Rating: 
Summary: Ellison carrys on the Serling Torch - and Lives!!!
Review: Long before I knew of Harlan Ellison, The City on the Edge of Forever was my favorite Star Trek episode. Somewhere along the way, Harlan became my favorite author. When I finally learned that he'd written that old Star Trek classic I rewatched in detail and could see Harlan's writing and personality peeking through the rewrites that eventually killed other genius's like Rod Serling (along with smoking that is...). If you love Star Trek, Ellison, or are simply a fan of behind the scenes television, this is a GREAT book. I heartily encourage you free up some hard earned cash. You won't regret it!
Rating: 
Summary: Ellison treats his script with too much reverence.
Review: Part of what makes STAR TREK so enjoyable is its cornballness. This goes as well for the City on the Edge of Forever episode. The script can be deep, but its going to be acted out by Shatner, Nimoy, and crew in their Starfleet uniforms--and an essential dash of corniness will be added. When Ellison's script is corny, however, it comes across only as bad writing. Ellison's high-seriousness and reverence for his script does not acknowledge that what makes the STAR TREK episode superior to his script is all that was added when the script that was actually used was transformed into an episode. As a piece of writing, Ellison's script can't compare with the episode. That said, I enjoyed reading Ellison's angry intro piece (classic Ellison), but was less than impressed by his script itself. It did not make for absorbing reading.
Rating: 
Summary: Half of the book is Ellison's ranting and raving.
Review: Personally I bought the book to read the original story. Ellison spends so much time insulting Hollywood, fans of Star Trek, and especially Roddenberry that by the time you get to the teleplay you really do not care. I never believed in the "great bird" worship anyway. I believed in "the show." I grew up watching a t.v. show appreciating the fact that it did at least try to deal with some actual issues of life. Try comparing the show to "Bewitched." If Ellison, would cut out part of the venum and try to add some of what real writing is all about I would be interested in spending money on one of his books again. All readers: Beware of this book unless you have the disposition of an angry teenager. When you read this book you feel that Ellison is just a baby having a fit. This book is like a talk show as compared to a really great movie. The only reason I gave this book 2 stars was because one half of the book contains the teleplay and other "treatments" as promised. The rest is trash.
Rating:
Summary: A big "C" for CRYBABY!
Review: Roddenberry was right...Ellison's original script WAS bad. Give me a break...did Harlan ever SEE a Star Trek episode when he wrote this? The rewrite was right on target, and if it wasn't for that rewrite, this story would have not been nearly as successful. Save your cryin' for the next time you get passed up at the award ceremony, Harlan!
Rating:
Summary: an edge in that voice
Review: Since I'd bought the 'Six Science Fiction' plays containing HE's bare bones account of the differences between his script and the end product, I wondered what he could possibly add to a new edition. It would seem that "City" remains HE's favorite child; and if his new introduction occasionally has a touch of Ahab after the whale, the unrevised script has a rich, strange delicacy that the televised version only faintly suggests. The script is dramatically tight, where the film version is looser; and while Trek, in the Trek-mythos, took on 'tough' topics, the original has takes on drug use in the military, poverty in America, anti-Asian bigotry, feminism, and the real fate of war veterans, any one of which would have caused network executives to faint, much less all five in a single episode. And it's quite possible that all that was a little too close to the reality on the streets and too far from the starry idealism which, after all, was the show's primary appeal.
Rating: 
Summary: A deathblow to the Church of Roddenberry
Review: The author's comments and introductory essay are a bit long and repetitive, but strike deep and true into the heart of the myth surrounding the late Mr. Roddenberry. I do agree with previous reviewers that the state of the art in television broadcasting in 1966 could not have done justice to the original teleplay. How would the set dressers have handled the great, glittering City? The only option would have been a matte painting, and even then, it would have been too obviously faked. The thing about the teleplay, and about the written words as a whole, is that the characters become unbound from the limitations of the actors. We can see James Kirk as he should be, beyond the constraints of Bill Shatner's skill and the limits of episodic TV. Although Mr. Ellison has some pointed comments to make about the 'trash' status of the mass-market Trek novels, the best of them are superior in every way to the television series. Peter David, Diane Duane, John Ford, and Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens all write Trek at its best. The teleplay of 'City' leads the way.
Rating:
Summary: Ellison: Petty and bitter, but a good script
Review: The intro is really almost unbelievable, Ellison comes across as bitter, petty and close to being off his rocker; skip it. The script on the other hand is very well written and an excellent sci-fi story. I can see why Roddenberry changed it for the series though, it does put several of the characters out of their already established character (the re-write fit better in the ST series.) I give the screenplay 5 stars and Ellison's diatribe at the begining 0.
