Would Harlan Ellison's Original "City on the Edge of Forever" Actually Have Been Better?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.พ. 2021
- ▶Join this channel to get access to perks:
th-cam.com/users/steveshivesjoin
▶Watch more Trek, Actually videos at: • Trek, Actually
▶Watch our Star Trek: Deep Space Nine/Firefly watch-along series, Trek Reluctantly, at: • Trek, Reluctantly
▶This isn't a paid advertisement, I just really think the comic book adaptation of Ellison's original "City" teleplay, adapted by David Tipton, Scott Tipton, and J.K. Woodward, with covers by Juan Ortiz, is really good. Check it out here: www.idwpublishing.com/product...
▶Listen to our Trek-themed comedy podcast, The Ensign's Log:
▶RSS: / sounds.rss
▶Soundcloud: / the-ensigns-log-podcast
▶Website: www.lemmelistenpodcasts.com/th...
▶Patreon: / steveshives
▶PayPal: www.paypal.me/SteveShives
▶Twitter: / steve_shives
▶Facebook: / thatguysteveshives
▶Instagram: / steve.shives
Listen to the Late Seating podcast:
▶RSS: / sounds.rss
▶Soundcloud: / late-seating
▶Website: www.lemmelistenpodcasts.com/la... - บันเทิง
![บุษบา - เมนทอล [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IGnWPokSEis/mqdefault.jpg)
As for Ellison being difficult to work with, Isaac Asimov once told of a teenaged boy at a science fiction convention, who was always underfoot. Someone said "He reminds me of a young Harlan Ellison." To which someone else replied "Yes! Let's kill him now."
Yes, that’s a true story, as is the one where as a young fan Ellison introduced himself to Asimov by saying “You’re not so much.” But it should be added that it was said with a great deal of wry affection in both cases. Despite the fact that both men had very little in common other than their Jewish heritage, liberal politics, and love of writing, they remained fast friends right up until Asimov’s death.
Timely Harlan Ellison quote: You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
He was a grumpy bastard, but this quote is gold.
Oh damn, that _is_ an excellent quote! I need to remember it.
Wow, thats a much more eloquent way of saying what i've been saying for years now.
Thanks, I'm gonna be using that one for a long time.
Its a terrible quote sense I get to decide what is ignorant!
And informed for that matter!
Became a fan of Ellison’s work in the late ‘70s (even had a couple of interactions with him personally some years later, in which he was predictably an asshat, but at least it was on brand for him, lol)- this is pretty much my all time favorite quote of his and I’ve referenced it probably hundreds of times over the years. Thanks for spotlighting it here!
For what it’s worth, I also try hard to live by it which, combined with “cite your sources,” helps enormously in forming sound, evidence-based conclusions and updating those as new information becomes available (not to mention being comfortable acknowledging when I’m wrong!).
I've watched that episode many times & it still hurts every time that Kirk stops Bones from saving Edith. In the entire Star Trek franchise, few episodes are as emotionally powerful as that one.
One thing needs to be added: D. C. Fontana did the rewrite on Ellison's original script but never got any credit. Even in your video it sounds like Roddenberry rewrote the script. She was told that the rewrite was necessary to make the script more Star Trek. The original script could easily have been ruined by a lesser writer. Also, while the original script was never produced so there is nothing to compare to, even Roddenberry couldn't make the script come in at budget. Ellison points out that he worked on Outer Limits which had no budget and could have worked with Roddenberry if asked.
See her wikipedia page, which describes in her own words when she did or did not deserve credit for editing. The page also notes that there were 3 subsequent rewrites of Ellison's script after DC took a turn at it. As for Outer Limits, Ellison actually plagiarized himself by recycling the fake Heraclitus quote "Time is like a river" that he'd previously used in Demon with a Glass Hand (one of the best episodes of that series). If you look carefully at the comic book images that Steve presents here, you'll see that Ellison had Yeoman Rand on the planet instead of Lt. Uhura. Roddenberry may have been unimaginative as a writer (e.g., The Omega Glory) but he was a major promoter of racial equality. Martin Luther King personally convinced Nichelle Nichols not to quit the series because she portrayed a non-stereotype. Leaving aside the awkwardness of two themes in a story (evil personcan do good, love must be sacrificed for destiny), Ellison portraying Kirk as letting Edith fall down the stairs is way out of character. Remember this is the guy who cheated the Kobayashi Maru test by refusing to recognize "no win" scenarios, so why would he so readily yield to Spock's info that Edith must die? The TV episode portrays Kirk's character much better by showing how hard it was for him to accept her destiny.
Gene L Coon as well as DC Fontana re-wrote the script according to what DC said in the afterword of Harlan's "behind the scenes" book where Harlan allowed 10 people who read the original script to comment on it. I particularly liked DC's neutral stance on the "Which was better" debate. She acknowledged that Roddenberry had every right to present the show as he wished as well as say that if this were an "Outer Limits" script, it probably would have worked perfectly well as written. I agree with this view completely. When fans asked me my opinion, I usually say "Harlan wrote a beautiful script but Gene Coon and Dorothy Fontana did a great job of adapting it into a TREK script." I would add that DC wrote a great sequel of this episode called "Yesteryear" for the animated series. I thought it was one of the few animated stories that could stand side-by-side with TOS...
The Outer Limits episode that Ellison wrote was filmed entirely in an old building in L. A. (the Bradbury building) that was so photogenic that it made up for the low budget
they had to film it with -- it also won a Hugo. Importantly, it was also used effectively in Ridley Scott's Blade Runner where Sebastian the toymaker lived and where Roy Battey died.
@@ghoztwolve2486 That Kirk cheated the KM test wasn’t established during TOS… was in TWOK
I cried for Edith and Kirk 2
Robert Bloch once said that Harlan Ellison‘s natural habitat is hot water. And they were friends when he said that.
I think Isaac Asimov was a HUGE fan of Harlan Ellison's-- but it's likely they never worked on anything together also. LOL
Harlan was a good guy. He had a hair trigger - which he himself lamented on occasion - “Do you think I WANT to be this way? I *wish* I could just take it easy” - but he came from absolute poverty, and was a self-made man, and that’s kind of the American dream, right? And he had the strength if his convictions, did you know he marched with Martin Luther King? Among other things?
One notable thing he never gets credit for is that he almost continually was mentoring people. If he read your work, and thought you had talent, he would work really closely with you to help you develop it, get your name spread around, etc. even if he didn’t like you personally, he’d still do that because in his mind talent was more important than whether or not someone got n your nerves. .
@@donaldwalker318
Ellison invited Asimov to contribute to his Dangerous Visions anthology but I don't think he did.
He'd pretty much given up SF in The 60s.
I don't really know which version *would* be better...
I do know that when I had the chance to meet Mr Ellison at a con, I took the opportunity to shake his hand, thank him for writing "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream", and told him that the edits to "City on the Edge of Forever" (at that time, just released in book form) made it a better, tighter story.
He said "Fuck Off."
I treasure the memory.
I think Kirk stopping McCoy is more of a gut punch to watch and might make it the better story. Holy sh!t could you imagine? Not just letting someone you care about die but actually stopping someone else from saving them? That's harsh
To quote Robert Heinlein, "When the need arises, and it does, you must be able to shoot your own dog. Don't farm it out - that doesn't make it nicer, it makes it worse." For Kirk to make the decision, it falls to him being the person to loses either way, for Spock it would have been only logical. Also, if Spock had been the one to let Edith die, do you think that Kirk could have ever really deep down forgiven him?
