the studio that produces TREK Ellison's outspoken manner makes for an interesting read This is a book that every "Trekker" should read. It's also a must for anyone who wants a career writing for t.v. and film. The recommended book has 275 pages. As the Spock character might say "facinating".

Rating:
Summary: Checkered History: A Writer States His Case
Review: Any fan of the original Star Trek series will probably tell you that "The City On The Edge Of Forever" is among their favorite episodes of the show's entire run. Fans also know of the friction between the episode's writer, Harlan Ellison, and creator/producer Gene Roddenbery over the episode. What folks may not realize is just how much Ellison's original script differs from the televized verson. Being rewritten in television is, of course common practice. But Ellison makes a compelling case and I believe he has some reason to be a bit bitter over how he was treated.

The book begins with a lengthly "introductory essay", in which Ellison talks about his original script, his communications with Roddenberry and the studio, and what went wrong after the show aired. Promises were made and never kept, facts were misrepresented for years, and it all got mucked up in the end. The second part of the book is Harlan's original script-so that you can decide for yourself-if what the author asserts is true. I have to say, that after reading the script, both versions of the episodes are strong, but I think it's a lot like comparing apples and oranges. Having said that though, Ellison backs up a lot of what he states with documentation. For example, claims were made that, one of the reasons the original draft changed so much was that it had "Scotty", (James Doohan) selling drugs. At no time does the character do that very thing. Drug addiction is a part of the story, but, not in the way it was stated. Of course the final version was vastly different and yet, still remains a classic. The final part of the book is a series of Afterwords, written by folks with some authority on the subject. Each one of those essays gives a unique perspective on the events and the 2 versions of the same tale

The book is more than just which version is better. It's about a writer stating a case and letting the reader decide for themselves what they think. The book would never be sanctioned by the studio that produces TREK Ellison's outspoken manner makes for an interesting read This is a book that every "Trekker" should read. It's also a must for anyone who wants a career writing for t.v. and film. The recommended book has 275 pages. As the Spock character might say "facinating".

Rating:
Summary: Watch the film and compare it yourself
Review: Do not get the contents of the book mixed up with the delivery. The book was well designed and allows you to start from any point. Now you must purchase the episode (28) also and see that the changes were necessary to keep within the TV parameters. The sleeve on the VHS box suggests that you count the number of people beaming down and the number of pads on the transporter. I thought it was interesting that everyone was addressed as his or her position (MOS).

I will not go through every change as that is the fun of reading the book; however to keep the story and characters consistent with the TV shows several changes have been made. Whether these changes are for good or evil you must decide. Some of the obvious is when Kirk and Spock have to steal close to be unconscious in their new environment. Harlan said whatever you do not make them fit. Sure enough they look like designer duds that were will tailored. The worse case is the final interaction with Edith Keeler. The whole prime of the story is changed in one moment.

Other books/movies that work well to compare are "The Razor's Edge"; see how Larry Darrell changes from the book to Tyrone Power to Bill Murray and Bill pushes Somerset Maugham completely out of the story. I also enjoyed reading about the controversy over the original "Six Days of the Condor" that was changed by Robert Redford to fit his criteria in "Three Days of the Condor." Drugs are out and oil is in. Three days fit better on a two-hour tape.



Rating:
Summary: Watch the film and compare it yourself
Review: Do not get the contents of the book mixed up with the delivery. The book was well designed and allows you to start from any point. Now you must purchase the episode (28) also and see that the changes were necessary to keep within the TV parameters. The sleeve on the tape suggests that you count the number of people beaming down and the number of pads on the transporter. I thought it was interesting that everyone was addressed as his or her position (MOS).
Other books/movies that work well to compare are "The Razor's Edge"; see how Larry Darrell changes from the book to Tyrone Power to Bill Murray and Bill pushes Somerset Maugham completely out of the story. I also enjoyed reading about the controversy over the original "Six Days of the Condor" that was changed by Robert Redford to fit his criteria in "Three Days of the Condor." Drugs are out and oil is in. Three days fit better on a two-hour tape.

Rating:
Summary: Just read the script
Review: Ellison's original script is well worth reading. I don't think it would have worked as a Star Trek episode, but as a work in-of-itself, it is marvelous. Skip Ellison's intoductory essay--it sounds like it was written by a whiny child with a thesaurus, and it will detract from your enjoyment of the script.

Rating:
Summary: Amusing, but weak arguments and poor editing take toll.
Review: Ellison's story of television treachery is quite funny at times, and it's always nice to see well-written potshots at both Gene Roddenberry and what Ellison calls "Trekkie Nation."