Rating:
Summary: A Very Angry Man's CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER
Review: This book is divided into three parts. The first part is an extremely long, bile-filled introductory essay from the pen of author Harlan Ellison. The second part, and the meat of the text, is the actual script treatments of CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER, with two additional revised scenes at the end written after Gene Roddenberry (Star Trek's creator and executive producer) insisted that certain elements of the story be removed or changed. The final part is a collection of afterwords written by various people to have worked with Ellison over the years, particularly those who were familiar with the conflict between himself and Gene Roddenberry - the Great Bird Of The Galaxy. Harlan Ellison's introductory essay is a delightful, 72-page, no-holds-barred rant concerning the circumstances behind the Original Star Trek episode, CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER. The essay, filled with some of the most creative insults you'll see this side of a Don Rickles' act, is easily worth the price of admission by itself. In it, Ellison starts at the very beginning, painstakingly detailing the events behind the writing of the script, continues through the fights during the production and then screams about everything that took place after the show had ended. Ellison includes numerous photocopies of damning documents that build a very convincing case for his side of the argument. It's laughable the number of things that Gene Roddenberry thought he could get away with saying at Star Trek conventions. My favourite is that Roddenberry would state during a speech that Harlan Ellison "had my Scotty dealing drugs!" When Ellison would contact Roddenberry to complain about the inaccuracy of that statement, as Scotty wasn't even in the original outline, the producer would admit his mistake and promise never to say that again. Yet the next time Roddenberry gave a speech or an interview, the "he had my Scotty dealing drugs!" line would be back. Also worthy of note, is the supposed cost of the script that kept getting more and more expensive the more that Roddenberry would talk about it. It seems odd that Ellison claims to have been mostly silent on this topic over the years since the production. Judging by this introduction alone, it's hard to imagine him being silent on any topic at all. Still it's an amazingly entertaining rant, and a testament to what bottling up anger for about twenty-five years will do to a writer. On to the actual script. Compared to the version that was actual transmitted as the Star Trek episode, the guts of the story are relatively the same. Kirk and Spock go back in time to the 1930s to prevent history from becoming perverted due to a rogue time traveler. There are a number of important elements that are different enough and change the light in which several powerful scenes are played out. Spock is much colder here, and more like the alien creature seen in the original character outline and in the second pilot episode. The opening is completely changed, as it isn't McCoy who goes back in time, but an officer on the Enterprise who is caught dealing psychedelic drugs (showing us a grittier, dirtier, less idealistically perfect, more realistic version of Starfleet than Gene Roddenberry wanted to portray). The relationship between Kirk and Edith Keeler is also slightly different and the ending (I won't spoil it), while sharing certain elements from the transmitted version, is turned completely around. Both the original ending and the alternative version are powerful, but it's interesting to see the differences in them from the standpoint of the men who created them. Ellison's version is starkly realistic, showing a human, flawed side to Kirk's character. Roddenberry's adaptation is much more idealistic, with characters who instinctively do "the right thing" no matter how difficult it should be for them. However, some of the changes made make sense from the standpoint of the producer. Star Trek was, of course, a continuing series and several of the elements introduced in the script just wouldn't work inside the confines of the universe that Gene Roddenberry had created. As a standalone story, this original script is fantastic, but it doesn't make sense to see such gritty and flawed human beings when every other story has shown Starfleet officers to be perfect Supermen. Ellison's vision may have been more dramatic, but I can sympathize with a production team that was attempting to construct a coherent serial storyline. While Harlan Ellison's Star Trek may have ended up being better then what we got, it does make a certain sort of sense for many of his ideas to have been toned down when writing for Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek. That said, however, I do think that a compromise situation (losing some of Roddenberry's idealness) could still have worked in this case. The afterwords are a bit of a mixed bag. Several of them do little more than take up space and to give Harlan Ellison a good character reference. One or two of them make for interesting reading, as few of the Star Trek production team give their two cents as to what exactly was going on at their end of the debate. The book is definitely worth getting, if only for the hilarious introductory remarks. Ellison's argument is quite argued coherently and the evidence he includes is extremely incriminating. The amazingly fun and witty way in which he carefully demolished practically everything that Gene Roddenberry has said about the subject makes for quite entertaining reading. The script itself is very enjoyable and very effective at tugging at the heartstrings without feeling manipulative or exploitative. Fans of Star Trek should definitely check this out, if only to see how different this is from the transmitted version. While much of the prototype shines through to the finished script, it's fascinating to see the original path taken with the concepts that Ellison created.