@@charlesborden8111 That's what I thought! It would have changed their relationship perhaps permanently. I doubt they would have been on speaking terms at the end of the episode, as in the original.
And WAY more wrenching than Spock holding back Kirk. The latter is the easy, “logical” way to end it.
There's fascinating episode of Star Trek Continues, the fan series where Captain Kirk is dying piece at time until he goes back confront deaths of Edith Keeler, Another female officer he loved and Maramonti, the native woman from Paradise Syndrome episode. Also his unborn child in Maramoni's womb.
@paulhunter6742 The woman's name was Miramanee. She and her people were descendants of the Native Americans who the aliens brought to that planet from Earth centuries earlier.
By far, my favorite ending to any episode of _"Star Trek"..._
Just a melancholy Kirk, not answering his crews questions.
_"Let's get the Hell out of here."_
And they Beam away. Awesome.
It chokes me up, Everytime he says "Lets get the hell out of here" :(...
I'm 69 years old. I was a teenager when I watched that episode on the day of its original airing. That line of dialog was harder hitting than anyone of a later generation can appreciate. It was the first time anything like that had been uttered in a television episode, on a par with "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." It reverberated through the culture.
@@Jerry_Fried I often compare that use of "hell" and its seismic impact to the casual use of the word (twice) in Farpoint. I suspect the TNG writers were trying to be more "edgy" (since both uses are really pretty much pointless) but as a result meant the word no longer had impact. I totally agree, this is one of the great poignant Kirk lines, well played by Shat. My other favorite poignant Kirk line is in Spock's Brain, when they beam down to the planet and Kirk, not remembering Spock was at that moment a vegetable, says "Readings, Mr Spock... Scott?" Shat and Doohan look at each other for a moment, and you really feel how much Kirk misses Spock. We always lambaste Spock's Brain, but Marc Daniels did an awesome directing job.
@@Jerry_Fried Yes. Exactly. With today's F-bombs flying everywhere, it's impossible for today's viewer to feel the sheer SHOCK of hearing that line. The impact.
That look on his face right before he says it.
B9y
"I'm a doctor, not a manslaughterer."
Lines Never Spoken By Doctor Zoidberg
Hahahahahahahaha
In my own head cannon City on the Edge of Forever has always been the point where the Mirror Universe branched off from Prime. If she'd lived it would have led to the more warlike empire.
that's an excellent idea!
also somewhat supported by what happened in the most recent season of Discovery
@@thoperSought hadn't thought of that. I enjoyed the revisit to the Guardian but I think the Animeted Series did it better. One story about a young Spok in a mostly forgotten show ended up influencing so much about the Vulcans for the rest of Trek.
@@bobthoughts
it's been a long time since I saw the animated series. I should really rewatch that!
That is an interesting idea. I have a weird bit of head canon for the mirror universe. I think that the mirror universe didn’t have the AIDS epidemic, allowing the free love and promiscuity of the 60s and 70s to continue into the 23rd century, which explains the sexual liberation of the mirror universe to be so ingrained in their society.
I really like the idea, been hanging around in the back of my head as well. Kinda competing with flight of the Phoenix era...
Fortunately I am not a hardcore lore nitpicker, cuz that does contradict it:
In disco they state a genetic difference between the timelines (hence the light sensitive Lorca). Also it is supposed to be a continuation of the Roman Empire, something only hinted at on screen. But I remember there being some on screen references to a longer standing difference between the lines (i think it was on Enterprise, though not 100% on that), with offhanded references to Historical events. But I can easily handwave that with 'eh. Propaganda.'
I consider "All Our Yesterdays" to be Spocks version of this experience. A very under rated episode. The line; "Yes, it happened. But that was five thousand years ago. And she is dead now. Dead and buried. Long ago." always gets me.
My biggest critique of Ellison's scrip vs. the episode is that Kirk letting Edith die is way more powerful than his being indecisive about letting her be saved. He's sacrificing himself in the episode as shot as she is going to die, but he is going to suffer for the rest of his life for his decision... It's totally in character for him.
It's his last line that always gets me: "Let's get the hell out of here."
Trouper's impact on history was not necessarely negligeable. He had already done his significant part by being at Verdun.
Agreed. It wasn't him or even his death that was negligible. It was his continued existence that was negligible. Hell, his death absolutely _wasn't_ negligible; it's what saved Kirk so that the future could be restored. It was just that anything his would have done after 'City's' events or absent Kirk and Spock's presence was negligible.
It doesn't detract from the heartwrenching, existential, hopeless, insignificant dread and loss that the line his impact being "negligible" brings, just shifts when the negligence takes effect.
The main problem with the character is...he couldn't have fought for the US at Verdun. Americans didn't fight at Verdun. While the battle was 10 months long, it took place in 2016, the year before the US entered the war.
@@scaper8 I think his presence in the script calls out American culture for devaluing the homeless population, veterans especially. When, in the end, his worth to the timeline is rendered "negligible", it's a tragic commentary on how little society values those who aren't seen as contributors, while also denying them the ability to contribute. He was systematically denied any opportunity to have an effect on the timeline, and in the end his death mattered little, because he was on the fringes of society and likely would have died childless and alone, with no civic, political, intellectual or cultural achievements to be undone by his untimely demise.
But Kirk and Spock felt he was important. Like any human being, he was, and should have been valued by the society he lived in. And really, what kind of society lets someone matter that little, that their untimely death is so inconsequential in the long run?
@@keith6706 Good point, but 2016?
@@keith6706 Perhaps he joined the French Army in 1914 - I understand many American's joined with belligerent countries early in the war so it wouldn't be over before the U.S. finally joined - if ever.
The thing that struck me about this episode was that two expendable red shirts beamed down to an unexplored alien planet with the main cast, and neither one was killed in the first act. Even more surprising was that they survived the entire episode, and beamed back with the rest of the landing party. I guess there was a certain symmetry to the situation in that Edith and the homeless guy took their place as the requisite sacrificial lambs to emphasize the gravity of the story. But still, a watershed moment for TOS. 🤔
I had the honor of having Harlan Ellison speak while I was taking a college English class in science fiction. The man was undoubtedly…complicated, but very intelligent and a fascinating speaker. I may not have been thrilled with all of Ellison’s writing, but he was always entertaining and quite intelligent. He was marvelous to listen to when talking about his art. The world is less without him in it.
And then, one day, a child walked out of the Guardian Of Forever and was adopted by Tecteun of Gallifrey.
* laughs hystericallly in Whovian *
" What's the deal with the doughnut, Spock, is this some sort of an alien coffee stand?".
In this original version, Edith calls the police on Spock and Kirk, who once again encounter that same cop who remembers them from last time.
WHO knew....
If Trek & Who made this canon the internet would melt.
The produced version is superior. Ellison's version was trying to control the characters and not allowing the character to be true to themselves.
Kirk would have to make the mistake of saving Edith once on the stairs, and shows Kirk cares for Edith as more than just a mission. It makes the tragedy more real and hard hitting.
Also, this episode didn't need an actual antagonist. The clunky/sloppy punishing of Beckwith at the end steps all over Kirk's personal tragedy.
It is also more hard hitting if Kirk can only blame himself for Edith's death by preventing her from being saved.
It's one of the most gut wrenching scenes I've ever seen.
