Has anyone read the recently published 2-volume oral history The Fifty-Year Mission: The Complete, Uncensored, Unauthorized Oral History of Star Trek by Edward Gross and Mark Altman? Any comments?
The Fifty-Year Mission
- Thread starter mb22
- Start date
I began reading the first volume last night.
Some of the anecdotes of the participants I'd read or heard before, but there were some new insights from Rod Roddenberry (Gene's son), and from Ande Richardson (Gene L. Coon's secretary).
The book follows a "timeline" from the beginning of TOS until The Undiscovered Country with anecdotes I suspect had been collected over the years by Gross and Altman while doing their respective reporting on Trek for various publications.
I'm enjoying it. Worth the read, for an unbiased, unexpurgated look at the first twenty-five years.
Recommended.
Some of the anecdotes of the participants I'd read or heard before, but there were some new insights from Rod Roddenberry (Gene's son), and from Ande Richardson (Gene L. Coon's secretary).
The book follows a "timeline" from the beginning of TOS until The Undiscovered Country with anecdotes I suspect had been collected over the years by Gross and Altman while doing their respective reporting on Trek for various publications.
I'm enjoying it. Worth the read, for an unbiased, unexpurgated look at the first twenty-five years.
Recommended.
^ I flipped through it at the bookstore, and IIRC Cushman was actually one of the people whose quotes were included.
Wanted to pick it up, but sadly, couldn't really afford to.
Wanted to pick it up, but sadly, couldn't really afford to.
Cushman is quoted -- at length -- more than a dozen times in the book. He repeats a lot of things that are factually incorrect from These Are The Voyages, and even comes up with some new things that he's wrong about. The authors obviously didn't fact check any of his statements (I have brought up a number of inaccuracies to the authors on Facebook and Twitter and only received a non-answer on the subject from Ed Gross).
My larger problem with the book is that it offers no insight as to when each person's comments were made. Comments from David Gerrold about his re-writing of "I, Mudd," for example, contradict comments Gerrold made in his book about the making of "The Trouble with Tribbles." Presumably, that's due to the ravages of time, but there is no way to be certain, since the book doesn't indicate when his comments were made.
Does it appear there were any new interviews for the book(s), or are they remixes/clips from other books and old interviews?
A lot of the material is old, but new interviews were conducted for the book.
Flipped through it yesterday at my local Barnes & Noble. Some interesting stuff here & there, handicapped by them not being able to talk to many of the players behind TOS at this late date. I recognized a few quotes from old Sci-Fi Universe and Cinemafantastique interviews. I'm sure I'll be picking it up at some later date. I'm holding off for now since it's on my Amazon wish list and my birthday is coming up.
That's what I like about the oral history format. You get to read the recollections of various people and deduce where the truth lies between them.
Am halfway through this tome; up to the movie era.
Harold Livingston (screenwriter, TMP)'s hate of Gene Roddenberry is evident in his anecdotes. I was also shocked by David Gerrold (writer, TOS "The Trouble with Tribbles")'s vitriol against Roddenberry in several anecdotes as well.
The man wasn't perfect (even his son comments on that), but he had a concept and saw it to fruition. And that concept has lasted half a century! How many people can make the same claim. Maybe Gerrold, riding on the "Tribbles" fame; what else?
Haven't head anything remarkable from Livingston's career that has that longevity.
Harold Livingston (screenwriter, TMP)'s hate of Gene Roddenberry is evident in his anecdotes. I was also shocked by David Gerrold (writer, TOS "The Trouble with Tribbles")'s vitriol against Roddenberry in several anecdotes as well.
The man wasn't perfect (even his son comments on that), but he had a concept and saw it to fruition. And that concept has lasted half a century! How many people can make the same claim. Maybe Gerrold, riding on the "Tribbles" fame; what else?
Haven't head anything remarkable from Livingston's career that has that longevity.
They worked directly with the man and knew him personally, David. Are negative personal opinions based on direct interactions not allowed if the person did a big thing? If anything, I'd trust the opinion of someone that worked with Roddenberry more than someone that didn't. 
Plus, come on, Gene L. Coon is as responsible for the longevity and quality of Star Trek as Roddenberry was, if not more. It wasn't a one-man-show, as much as he liked to promote it as such.
Plus, come on, Gene L. Coon is as responsible for the longevity and quality of Star Trek as Roddenberry was, if not more. It wasn't a one-man-show, as much as he liked to promote it as such.
Exactly. And Gross & Altman play this up by juxtaposing quotes where the second interviewee's quote contradicts the first's. This is why I'm not as bothered by Cushman's inclusion -- no one's word is taken as gospel. I do wish they had included someone who directly contested Cushman's claims, though! Overall this was a very enjoyable read, particularly in the sections covering the movie years.
Creating something enduring doesn't make you a saint. Bob Kane created Batman and by most every account he was also a crappy guy. Roddenberry did a LOT of shady things over the years. I think he deserves to be called out on those.
I haven't read the movie sections of The Fifty-Year Mission yet, but from what I've read before, both Livingston and Gerrold have legitimate grievances against GR. GR rewrote Livingston when he wasn't supposed to and put his name first on script drafts he wasn't supposed to, and Gerrold got screwed out of credit for all the development work he did for TNG and was consistently lied to by GR and rewritten by GR's lawyer, someone not even in the Writer's Guild.
Yeah, from everything I've read, Gene Coon was more responsible for the Star Trek I loved than Roddenberry was. Now, there's a guy who doesn't get enough credit.
I suppose what bothers me is the ego-centric nature of the individuals in their respective anecdotes.
We're told the cliché of actor's "oversized" egos; now we have proof that it transfers to writers, producers, technicians, et al.
Yes, Mr. Coon "blossomed" the format wonderfully, and I don't take that away from him, but the seed (concept/ first draft) was Mr. Roddenberry's. And both men are no longer with us to defend themselves.
As I mentioned above, while reading the book I was amazed at the bruised egos of the many, outweighing the positives of the few.
We're told the cliché of actor's "oversized" egos; now we have proof that it transfers to writers, producers, technicians, et al.
Yes, Mr. Coon "blossomed" the format wonderfully, and I don't take that away from him, but the seed (concept/ first draft) was Mr. Roddenberry's. And both men are no longer with us to defend themselves.
As I mentioned above, while reading the book I was amazed at the bruised egos of the many, outweighing the positives of the few.
Everyone is the hero of their own story.
In my view, the oral history format gives the authors a license to juxtapose Gene Roddenberry quotes with quotes from the likes of David Gerrold, Herb Solow, and others. Both participated in the events in question, have their own points of view, and can only contribute what their egos and memories will allow (and many interview subjects, of course, are now dead; it's not as if the authors can re-interview Roddenberry and try to jog his memory based on what someone else has said). This isn't a rigorous archival history.
Cushman wasn't a participant in the events he's quoted about, however. He's speaking solely as a historian, and as such, has an obligation to get his basic facts straight. The authors have an obligation to do some basic fact checking of his statements. Cushman didn't, and the authors didn't.
I'm about 20% in, according to Kindle. It's just not grabbing me like Return to Tomorrow did. It's not bad, but there's nothing new here, as far as I can see. Maybe I'm just not the target audience.
If I recall correctly a Livingston quote from Shatner's "Movie Memories," Livingston told Roddenberry that GR couldn't recognize a good story 'even if it had been tattooed on the end of his own (insert favorite slang for penis here).'
Similar threads