Rating:
Summary: A Very Angry Man's CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER
Review: This book is divided into three parts. The first part is an extremely long, bile-filled introductory essay from the pen of author Harlan Ellison. The second part, and the meat of the text, is the actual script treatments of CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER, with two additional revised scenes at the end written after Gene Roddenberry (Star Trek's creator and executive producer) insisted that certain elements of the story be removed or changed. The final part is a collection of afterwords written by various people to have worked with Ellison over the years, particularly those who were familiar with the conflict between himself and Gene Roddenberry - the Great Bird Of The Galaxy. Harlan Ellison's introductory essay is a delightful, 72-page, no-holds-barred rant concerning the circumstances behind the Original Star Trek episode, CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER. The essay, filled with some of the most creative insults you'll see this side of a Don Rickles' act, is easily worth the price of admission by itself. In it, Ellison starts at the very beginning, painstakingly detailing the events behind the writing of the script, continues through the fights during the production and then screams about everything that took place after the show had ended. Ellison includes numerous photocopies of damning documents that build a very convincing case for his side of the argument. It's laughable the number of things that Gene Roddenberry thought he could get away with saying at Star Trek conventions. My favourite is that Roddenberry would state during a speech that Harlan Ellison "had my Scotty dealing drugs!" When Ellison would contact Roddenberry to complain about the inaccuracy of that statement, as Scotty wasn't even in the original outline, the producer would admit his mistake and promise never to say that again. Yet the next time Roddenberry gave a speech or an interview, the "he had my Scotty dealing drugs!" line would be back. Also worthy of note, is the supposed cost of the script that kept getting more and more expensive the more that Roddenberry would talk about it. It seems odd that Ellison claims to have been mostly silent on this topic over the years since the production. Judging by this introduction alone, it's hard to imagine him being silent on any topic at all. Still it's an amazingly entertaining rant, and a testament to what bottling up anger for about twenty-five years will do to a writer. On to the actual script. Compared to the version that was actual transmitted as the Star Trek episode, the guts of the story are relatively the same. Kirk and Spock go back in time to the 1930s to prevent history from becoming perverted due to a rogue time traveler. There are a number of important elements that are different enough and change the light in which several powerful scenes are played out. Spock is much colder here, and more like the alien creature seen in the original character outline and in the second pilot episode. The opening is completely changed, as it isn't McCoy who goes back in time, but an officer on the Enterprise who is caught dealing psychedelic drugs (showing us a grittier, dirtier, less idealistically perfect, more realistic version of Starfleet than Gene Roddenberry wanted to portray). The relationship between Kirk and Edith Keeler is also slightly different and the ending (I won't spoil it), while sharing certain elements from the transmitted version, is turned completely around. Both the original ending and the alternative version are powerful, but it's interesting to see the differences in them from the standpoint of the men who created them. Ellison's version is starkly realistic, showing a human, flawed side to Kirk's character. Roddenberry's adaptation is much more idealistic, with characters who instinctively do "the right thing" no matter how difficult it should be for them. However, some of the changes made make sense from the standpoint of the producer. Star Trek was, of course, a continuing series and several of the elements introduced in the script just wouldn't work inside the confines of the universe that Gene Roddenberry had created. As a standalone story, this original script is fantastic, but it doesn't make sense to see such gritty and flawed human beings when every other story has shown Starfleet officers to be perfect Supermen. Ellison's vision may have been more dramatic, but I can sympathize with a production team that was attempting to construct a coherent serial storyline. While Harlan Ellison's Star Trek may have ended up being better then what we got, it does make a certain sort of sense for many of his ideas to have been toned down when writing for Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek. That said, however, I do think that a compromise situation (losing some of Roddenberry's idealness) could still have worked in this case. The afterwords are a bit of a mixed bag. Several of them do little more than take up space and to give Harlan Ellison a good character reference. One or two of them make for interesting reading, as few of the Star Trek production team give their two cents as to what exactly was going on at their end of the debate. The book is definitely worth getting, if only for the hilarious introductory remarks. Ellison's argument is quite argued coherently and the evidence he includes is extremely incriminating. The amazingly fun and witty way in which he carefully demolished practically everything that Gene Roddenberry has said about the subject makes for quite entertaining reading. The script itself is very enjoyable and very effective at tugging at the heartstrings without feeling manipulative or exploitative. Fans of Star Trek should definitely check this out, if only to see how different this is from the transmitted version. While much of the prototype shines through to the finished script, it's fascinating to see the original path taken with the concepts that Ellison created.
Rating:
Summary: Other Reviewers have said it all, but rated it too high
Review: This is a long delayed comment to feeling like I have been ripped off by Ellison into buying this book. The script in it is good. It is definitely not appropriate for "Star Trek" as it wanders and has a ("great" according to Ellison) character that just doesn't belong. Its biggest failing (and one that Ellison doesn't understand) is that the basis for the story did not fit in with Roddenberry's vision of "Star Trek". In any case, it's not a bad story - but, the aired episode is better. Where Ellison lost me as a reader was the 100+ page rants at the start and end of the book. Ellison clearly believes that any editing/changes of anything that he has written is sacreligeous and the perpetrator should be disemboweled and his head put on a stake as a warning to others. If you do get this book, get a knife and cut away anything that is before the script and anything that is after it and destroy these pieces. You'll end up a decent enough story to read and you will not have to wade through the diatribes that are Ellison's main purpose for writing the book.
|