Not only does Kirk stop Bones from saving her but it's BECAUSE of their reunion that she crosses the street so mesmerized that she doesn't see the oncoming truck.
Which brings up, why was the Enterprise gone before Kirk and Spock go back? Without them there would be no reunion for her to see and cross the street.
I hate temporal mechanics.
I also agree. The original script would have produced an episode with three separate themes, the finished one focused on one.
When Ellison's story was approved to go to script nothing had ben shot but the pilots. By the time he turned in his first draft the premier was still 3 months away and at best all he could see were dailies and a few other scripts to know how the characters were shaping up. This more than anything affected how he wrote them.
Also, Beckwith was key to the themes that sometimes the best of us can't make the right decision and the worst of us can show what we're really made of. The finished episode gives us the of course ending: Kirk is the hero so of course he does the right thing. Hoss would let his would-be wife die to save his Pa on Bonanza, too.
Definitely agree with Jonathan Ross. Recall finally reading Ellison's original teleplay expecting it to be far better than the produced version -- and it wasn't. Not even close. My guess was Ellison's ego refused to reconcile the fact someone else's rewrite made on of his scripts better. But it did.
Good point! All in all the Beckwith character was an unnecessary distraction.
In a way, it’s a shame this episode had to be produced in the 60s. Elements of both scripts, Ellison’s AND the finished episode, would have made a lovely, fleshed out two-parter. And I’ll bet it would have been if it had been produced today or even in the 90s. I think we got the best episode we could get for 60s television. It’s fun to imagine TOS with a Discovery budget, though.
Dare I say it would have been...the best of both worlds?!?!?
I’ll show myself out.
I agree. Though I do think they could have kept some of the key points of Ellison's script without increasing the budget. Keep that it was Spock who stopped Edith from being saved and Spock telling Kirk that no woman has ever been as loved. Keep Trooper's sacrifice to save Kirk. Keep their discussion about Trooper's apparent inconsequentiality, though I'd argue that, while he might have been inconsequential to the past, he saved Kirk who went on to do great things.
@@StarkRG Yeah, true, there were definitely some conceptual things that could have stayed from Ellison's script. Could have just come down to a matter of taste in some cases, I suppose.
@@StarkRG An entire script could be written about Trooper's life, and what went into his self sacrifice.
Something like a fellow soldier pouncing onto an un-exploded mortar, which had fallen at Trooper's own feet?
"The Time Ripples Of Trooper"
Pretty sure there's some real life story of Tolkien's WWI experience, in which a squire pulls a spear from his own body in order to defend an injured horse. Fabric of reality kind of stuff.
Okay, c'mon back in. Now get pithy for us.
I love the idea of a two-parter for this story. I think exploration of the origin of the Guardians could have been an interesting small side story. I miss from the episode as aired how the Enterprise/Federation would have acted to ensure the Guardian didn't interfere with the timeline once the episode wrapped up. Didn't make sense!
A drug dealer in Starfleet? Yeah, that was never going to pass Roddenberry. The replacement of Trooper with a rando itinerant who vaporizes himself was an absolutely terrible change though.
Overall, it feels like Ellison wrote a short story and not a script though.
It certainly seems to me that if they had gone with the original Harlan Ellison script regardless of some of the details, it would have been a two-parter
The "drug dealer" thing for me disqualifies it from being a legitimate TOS episode. Thematically, it just doesn't fit, it's anachronistic. But, the "rando itinerant" nuking himself with the phaser could be argued to be completely unnecessary. It is jarring and sad, but what was the point, exactly? Didn't really move the story at all, other than reminding us that there's gonna be some collateral damage when you mess with the time/space continuum. My initial reaction when I saw it for the first time at 9 was, "wow, that kind of sucks for that guy", LOL!
The idea of a drug dealer on the crew is out of character for what I have seen of the pre movie TOS.
And having a drug dealer on the crew would probably fallen afoul of Standards and Practices (censors) of the 1960s. That would have been another annoying distraction the production didn't need.
I wish they had kept Beckwith in the script. But Gene Roddenberry felt that the crew of the Enterprise crew had to be squeaky clean. No siree, nobody ever deals drugs in Starfleet or does anything dishonest.
I've got to agree with this. A drug dealer, particularly a guy who is worse than just a drug dealer is just odd. Star Fleet have a lot of ships and crews, maybe amounting to hundreds of thousands, out of a population of many billions. They don't let just anyone through the academy and onto a starship. A merchant ship or something, sure. Or maybe on an auxiliary ship--but a top starship? No. It's hard to swallow in a grimy setting, let alone Star Trek's. The grime of a real world naval ship with huge crews wouldn't translate into a shiny spaceship with a relatively modest crew.
If Ellison had got this through, it would have changed the perception of Star Fleet and the Federation. Rodenberry might have been remiss if he DIDN'T pull rank on that angle. Not if he wanted his optimistic vision to carry through. Yes, Star Fleet personnel would be seen to do evil through dumb mistakes, but at least they did monstrous actions from a higher principal.
The idea of the Enterprise suddenly becoming the "Condor" and subject to drug dealer turned mutineer seems needlessly complex. Time was changed, so the ship disappeared. Simple. More time for the romance and the choice which was really the crux of the story. 'Guardians of Forever' presiding over the portal? Again, needlessly complex, the unification of the elements into a sentient portal makes sense.
I do regret that the doomed homeless guy couldn't have remained as Trooper, he served multiple roles; certainly not least in demonstrating why America wouldn't want to return to another war in Europe. He provided an exhibit towards Edith Keeler's antiwar ideology. Yet, he was the important hero in the story. If HE hadn't been there to save Kirk, what would have been the consequences of THAT? His death might not have changed history, but, for the completion of the story, it was as important as Edith Keeler's.
The idea of bad folks doing good is a worthy one, and in this case, it leads to a bad result. But, again, it probably made sense to keep it simple. It's already a fairly heavy gut punch for 60's era television watchers to see the principal hero deliberately fail to save someone, let alone someone they loved.
Malefactor escapes and goes through the portal AGAIN, and then gets dealt out permanently--forever? That just seems silly.
Ellison's version as was, or even his modified version, would have been better as a multi-parter, or as the 'first Star Trek movie' so that it could have had the budget and pacing it needed.
A drug dealer is certainly at odds with Roddenberry's vision of a utopian society where everyone's needs are met. And a guest star salary isn't a pittance. These are two strong arguments against a Beckwith character.
This exempified what many writers complained about on the series. Roddenberry's Utopian future, where all too many things would be perfect. It's as if the show's canon was designed to reflect social issues of the day - except human behavior and frailty. Creating conflict was often a headache for the writer.
I actually strongly prefer Kirk as an active protagonist who has to make the decision to sacrifice her himself. Lots of cool stuff in this script but ultimately I wouldn’t trade the original for it. Great video, I subscribed!
I agree. Kirk was NEVER indecisive.
The thing that always gets me about this episode is, at the end, once Kirk and Spock are returned and everything is set back to how it was, the Guardian is all like, "So... wanna go again?"
It's entire existence is to make people travel through time.
Of course it's going to be excited to be used again.
I love in the animated series how the Guardian works with responsible scientists and historians in Yesteryear and helps out Spock to fix a paradox
Ever read the non-canon novel _Federation_ by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens? It's set shortly before Star Trek: Generations and Kirk visits the Guardian before he has to head off to the launch of Enterprise-B.
