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.
Rating: 
Summary: Buy this book for Ellison's wonderful original script
Review: To quote Leonard Nimoy from his afterword in this volume: "if you don't know by now that Harlan Ellison and Gene Rodenberry were engaged in a blood battle over this project ever since its inception, then you have been living on some strange planet devoid of intelligence and communication." Harlan Ellison's expanded introductory essay, "Perils of the City," is a 73 page detailed account of not only how his award winning original script for "The City on the Edge of Forever" was turned into the most popular "Star Trek" episode of all time, but how what happened was, um, misrepresented by the show's creator Gene Roddenberry (the proceeding is a gross understatement of epic proportions). The book contains several afterwords by names familiar to the Star Trek universe: Nimoy, DeForest Kelly, George Takei, Peter David, Walter Koenig, Dorothy C. Fontana, David Gerrold, and Melinda Snodgrass. I believe it is accurate to say that Ellison makes his case--with lots of illustrated textual evidence--several times over, and at great length, skewering more than Roddenberry's memory in the process (my personal favorite is the reference to "Bimbo Queen, Joan Collins). All that being said, the reason to own this book is that it reprints not only Ellison's original script, out of print for several decades, but also two initial story treatments, providing a unique insight into the creation of a television script. Then you can watch "The Original and Uncut" episode (Star Trek Episode 28) and think about not only the alterations and deletions from Ellison's script (not just big things like Beckwith and the Jewels of Sound but also the character of Trooper), but the significance of the different endings. If after reading all this you do not appreciate that WHO stops WHOM from saving Edith Keeler makes a big difference on several important levels, then you are out there somewhere, lost on the aforementioned strange planet. It is indeed difficult to reconcile the two parts of this book, the postmortem excoriation of Roddenberry with the original text of this exquisite story, but the point of origin for both is the creative little furnace of Harlan Ellison's mind. To be fair, Ellison has been on this particular diatribe pretty much since the day "The City on the Edge of Forever" first aired on April 6, 1967 and his side of the story was printed along with the script in the 1976 collection, "Six Science Fiction Plays." My best advice would be to either read the script first or read the two parts at different times. But you will really want to have a clean palate when you first read Ellison's original story. It is a treasure on the nature of love that richly deserves to be preserved in its original form and the reason to buy this book. The rest you can take or leave, but you ignore it at your peril.
Rating:
Summary: Ellison's Flipped
Review: Ugh! Half the book is Ellison's ranting and raving. I think he's flipped. The original script is interesting, but not too much different than the final script. DC Fontana puts it best in her afterword, saying that it was a great script, but it just wasn't Star Trek enough. She was wrong, though, about Ellison mellowing over the years. The first half of this book is proof.
Rating:
Summary: Ellison needs to learn how NOT to complain
Review: WARNING: I'm assuming that if you're reading this, you've seen the award-winning STAR TREK episode "City on the Edge of Forever." If I'm wrong, and you don't want anything given away, maybe you'd better come back when you have seen it. As Harlan Ellison wants everyone in the world to know, his original screenplay for "City" differed significantly from the final product -- and he is REALLY BURNED UP over the whole affair. This book contains both the original script in its entirety, and a very angry introduction by Ellison, containing all the gory details. The script is definitely a must-read for any serious trekker, or any serious science-fiction enthusiast. The STAR TREK COMPENDIUM calls it television writing at its finest, and even if you don't care much for STAR TREK, you might be interested in seeing what was in the script before it was turned into a committee effort and forced to conform to the STAR TREK format. Regarding Ellison's anger and bitterness over the affair, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I once had a similar experience, albeit on a much, much, much smaller scale*, so I know how infuriating it is to have your creative efforts messed with purely to serve someone's personal concerns -- especially when the people doing the messing treat your objections with contempt. Furthermore, Ellison is an established, respected, and acclaimed science fiction writer, who certainly deserved better. Among other things, Ellison was allegedly lied to and lied about by Gene Roddenberry, who kept claiming that Ellison's original script had Scotty dealing drugs, at the same time he kept promising Ellison that he was gonna quit saying that. And as Ellison points out, he had written for television before, so it was unfair to dismiss him as someone who didn't know how the business worked. I also feel Ellison makes some good points regarding two major script alterations. Regarding the drug addict/dealer crewman Beckwith, Ellison maintains that there would have to be a few "bad apples" in a crew of 430 members. Regarding Kirk's freezing up because he JUST COULDN'T kill the woman he loved, Ellison claims this would have made Kirk a three-dimensional human being instead of a one-dimensional macho