However, the nut of the argument, that Gene Roddenberry unfairly rewrote his script and then spent a decade telling lies about why he did so, falls flat for two reasons. 1) Roddenberry's rewrite is superior (for its television purposes), and 2) Ellison got so much publicity and resultant opportunities from this episode that who cares what Roddenberry said.

Roddenberry (and/or his staff writers) took out the drug story and gave that part to McCoy, and it was one of the doctor's best. He also made Kirk the prime mover at the end, not Spock. These were necessary changes for a television series, and Roddeberry was the producer, so Ellison should be a little more understanding.

While Roddenberry may have defended himself for rewrites years later by saying, incorrectly, that Ellison had "Scotty dealing drugs," the point is he didn't need to defend himself. It was his show, and the exposure of this episode made Ellison famous. Everyone should just shut up about this and enjoy the episode.

The book itself is poorly laid out by the publisher...there are a series of connected essays, written at different periods, but it's hard to tell when one starts and the other ends. The Shatner-bashing is also unnecessary and a little gratuitous, in light of what had already come in books from Sulu, Uhura, etc. There are some useful insights on the rewrite process for television, and of course it's always fun to read Harlan.

Rating:
Summary: Read it before you choose a side!
Review: First of all, a word to the naysayers. WHAT DID YOU EXPECT??? On the cover it clearly states that this is the "Original Teleplay" of the episode. Anyone who knows anything about scriptwriting knows that this is the proper form for a television script. You leave as much of the visual stuff as you can, without losing the vision of your story, to the directors and producers who will have to put in the special effects and camera angles. There's a simple reason for this, what's in the writer's head is not necessarily transferrable to the TV screen. THIS IS NOT A NOVEL, and if thats what your looking for look elsewhere. Everything is not visually spelled out for the reader, it was left up to the people that would have to create the effects and camera shots. The writer made suggestions many times, but they were left vague to allow for flexibility. So, this is not as well writen as a Star Trek novel, you shouldn't have expected it to be. You have to use that little part of people that seems to be going dormant as more TV shows and movies give us the pictures THEY WANT US TO SEE. You have to remember that this was written in 1966, special effects were still pretty basic, so the author had to realize that not everything in his head could be done on screen. The writer asks you to use your imagination to fill in the gaps(try it you might like it). Everything is set up by camera angles and dialogue instruction, and I agree it detracts from the story, but he chose to publish it as the original work not a watered down story for the people who lack the imagination to see through the stage direction. I remind everyone who says Roddenberry was right that this script, as seen in the book not the episode that aired, was awarded the Writer's Guild of America Award as judged by the experts. So, anyone who says it stinks, I'D LIKE TO SEE YOUR CREDENTIALS! (Mr. Minnesota?) I also want to point out that you are comparing apples and oranges. A finished TV show (complete with pictures) to an unproduced script that might have been adjusted somewhat if it had been aired. I challenge the critics to try and find the aired, Roddenberried script and then compare it to Ellison's. I promise you'll think this one's much better. Now then, to the book! I, like so many others, have been a long time fan of the original Star Trek series, and as such was very excited when the Sci-fi Channel started reairing the episodes with commentary from the people involved. When they showed the episode of "City" I thought it was great, and agreed with the millions who think it is the best of the series. The thing that surprised me, though, was when Harlan Ellison came on and said that this was never the way it was supposed to be. His idea of his creation was much more touching in that it allowed Captain Kirk to do exactly what anyone in love at any period in time would do, save the one they loved. Although it was not by direct action that he would have saved her, but by inaction in stopping her from being saved. This story touched me much more than the version I had seen, so I went out and bought the book. I want to assure you that anyone with a decent imagination will be able to enjoy the script. However, like some others here, I thought the best part was the commentary by the author and other Star Trek personalities. It's pretty clear that Gene Roddenberry was a liar and a parasite(if you don't believe Ellison, read what the two people who worked with Roddenberry the most have to say about him in the Solow and Justman book on Star Trek). Its also pretty clear that Harlan is a little bitter, even after all these years. The truth about the whole affair probably lies somewhere between the two stories, in the area long forgotten by time and ego. However, I tend to lean toward Ellison's analysis as being more truthful. After all, if they felt he had been such a failure, why would they continue to consult him in the movies and ask for his help in saving the show? I think he's justified in his ranting, and I think if you read the introduction with an open mind he'll convince you too. If anyone wants to debate the issue with me, feel free to email me.