In the backstory, Federation personelle set up an outpost and try asking the Guardian questions (time travel is _not_ permitted). The answers they get are not helpful (the interaction is described as trying to converse with a dog, with us in the role as Fido). Eventually the Guardian stops answering, seemingly bored. Kirk is allowed a final look-over of the Guardian and, confronted by the regret of a life of adventure finally falling into twilight, wonders aloud "Why?"
And for the first time in decades, the Guardian answered...
This original version would have made an excellent Star Trek movie; or at the very least, could have been a two-part episode.
On a side-note; Beckwith's punishment is not only unjustly harsh but also pointless, since his death would be instantaneously, even if he's brought back to life in an endless cycle, he'd only exist for a quantum second before being instantly snuffed out over and over. Even Yahweh would look at the Guardian and say "You're doing it wrong".
Agreed. It seems a little too extreme for a one-off character, especially a common pusher/drug dealer. A punishment like that is more fitting for a season Big Bad. Or if it is a one-episode deal, perhaps a corrupt ruler or warlord or someone with great power or authority.
I gotta say, I MUCH prefer the aired version of that episode.
What makes this such an indelible TV episode 50 years on and instantly recognizable among even non-Trek fans, is the climactic scene where Kirk HAS TO MAKE the conscious choice to allow this immensely good, kind-hearted, peace-loving woman to die in order to preserve the timeline and save the future.
Every single component of the episode builds up to that scene. We are meant to view it through Kirk's eyes. To see Edith's kindness and compassion, her visions of a peaceful world. We are supposed to fall in love with Edith, right along with Kirk, in spite of ourselves and the knowledge that it can't possibly last.
Spock's answer to this classic Trolley Problem is simple and logical: "Edith Keeler must die." But this is a violation of every basic moral value we have in humanity. And it becomes more complicated with someone we know and even love. The episode is about Kirk grappling with this tragic choice, against his very own better nature (as the staircase scene shows).
That is what makes the climactic scene so powerful. On the one side you have Spock, the cold logical Vulcan. On the other side you have McCoy, the passionate human doctor, who embodies all our emotional instincts to instantly rush to save her. But in the middle, you have Kirk.....and us, the audience. It's not just that Kirk is supposed to make the choice, WE are supposed to make that choice. Not just to helplessly watch Edith die as a bystander, but to make the painful choice for ourselves to flip that trolley track switch, to grab hold of McCoy and restrain him (the very embodiment of our emotional impulses), and condemn Edith to death. For the greater good.
Harlan's version of the story detracts from all of that and weakens the power of that episode.
There are some interesting side bits (the commentary on the bigotry and the homeless veteran), but it's peripheral stuff that only distracts the viewer's focus.
But worst of all, Harlan's version removes the choice from Kirk almost entirely. Yes, there are some emotionally poignant moments the way Harlan wrote it, but the power of Kirk's choice to let his love for Edith win is severely diminished when Spock does the deed anyway. Kirk can absolve himself from Edith's death and face (almost) NO consequences for his choice.
Kirk actively stopping McCoy from saving a life--and the emotional torment on BOTH their faces as he does so--is such a FAR more powerful scene than....Kirk standing idly by while Spock tackles some random quasi-villainous guest-star.
Roddenberry made the right choice.
100%. I would like some of the other changes but Ellison’s “inversion” of when Kirk lets her go feels tonally wrong to me.
Also 100%, As good as Harlan's script is and the other elements that his script adds, the script that was shot is still very, very powerful, and as others have said is the better "Star Trek" episode.
I like aspects of both scripts, but I think I prefer the ending of the TV series. Trooper would have been a great character to include, as well as the conversation about his death being inconsequential. But I would have added a line to Spock at the end. "Perhaps in saving your life his death wasn't so inconsequential". Slightly more positive spin, but it's all I could keep thinking throughout the whole video.
Many fans have speculated this is where the Mirror universe was created
Decades later I can still remember the shock of seeing Spock and Kirk stranded in a reality where the Enterprise had never existed. That’s a far bleaker and better setup than Ellison’s.
Moreover, the goddamn NAZIS won the war. They don't show what happened next. Is there a mirror-universe-up-to-11 Evil Federation? Did Earth just become a radioactive glass ball long before First Contact? Did Nazi Earth eventually get FTL travel and engaged in galaxy-wide genocide? It's left to the imagination of the viewer, which makes it 100 times more nightmarish.
One also has to admire the irony that the whole controversy is about what might have been or could have been, when we are talking about a story about different timelines. That is very meta.
Basically, "Yeah, no on the drug dealing." -the Network.
Except for "Mudd's Women."
Once back on Earth, Kirk , Spock, and McCoy visit a museum , and to their horror see that same truck that killed Edith Keeler on display, as the" Truck that changed history".
The homeless guy using McCoys phaser secretly altered history.
NBC allowed a heroin addict who did not kick the habit on "I Spy". Star Trek was not as cutting edge as is popularly claimed.
@@johnbockelie3899 My question is where did McCoy get the phaser in the first place? It's not like the crew wanders around the ship armed.
"He was negligible."
The Gaurdian chose to continue the uncaring position. "He had already played his important roles in history." Or even better, something like "He would have died from exposure days later. Essentially, you let him be a hero one more time."
That would have humanized the guardian, which would have supported the delusion of a benevolent godlike power, but it would have made the whole story sappy: like time itself the guardian cannot have any sentimentality or care for any one thing in more than a forensic way. The thing Elison didn't understand, and that civilians don't really think about, is that every soldier *knows* that they are negligible. Soldiers don't win wars; armies do. A soldier can be great, can rise above his fellows and embody something truly heroic; but they will have little impact on the timeline as a whole. I also don't care for Elison's moral stance concerning Beckwith--he gets put into scifi Hell--when he could have been much more inventive with the punishment; unshackling him from time and forcing him to wander as a shadow for all eternity would be much for fitting; because it lies within the firm realm of the guardians scope. How can a person burn for all eternity if they are suspended outside of time, which Beckwith would have to be in order to be there forever? It just seems to be a decision chosen for the christian contingent, rather than out of any real invention.
To me the original script would've made a great Outer Limits episode. The filmed script was a great Star Trek episode.
That's a good distinction. Ellison's original teleplay possessed the bleak brutality of an 'Outer Limits' episode. The optimism of 'Star Trek' was conspicuously absent.
Ellison's response reminds me of Jodorowsky criticizing Lynch and Villeneuve for having worse adaptations of Dune than the film he never made.
Ty, good read about Jodorowsky on Villeneuve's adaptation. I'd say he's going pretty easy on them.
Yeah, but Harlan can actually write, so he is more entertaining than Jodorowsky, who sustains himself on bad drugs and pretentiousness
Something chilling to me about both scripts is the treatment of Edith herself. The drama of the episode is wrapped up primarily in Kirk teetering on the choice of letting a woman he loves die for the sake of the future or save her because he falls in love with her. Ultimately though, Edith is never even presented with a choice. Her death was dictated as unquestionably necessary to save the future. Whether that's actually logical or not is immaterial to the plot; Spock declares it so, and within the fiction we're given no reason to suspect he's wrong. Edith, like Trooper (who very possibly might have been drafted himself in WW1), was determined to be a necessary expenditure for some greater good without any opportunity for objection. A determination made by powerful men who the narrative simply accept know what's best and whose choices should carry the most weight. It's chilling to me that in every version of this script, the suddenly Omelasian universe of Star Trek essentially hinges on the non-consensual sacrifice of one innocent woman.