man. On the other hand, if Ellison had written for television before, he should have expected at least part of what happened. He should have known that NO television script is purely the work of a single author. For better or worse, scripts get passed from hand to hand, and everyone makes changes to suit all sorts of different agendas. Furthermore, there's one additional, firm rule when writing for a series where all the episodes use the same characters and the same scenario. Each episode must present the characters and scenario in a manner consistent with every other episode, and no episode may permanently change either, unless it's part of a preconceived plan to change the series format. I confess that I wonder how familiar Ellison was with this rule, since his earlier television scripts were for THE OUTER LIMITS, an anthology series, where each episode contained its own characters and scenario. So if the drug addict/dealer Beckwith was inconsistent with the STAR TREK universe, he had to go. Furthermore, Roddenberry had the network to answer to, and according to the STAR TREK COMPENDIUM, NBC wasn't wild about the whole drug thing either. And if Kirk's inability to kill the woman he loved changed him too much in the eyes of the viewers, that had to go as well. Regarding those two points I mentioned earlier, I said they were GOOD points, but I didn't;t say I completely agreed with them. I concede the possibility that Beckwith might have slipped through and made it onto a star ship, but I also feel it's debatable. After all, Star Fleet is essentially a military outfit, and the military tends to have a zero-tolerance attitude to such things. Regarding Kirk being more believable and sympathetic if he's fallible, I think we;re walking a fine line here. Yes, someone who is too perfect and too impervious to pain will give you a cramp, nut someone who is too flawed and too sensitive to do what has to be done at a pivotal moment will fill you with contempt. Ellison's original ending might have made Kirk more human and more sympathetic, but it might have made him appear weak, as Roddenberry feared. And IS it really more believable that Kirk could;t do it. After all, to save the woman he loved meant destroying the entire universe as we know it, and perhaps a person in his shoes might feel that the whole universe as we know it is just a tad more important. As far as Roddenberry's lying about and to Ellison, Ellison may have rubbed him the wrong way -- which brings me to my final point. The tone of this book very much rubbed me the wrong way. If you;re going to complain about how badly you've been treated, you must be careful how you do so, lest you lose the sympathy of the audience. One way to lose that sympathy is to take a confrontational attitude that says, "If you don't agree that I was treated badly, you're as rotten as the people who did it to me." In general, IF people want to hear you complain AT ALL, they want to be given all the facts and allowed to form their own opinion. Furthermore, in this case, the majority of the readers will probably be trekkers who want to sympathize with Roddenberry. Ellison would have gotten more of my sympathy if he had practiced a little more diplomacy. *My situation involved a skit I wrote for a high school variety show, which got sabotaged and nearly canceled because someone didn't want to look bad. The concern may have been legitimate, but the person went behind my back to deal with it.
Rating:
Summary: Ellison needs to learn how NOT to complain
Review: WARNING: I'm assuming that if you're reading this, you've seen the award-winning STAR TREK episode "City on the Edge of Forever." If I'm wrong, and you don't want anything given away, maybe you'd better come back when you have seen it. As Harlan Ellison wants everyone in the world to know, his original screenplay for "City" differed significantly from the final product -- and he is REALLY BURNED UP over the whole affair. This book contains both the original script in its entirety, and a very angry introduction by Ellison, containing all the gory details. The script is definitely a must-read for any serious trekker, or any serious science-fiction enthusiast. The STAR TREK COMPENDIUM calls it television writing at its finest, and even if you don't care much for STAR TREK, you might be interested in seeing what was in the script before it was turned into a committee effort and forced to conform to the STAR TREK format. Regarding Ellison's anger and bitterness over the affair, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I once had a similar experience, albeit on a much, much, much smaller scale*, so I know how infuriating it is to have your creative efforts messed with purely to serve someone's personal concerns -- especially when the people doing the messing treat your objections with contempt. Furthermore, Ellison is an established, respected, and acclaimed science fiction writer, who certainly deserved better. Among other things, Ellison was allegedly lied to and lied about by Gene Roddenberry, who kept claiming that Ellison's original script had Scotty dealing drugs, at the same time he kept promising Ellison that he was gonna quit saying that. And as Ellison points out, he had written for television before, so it was unfair to dismiss him as someone who didn't know how the business worked. I also feel Ellison makes some good points regarding two major script alterations. Regarding the drug addict/dealer crewman Beckwith, Ellison maintains that there would have to be a few "bad apples" in a crew of 430 members. Regarding Kirk's freezing up because he JUST COULDN'T kill the woman he