Great video Steve! Always a pleasure to see new content from this channel. It occurs to me that this episode also has some striking parallels with the episode of Enterprise where Archer and Phlox poorly debate the ethics of saving people, along with a number of other Prime Directive episodes that often seem to pose the question of whether innocents should be allowed to suffer in the name of some greater good. Lots to think about, and have a lovely day!
The addition of a veteran suffering the consequences being used as a tool for powerful men's idea of the greater good almost couldn't be a coincidence.
Most of us don't get to choose the time or method of our death
Hey, wouldn`t it have been sufficient to take Edith with them into the future?.... I know, temporal mechanics are a headscratcher at best. But a similar thing arguably happened in DS9s "Past tense" - where the timeline was technically not restored completely, but "mostly" (with Sisko impersonating Gabriel Bell).
@@rylian21 Most of us don't, no. That's a good point. I would say Edith is different however in that people she knows personally have the knowledge of when she will die and choose to keep that knowledge from her. Most of us don't know when we'll die, but we also don't know people who have that knowledge. I would say that if they are able to know, then she too would have a right to know, or at least a right to know she has the option of knowing if she wanted to.
You point is illogical. Spock didn't declare anything. The tricorder showed that the reason the US stayed out of the war was Edith. There was no ambiguity. Without interference by McCoy Edith would have had an innocent non-consensual death. They were repairing the timeline. That is of course the problem with time travel stories. Paradox.
Would love to hear your entire list of episodes to start with!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_Star_Trek_episodes
:P
Yeah me too, I’d like to hear your entire list of episodes in a format where you would explain them and explain why each of them would be important in on that list. And what part of Star Trek as a whole it is exemplary of
@@Closer2Zero sounds like a good idea for an episode or five.
First one. To last one. Well, not quite.
Ellison ranting is overall the best part of Ellison books, not withstanding he's also one of the sf greats .
Apparently, he accused * somebody * on the Star Trek set of having "the intelectual capacity of an artichoke" to their face...that's a hilarious insult!
"Yuk-yuk"
Ellison only wrote dismal or dystopian stories. I didn't care for them at all. Star Trek was never about that. It is well that his version didn't see the light of day.
The best part of a Harlan Ellison rant is that he is right. Makes me want to stand up and yell: Preach it!
@@gozerthegozarian9500 Yeah but they look complex.
I recall that in the original screenplay, Kirk made an offhand remark to Spock about how humans had made it into space over a century before Vulcans. If that line had made it into the episode, it would have invalidated the premise to Enterprise.
What happened to trooper is such a lovingly written, heartbreaking metaphor for veterans in general. He gave his life to protect other people's lives, and yet history didn't care about him enough for him to leave any impact.
As haunting as the end of "city on the edge if forever" is to me with kirk's last line about 'getting the hell out of there' and the camera just lingering on the ruins of the city, I really wish they had kept some variation of the concluding scene from Ellison's script. It feels more insightful in many ways and it really encapsulates the heart of the spock/kirk relationship. Sad that we will never get to see it.
Gonna go on a line here and say, while Harlan’s teleplay is good I feel the episode turned out much better with the changes. To call Roddenberry a lesser artist just seems like a cheap shot. Gene was a man with strengths and weaknesses just like Mr Ellison. Gene was an amazing conceptualist and idea man. He was not a good a dialogue writer. His faults are very much in the same vein as George Lucas. People love to systematically devalue these guys but never seem to reconcile the fact that the whole of the franchise crumbles like a house of cards without them at the foundation.
@@rylian21 Or the way Ellison did.
When I read the original Ellison version it felt like a sci-fi story that didn't quite work as a Star Trek story. I think that most of the changes made (other than making it cheaper & easier to produce) were to take Ellison's idea and make it fit into Star Trek. The episode also has the better ending, with Kirk actually having to make the gut-wrenching choice rather than freezing up in the moment, and McCoy being there to berate him for it.
Benghazi
“If she was really that pretty they wouldn’t have to shoot her soft focus all the time...” y know if only Seth MacFarlane could’ve been THAT clever with his Star Trek spoof...
The character, Trooper, as painted in the IDW graphic novel, "City on the Edge of Forever" is actually a cameo of Harlan Ellison, himself! The artists deliberately cast Ellison as Trooper as a tribute while they designed the book. Ellison was delighted with the in-joke.
I wonder what Harlan Ellison would think about the drivers of the truck that ran over Edith being Ensigns from the Enterprise.
Harlan Ellison holds a grudge against everybody.
And now after that comment, you too... ;-)
Must be a good judge of character then.
@@OrchestrationOnline luckily for @impactsuspect Ellison is dead. Doesn't mean he's not on the list, but we'll get no scathing essay on it.
Held. Past tense.
Probably a minority opinion that will get downvoted a lot, but though he was a brilliant writer and a very intelligent man, Elison was at the same time a very vain asshole and all around a very crappy excuse for a human being. He had no use for anyone else who disagreed with him in any particular or who wasn'r at least as smart/educated as he was, Isaac Asimove was one of those exceptions, but Asimov was just as good a writer, probably even smarter, but at the same time a hell of a lot easier to get along with.
I hate to say it, but from actually having met Ellison a few times at conventions, he was pretty much a complete jerk and often tooted his own horn more than he had any right to, great writer or not. And even if you were smart and educated, it all came down to whether or not you agreed with him or not.
So given their egos' sizes, I can completely see why Roddenberry and Ellison came to feud with each other so much.
@@nowhereman1046 I met him at a con. He explicitly refused to talk to me because he hated my boss too much.
I'm probably going to get a lot of flak for this, but Roddenberry needed someone to take him down a peg or two, and I love that Ellison was that thorn in his side.
Perhaps it's just because I have watched City so many times, but Trooper's sacrifice breaks my heart worse than Edith's death.
Kirk pays him to find Beckwith, and pays him in advance, telling him "I think I can trust a man who fought at Verdun." It's the first time in years anyone has treated Trooper with any respect and dignity, so when he sees Beckwith about to kill Kirk he throws himself into the phaser blast because he won't let the one person who has shown him kindness in so long die.
Kirk turns to Spock and asks "You know history. Where is Verdun?"
Kirk had no idea where Verdun was, only that the fact that Trooper had fought there was the one scrap of dignity he could cling to, and he treated him like he and his pain mattered in a way that nobody else - not even history itself - would.
And that breaks my heart.
All in all, I think the changes in the classic episode were for the better. The Guardian causing the ship-shaking that led to McCoy injecting himself, streamlines the plot. It fits that McCoy might change the past by doing a humane thing. The janitor and Trooper aren't really necessary to resolving the story (although the theme of "negligible" people is certainly worth discussing in some episode or other). And, why was the Condor orbiting the planet exactly when the Enterprise was? Maybe I'm overthinking it with that last one, but Uhura being unable to reach Star Fleet because it no longer exists, makes more sense to me.
I now want to hear Steve to do narration for more Trek episodes.
Ellison is one of those writers that I got into when I was young and opinionated.
He seems very much an 'angry young man's" writer.
But, that means it's very easy to age out of Ellison fandom, as he stayed angry forever.
There's some brilliant Ellison stuff out there, but there's also alot that has not aged well and makes you wish Harlan had switched to decaf.
Some bits of his script are interesting, but very little feels better.
So, you walk away feeling all the rage wasn't worth it.
Harlan Ellison had a huge ego. He demanded to get credit for Terminator because it had a 'time traveling soldier'. His story & the Terminator were so damn different.
We need to talk to Bones, because whatever crap he took that was making him go crazy, has infected a bunch of people here. We need some cure for that.
Omg you don't even know the history of The Terminator movie where Cameron directly mentions influences
I was always surprised Ellison claimed credit for Terminator, as PKD's Second Variety (which was eventually made into "Screamers") always seemed a more likely candidate for an uncredited inspiration for Terminator.
@@atomiccritter6492 yes I do. Fully aware of the legal battle, how they settled it and Cameron's feelings on it. Harlan Ellison wasn't the only one who wanted credit for Terminator and sued too.
Really interesting video. My opinion -- the produced version is better, certainly more in keeping with the optimistic spirit of TOS. Substituting McCoy for two throw away characters is a definite improvement with DeForest Kelley getting a chance to develop his character. Upping Edith's screen time also a good decision as she is a genuinely interesting and novel at the time the show was made (a thinking woman in the 60s). Finally, Kirk had to be the one to make the hard choice. That's what a captain does. The series made it clear over and over that the Enterprise always came first.
Very, very well done, and I loved the recap at the beginning. I think ultimately that Ellison, being a (great) prose writer who can be the God in his own stories, didn't get that film and television are collaborative mediums, and nothing ever gets to the screen as it was originally written. The fact is, because Ellison was so respected in his field, he got to do what 99.9% of film/TV writers don't get to do, which is publish his original vision and complain (at length) about the changes made to it, and get people to listen.
Cool piece here, Steve. Informative and fun. So my 2 cents: IMHO it’s much more poignant that McCoy, a friend - rather than Beckwith, an unfamiliar drug pusher - causes the series of events which brings Kirk so much sadness. Also, that Kirk actively allows Edith to die is devastating - both for him and the audience - and active. Oppose this to Kirk allowing someone else (Spock) to stop another individual (Beckwith) from preventing Edith’s death? The latter choice dilutes the narrative and makes Kirk more passive. So though I love Ellison, and recognize that he’s the first author and mastermind behind one of Trek’s greatest episodes, I think Roddenberry was correct on all fronts.
I remember at some point reading something about Roddenberry saying a Starfleet officer dealing drugs really left a bad taste, and that's oen reason why that character was taken out and the story changed.
Yeah, I'm kind of surprised Steve didn't address this as I think it is a significant sticking point to Ellison's script given the Utopian image that TOS tried to present. Its too bad Steve hasn't done a video about what would give people's lives meaning in this kind of future, else he might understand why a drug dealing character would be out of place.
Could they even show someone dealing drugs on mid-Sixties TV?
Harry Mudd, and the Venus drug are the blame.
Roddenberry was a hypocrite. How about Roddenberry's own creation, Captain Tracy, who wanted to annihilate all the Yangs with phasers? The latter was arguably as bad or worse than Beckwith.
@@facttrek I think the utopian rule only applied to people in the Federation. The Yangs were outsiders like the Klingons.
Also, we can't forget a mention of "Yesteryear," the greatest Star Trek animated episode.
Would Ellison's version have been better? I don't know yet, not having seen or read it. But I agree with Roddenberry's decision not only to focus on existing characters, but stick to existing character relationships. I don't think I'd have liked the Spock-Kirk relationship Ellison made, as you describe it. Finally, the scene where Kirk holds McCoy back is just pure gold, and I wouldn't want to lose that. First time at your channel. Thanks!
I know Roddenberry gets griefed for the edits he did on other writers' scripts, but I think the episode as aired is an improvement on Ellison's original draft.
The drug dealing, which might have been an interesting issue to explore in its own episode, had nothing to do with the main plot. Creating a whole new character as the deranged time traveler instead of using one of the regular cast members was also unnecessary padding in what needed to be a tale about the consequences of changing the past. So making it about McCoy and dispatching with the setup in the first 60 seconds of the show was just smart editing.
The whole sequence of bandits taking over the Enterprise/Condor is immensely forgettable and unnecessarily convoluted. That's handled better with both Space Seed and the mirror universe episodes.
Mad love for Harlan Ellison, but to do his script right would take a full two hour movie
I’m going to have to go with Rodenberry on this. Ellison’s story might well have been great, but it wasn’t really Star Trek. Drug dealing crew members? Kirk betraying his oaths and condemning the universe for selfish reasons?
Producers and show runners get to make that level of significant changes. Guest writers don’t
And that sums up why TV is bad
I wonder if the recent incarnation of The Guardian of Forever in Discovery may have been influenced by Harlan Ellison’s original designs, after all, nowadays the franchise has the budget to do the things that they couldn’t realistically portray in the 60s.
my only problem with the original version is that one random mission owner delays the USAs entry into WW2 because after Sunday, December 7, 1941, where the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor the vast majority of the public wanted war with the Axis and any one that didn't was considered unpatriotic.
The American grand strategy of WWII was "Get Hitler First" and the balance of military force was directed more towards the European Theater rather than the Pacific one.
One could argue the pacifist movement was influential enough to cause Germany and Italy _not_ to declare war on December 11, calculating the odds that they had a better chance if they left Japan to America's wrath. Thus comes the atom bomb and V2 rockets and the rest is Terran history.
plus germany declared on us, so how does edith prevent pearl harbor? i agree its a stretch
Never thought about this before, but did Harlan Ellison basically come up with Trek's "Mirror Universe?" Not officially, I know, but changing the Enterprise into a pirate ship in an alternate timeline comes pretty damn close.
Also, anyone else wonder what "City" might have looked like as a feature film or a two-parter? Harlan had some great ideas, but I don't really think that there was enough time to properly develop all of the plot elements or characters (he said as a huge Harlan Ellison fan.) But with 80+ minutes to play with, you could include the best elements of both scripts and give allof Ellison's ideas room to breathe.
Finally, no shoutout to DC Fontana? Shives, c'mon man!
Yes, he could have mentioned 'Yesteryear' and DC Fontana when reviewing what an awesome episode 'City' was
bottom line is Ellison's City would have been over buget, introduced to many forgetable characters, and been totally over their 51 or so minute time slot. It souns like a great story that had to be reworked to fit into the time slot anyway.
I did love this episode, it was done incredibly well. My favorite part is when they come back through the talking time donut very quietly and somberly, an astonishing sobriety in light of the emotional trial they, and especially Kirk, had been through. It was a testament of will, reason over emotion. Something to aspire to.
It makes you wonder if he ever considered the fact that he was only able to publish multiple successful editions of this book because the original episode was so famous and well-loved. So...was it really so bad after all?
It's a good episode but imho Ellison's version would have been better
I remember reading Ellison's original script, way back when he first published it, and the detail I remembered most clearly, to this day, was that Trooper was "negligible" in the larger universeview. Yeah, I remembered that the bad guy was a drug dealer; but not his name, nor even his general motivation. But if you'd have asked me coldly what I remembered about Ellison's version before viewing your excellent video here, I would have told you the backstory of the "homeless guy" (As wounded WWI vet, etc.) and that the effect of his death, while in the script saving Kirk, was "negligible". After 40+ years, that detail was to me unforgettable. Favorite Ellison quote? "Pay the writer!"
And miraculously, no “red shirts” were harmed in this episode!