loved, Ellison claims this would have made Kirk a three-dimensional human being instead of a one-dimensional macho man. On the other hand, if Ellison had written for television before, he should have expected at least part of what happened. He should have known that NO television script is purely the work of a single author. For better or worse, scripts get passed from hand to hand, and everyone makes changes to suit all sorts of different agendas. Furthermore, there's one additional, firm rule when writing for a series where all the episodes use the same characters and the same scenario. Each episode must present the characters and scenario in a manner consistent with every other episode, and no episode may permanently change either, unless it's part of a preconceived plan to change the series format. I confess that I wonder how familiar Ellison was with this rule, since his earlier television scripts were for THE OUTER LIMITS, an anthology series, where each episode contained its own characters and scenario. So if the drug addict/dealer Beckwith was inconsistent with the STAR TREK universe, he had to go. Furthermore, Roddenberry had the network to answer to, and according to the STAR TREK COMPENDIUM, NBC wasn't wild about the whole drug thing either. And if Kirk's inability to kill the woman he loved changed him too much in the eyes of the viewers, that had to go as well. Regarding those two points I mentioned earlier, I said they were GOOD points, but I didn't;t say I completely agreed with them. I concede the possibility that Beckwith might have slipped through and made it onto a star ship, but I also feel it's debatable. After all, Star Fleet is essentially a military outfit, and the military tends to have a zero-tolerance attitude to such things. Regarding Kirk being more believable and sympathetic if he's fallible, I think we;re walking a fine line here. Yes, someone who is too perfect and too impervious to pain will give you a cramp, nut someone who is too flawed and too sensitive to do what has to be done at a pivotal moment will fill you with contempt. Ellison's original ending might have made Kirk more human and more sympathetic, but it might have made him appear weak, as Roddenberry feared. And IS it really more believable that Kirk could;t do it. After all, to save the woman he loved meant destroying the entire universe as we know it, and perhaps a person in his shoes might feel that the whole universe as we know it is just a tad more important. As far as Roddenberry's lying about and to Ellison, Ellison may have rubbed him the wrong way -- which brings me to my final point. The tone of this book very much rubbed me the wrong way. If you;re going to complain about how badly you've been treated, you must be careful how you do so, lest you lose the sympathy of the audience. One way to lose that sympathy is to take a confrontational attitude that says, "If you don't agree that I was treated badly, you're as rotten as the people who did it to me." In general, IF people want to hear you complain AT ALL, they want to be given all the facts and allowed to form their own opinion. Furthermore, in this case, the majority of the readers will probably be trekkers who want to sympathize with Roddenberry. Ellison would have gotten more of my sympathy if he had practiced a little more diplomacy. *My situation involved a skit I wrote for a high school variety show, which got sabotaged and nearly canceled because someone didn't want to look bad. The concern may have been legitimate, but the person went behind my back to deal with it.
Rating: 
Summary: "Star Trek" as it might have been, and should have been.
Review: With his original script for the _Star Trek_ episode named in the title, Harlan Ellison takes us into an alternate universe--one in which the familiar officers of a spaceship named _Enterprise_ actually behave like real men (and women) with real problems. When one compares this version of _Star Trek_'s most popular episode of all time, with the show as it actually went on the air, one realizes at once that Harlan Ellison's universe is the real one, and Gene Roddenberry's universe was the false--false because of Roddenberry's foolish insistence that "my people are perfect" and don't have any problems. Here, for the first time, you will see that Captain Kirk's crew had at least one bad apple on board--quite likely aboard a real ship with a complement of 430 people, as any U.S. Navy captain--or for that matter, any U.S. astronaut--could tell you. And also that Captain Kirk himself is a flesh-and-blood human being with human failings, and, like many a real-life warship captain, needs his XO, Mr. Spock, to brace him up when he would otherwise commit a serious lapse that in this case would destroy his whole civilization as he knew it.
Here is _Star Trek_ as it might have been, _Star Trek_ as it should have been, with a realistic portrait of a future in which man takes all of his imperfections with him into the stars. Because what Roddenberry failed to see, and what Harlan Ellison tried to show him, is that the imperfectability of man does not preclude the doing of great deeds, either individually or collectively. What matters is what do you do with the bad apples once you discover them, and what checks and balances do you put in place to handle the occasional lapses that occur even at the level of command.
Read this script--and ask yourselves how much better _Star Trek_ would have been as a series, had Harlan Ellison, rather than Gene Roddenberry, been at its helm. Or at least, had Gene Roddenberry truly meant what he said when he called his series "science fiction for adults."
|