1st time ever.
Ellison needed to get over himself in a serious way. He’s a great writer, one of my favorite- but his enormous ego and smug superiority deserved to be slapped down.
When you are smarter than everyone you ever met and you really do know better, it is hard to avoid that trap. No one to warn you of the peril.
Cordwainer Bird was always spoiling for a fight and would do his level best to be in the middle of it. Also, if you notice since the Harlan's name is actually credited with writing the episode he can't have been too displeased with it, if he was one of his other pen names would have been on it. Love Harlan, but he was ten pounds of ego in a five pound sack.
"in the center of an exploding star...." sounds like HELL to me.
Interesting. At first, I was thinking that in Ellison's story, the scene on the stairs was a (no pun intended... well, maybe) a mis-step, as I felt it deflated the tension by showing that Kirk was willing to let her die... but since the climax is reversed from the way it was in the show, and Kirk refuses to stop her from being saved, it works to enhance that moment.
See I think the change of having Kirk be the one to stop someone from saving Edith was a good one. It says something important about Kirk's character that I think fits better for Kirk
My husband walked into the room, overheard 3 lines of your description of events based on Ellisons original script and announced "Ellison's script was unshootable!" Then he wandered off again!
This was a really good and thoughtful episode.
I can't actually think about this episode without thinking about Riker and Barclay driving the truck. Hilarious!
I've always wondered what that bum vaporizing himself actually changed in the future... I mean, he's got to have had some part to play in future events, right?
Picture the truck having a traffic accident, that kills or injures the homeless man... and is not there to kill her.
Instead its 5 blocks away.
Having worked in the entertainment field for over fifty years, and having designed a live production of Harlan Ellison’s works including his classic “Shatterday”, I can offer some insight into the discussion. With the considerations needed for television production, script changes would be because of The budget, as you have stated, that to have a character ( Guest Star) as the antagonist, would require set up scenes,to introduce him and his actions, then. This antagonist, would have to be an actor normally considered as someone that the public would accept as being a compassionate villain ( very difficult) especially considering the general attitude towards drug dealing and murder. ( both then and now). Then to have this villain have an attempt to. Kill Kirk but be thwarted by a paraplegic veteran while that sub story line has merit, would not have had the proper impact that Harlan desired, as his intent was to recognize destitute veterans, this was during the Vietnam conflict during which, there was the great divide in political views regarding the military. And NBC would not want to be seen as taking any stance in that divide, other than having the nightly news reports. Harlan’s later story about a Vietnam Vet that was tormented by his survivors guilt is more gripping, I digress, that a homeless alcoholic who had been seen in the rescue mission is inadvertently killed, has some compassion as he was trying to help someone he saw as less fortunate than himself guiding him to the rescue mission, has the underlying concept of “ No good deed goes unpunished” .
I can also understand the changing of not letting Edith fall down the stairs as reasonable as if he had, the audience would not believe kirk’s feelings for her and the ending where Edith calls out to Kirk and crosses the street towards him would not make sense. After all if someone let you fall down steps, would you still feel the same towards them? Finally, there is the time element within a broadcast television show. An hour show actually must tell the entire story in only forty minutes. Twenty minutes must be open for the network and the sponsors. So to have told Harlan’ original script properly,it would have needed much more air time than was available. Otherwise the editing needed would have completely made the episode feel totally disjointed.even the possibility of the villain who has killed two people in the episode then trying to save Edith would not be believable. Audiences are always asked to suspend their disbelief, especially in SciFi/ Fantasy genre, they will do so only up to a point a drug dealing killer to be compassionate? NO, A Compassionate Doctor becoming maniacal due to a potent Drug? Yes because while not spoken of then,military drug use was even partially encouraged by our own forces from WWII on. For more on that subject you can check out World War Two Speed here on You Tube.. Well for what it’s worth, there is my two cents.
34:40 is an interesting point, about TV being a collaborative art form. It reminds me of the issues faced by video games - where a regular story author really needs to either work with the game designers, or adapt their entire style to game design, in order to create a compelling narrative that isn’t just “game occasionally dumps a bunch of lore and exposition on the player”.
Given that Harlan Ellison did go on to get a designer credit in the 1995 point-and-click adventure game “I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream” - not “just” a writer credit, and with no ranting essay about how his script was ruined - it seems he took this to heart!
You know, they could use the Kelvan timeline and do the full Ellison version. Call it Star Trek 4K: City on the Edge
This illustrates the difference between literary SF and TV/film SF. In a short story or novel you can go pretty wild and explore broader societal issues and deep implications of how they might play out.
In TV, you got lass than 60 mins to wrap things up. You have established characters with established relationships and defined roles for them to play that you can’t keep tweaking and playing with week to week.
Ellison’s Kirk was weak, tentative and indecisive. Spock reacts to this by taking on the mantle of strength, focus and ruthless prioritization. That’s not how either of those characters were in the actual series, and Ellison’s version wrecks the characters and their relationship.
Made no sense from a dramatic standpoint to introduce the sicko drug dealer and a junky crewman who puts the ship in danger because of his habit. Such a plot direction comes completely out of left field in world of Star Trek.
The crew of a starship have always been portrayed as the best of the best, screened and tested endlessly before being allowed on a starship, all distinguished graduates of star fleet academy.
But Ellison just throws in: “There’s this psychopath drug dealer on the enterprise. Oh, and he’s got a bunch junky crewman as customers who occasionally go on duty while high.” Wtf?? Utterly inconsistent with the 23rd century imagined by Roddenberry-and frankly a bizarre twist that would take me out of most sci-fi stories, short of a sad dystopian tale of a gang of scoundrels with major character flaws traveling through space. Since weird dystopias with strange flawed characters is basically all of what Ellison wrote about, it’s not surprising his script turned out the way it did. But it is in no way Star Trek, and doesn’t come across as a particularly compelling story in general imho.
The final version is a much better story and much better drama.
I've seen the episode many times, and read the original script more than once. I go along with those who feel the original script would work better as an "Outer Limits" or "Twilight Zone" anthology story. The only way it could've worked as "Star Trek" is if you accept the characters behaving in nearly opposite ways than they would normally behave. In a way, it might've been the "The Last Jedi" of TOS. But, Gene Coon and D.C. Fontana used it as the basis for a great "Star Trek" story, and it all worked out.
I remember reading Bob Justman’s take on this episode. He was instrumental in getting Mr. Ellison to write this script in the first place. He had worked with brilliant and mercurial writer when the were doing the ‘Outer Limits’ and he knew he could provide them with a great script. They were rapidly running out of shootable scripts and he secured a promise from Ellison to contribute a teleplay. Ellison was a bit of a procrastinator, and somehow, Justman got Harlan locked in his back office - whether in mock-seriousness or in desperation is unclear to me - and wouldn’t let him out until he finished it. Harlan was somewhat quirky, and in retaliation, he ended up eating Justman’s secretary’s office plant. Justman recalled that his secretary (Sylvia) had “a big, leafy thing in a pot, but Harlan ate it down to the roots”. He finished the screenplay, though....
I can see in the writers' sessions where it was possibly suggested by Ellison or someone, as they trimmed the focus to save money and tighten the story up, that the drug dealer role be taken by Scotty and that is what Roddenberry is recalling while Ellison is focused on the original story.
Never happened. Never would have. No one would suggest making a regular a drug dealer. The production memos make clear they were defensive of the regular cast.
@@facttrek I'm sorry, I don't buy that. But I could actually see Ellison or someone suggest it and it got roundly shot down by everyone else, as you say, because they were not going to let that happen to the regular or semi-regular cast.
About your comment on Steven King and his opinion of Kubrick's The Shining: it's worth noting that King's opinions have softened over the last few years. I gather that while he still isn't a fan, that he seems to at least appreciate the film for what it is. He seemed happy with references to the film in the movie version of Doctor Sleep.
Also, bonus points for your rendition of the AVGN theme. I realize that we're a similar age, but the reference still surprised the hell out of me.
*Stephen King
Minor nitpick: “The Scottish engineering officer” is in Ellison’s script, taking part in the court-martial of the drug dealer. That’s likely how Roddenberry mixed the two up.
Theres no court martial in the script. That was in the story outline and nixed.
With regards to the homeless veteran, I think the reason his loss of life is described as being negligible is because he did the big thing he already needed to do in the war. What I'm saying is that the guardians weren't saying that his entire life was negligible, just that for him to die at this point didn't change the timeline. And I think that's understandable because what is the likelihood that a homeless vet missing 2 legs during the great depression would have really effected anything.
Back when the Sci Fi Channel was good there was a show called Sci Fi Buzz. It was a sort of a magazine show. One if it's features was commentaries by Harlan Ellison. Pure Gold. I have the book in hardcover from when it was released, I managed not to lose it.
The behind the scenes information that come to us because of pettiness is almost always more interesting than those that come to us without it.
I do kind of wonder what info we'd have gotten had Terrance Dicks held a grudge for the rewrite while he was out of the country due to budgetary constraints of Brain of Morbius instead of something like "The change was unoriginal but perhaps inevitable" and the production team taking his angry demand to be removed from the credits and for it to instead by credited to being written by a 'bland pseudonym' as the only real fallout from that anger (they chose Robin Bland, which is... A wonderfully literal interpretation of that demand)
From what I have heard of Ellison (I really have to look at the documentary mentioned above) he held the view that 'politeness' was dishonesty, and he never forgot a perceived wrong. On the other hand, he published his home phone number publicly and invited those who wanted to be authors to call him.
In _Becoming Superman_ J. Michael Straczynski called Mr. Ellison and said he wanted to get his writing accepted. Ellison's reply was something along the lines of 'Then stop writing crap' - click.
However - I think Ellison shouldn't have been surprised or terribly upset that Beckwith was written out for being a drug-dealer. Even if Roddenberry would have let it happen in his futurist Utopia, the networks wouldn't have. In fact, I have read people surprised that 'Mudd's Women' got past the censors.
On the other hand, Ellison claimed that Roddenberry continually mentioned it was Scotty who sold the drugs, even after being corrected by Ellison. That I can see getting upset about, because implying that Ellison was either so dim or ignorant of the main characters that he'd have Scotty dealing drugs is an insult.to his story-telling talent.
Ellison also claimed that 'City on the Edge of Forever' went over budget anyway, because the biggest expense was recreating 1930 America. I have no idea how over budget the original script would have gone - how expense were two or three line extra's anyway? But I can see the Condor scenes being scrapped, and maybe Trooper too, because of time constraints.
Can't remember what Ellison thought of the 'Space Doughnut' but apparently the script called for a 'runic city' and the props master or set master (sorry - don't know the proper position or title) read 'ruined city' which is why there are so many broken pillars and walls around.
I also would like to see this done in the Kelvin universe - maybe have Straczynski write the script since he and Ellison became close friends - but after the second movie with Khan I don't trust anyone to do it right.
You probably didn't lose those books. Someone jumped through the donut and took them.
Before today, I believed that the worst fate for a character that I had ever read in any work of fiction was Diavollo in Jojo's Bizarre Adventure, who is trapped in a time loop where he dies repeatedly in a myriad of ways, different each time.
I think "burning in the heart of a star forever" tops that. And this character deserved it way, way less than Diavollo. Though... weirdly, both were involved in drug dealing. Funny coincidence that.
Also, in case it slid by anyone: the graphic novel drew Ellison as "Trooper."
In fact, in the afterword to the collected hardcover edition of IDW's adaptation of "City," Ellison said he had hopes of being cast to play Trooper when he wrote the script in 1966.
I clicked because I'm a big fan of the original series. I didn't expect it to be such an interesting an thoughtful treatment of the subject, or presented so well. Very professional job.
If the death of 'Trooper' was inconsequential to the timeline, then what bodes that of his last heroic act in saving Kirk?
Given that it was Spock that restored the timeline, was Kirk also just as expendable and insignificant?
I think it would have been far more poignant (and get the wheels turning) if, instead of "He was negligible" they said "he served his purpose." Indicating that it was all supposed to have happened, and that Trooper's "destiny" was to save Kirk.
In his book about writing "The Trouble With Tribbles" David Gerrold says basically the same thing about "City," and he says that this was a case where both men were right, because Ellison's version won that Writer's Guild award, and the broadcast version won a Hugo Award.
One thing that could have remained from the original is Kirk's inaction to prevent her death. In the final version he actively chooses to let her die, but it makes sense that he would have hesitated to prevent McCoy from saving her. Whereas, it is the case that Spock would have actively stopped McCoy. Maybe it is more dramatic to let Kirk anguish over the deciding to let her die, but who can really say.
9:25 - Holy hell, the Red Shirts didn't die.
Guess they needed to keep the audience off-balance.
Ellison's original script may have resulted in an edgier, more progressive film. But the D.C. Fontana rewrite resulted in a better Star Trek episode.
Story is told (perhaps by David Gerrold) that Rodenberry came into his office and found Ellison sitting there. Ellison pointed to a hangman's noose handing from an overhead pipe, and said, "I heard your changed my script." Great (probably) apocryphal glimpse of Ellison.
Paralleling Crazy McCoy with Conspiracy theorists was fucking hilarious.
BENGAZI!
That had to be my favourite bit.
I guess I really don't like the addition of this new character that Ellison introduced. I don't recall his name, but he's just there to set up the situation and then discarded at the end. And his discard seems very clumsy. And then, apparently, Spock has time to race across the street to stop him from saving Edith. How are they supposed to shoot that and make it believable. Finally, there is this entire section at the end where Ellison has to reveal why the villain saves Edith, because if he doesn't, it makes no sense. So he diminishes the ending, by pasting exposition at the end. So, no I don't think Ellison's was anywhere close to being better.
@@tparadox88 Hmm. Yeah, I guess. But I don't buy it. Of course, I've only seen Steve's telling of the story, but it looks like we see very little of the bad guy in the story. Still seems random. I heard that Ellison's main focus was Kirk being so in love with her that he would be willing to sacrifice the future to be with her. I still like him sacrificing her to save the future.
Ferociously compelling, you have summed up Mr. Ellison perfectly. That's what is missing today. Excellent video. Thank you.
The only thing I really think they should have kept was Edith's speech at the soup kitchen. Instead of a gee, whiz, tech is gonna save us, it called for hope and endurance. This was truly fitting as there were cries from Left and Right to break it all down and build Utopia with rivers of blood as the mortar. It really fit in the time and place.
This is one video that should get as many views as the Redlettermedia trek ones. The ending was beautifully spoken.
Everyone can compare 2 scripts, but to actually make a statement on what a script's worth really is, and the artist's rights to it is something you don't see often.