The originally filmed ending of the seminal Star Trek episode “The Naked Time” had the U.S.S. Enterprise on an Earthbound trajectory, hurtling through a time warp toward an unknown when. However, five weeks after principal photography wrapped, new dialogue was filmed to button off the open-ended non-ending. In the new denouement, the crew discovered they had only traveled back in time three days—not toward or anywhere near Earth.

That’s what happened. The bigger questions are why a cliffhanger in the first place, how that cliffhanger was supposed to be resolved, and what caused the whole idea to be junked.

Stay tuned as we apply all warp power in reverse to pull away from a John D.F. Black star. The breakaway sending us plunging through time and space in search of answers.

John D.F. Blacksploitation

Let’s begin by discussing the central figure of writer John Donald Francis (D.F.) Black, whose career spanned television and film. While Star Trek devotees may know him only for his work on the series, if at all, Black’s career was far more expansive. In 1971, he shared screenplay credit for Shaft, the Blaxploitation crime drama that became one of the year’s top-grossing films, and helped pull the struggling M-G-M Studios out of the red.［1］

As this might suggest, Black wasn’t a science fiction writer. While his first screenwriting credit (as "Geoffrey Dennis")［3］was the 1957 sci-fi horror The Unearthly, it was an outlier. "I really was not a science fiction expert at all. I knew about writing, but not science fiction," Black told StarTrek.com.［4］In the years between The Unearthly and Star Trek, Black racked up at least 35 screenwriting credits, almost half of those for Westerns. Career-wise, his writing was decidedly down-to-earth.［5］

Black’s star rose on February 16th, 1966, when the WGA (Writers Guild of America) announced finalists for its upcoming awards. Their nominees for Episodic Drama included Black for his script “With a Hammer in His Hand, Lord, Lord!” for the NBC series Mr. Novak.［6］ (Incidentally, that episode featured Walter Koenig in one of his many pre-Trek student roles.)

FACT TREK Note: Black received a different sort of recognition for an earlier Novak script, having received a citation from the Braille Institute of America for his “An Elephant is Like a Tree,” which portrayed the struggles of a recently blinded student.［7］

Black said, “I had a blind Uncle and I wanted to write an episode based on him. He sold newspapers on a corner. I wanted to do something about blindness. When I told Lenny (Freeman) I wanted to write a script about a blind student he said... ‘Do it.’”［8］

Roddenberry himself won a WGA award in the Western category for his “Helen of Abajinian” (1957) script for Have Gun Will Travel.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

Black entered the Star Trek orbit almost immediately after NBC officially picked up the series. We know that by February 27th, 1966, Roddenberry was informing people that the show had been picked up, as in this telegram［9］

HAVE PERSONAL ASSURANCE FROM NBC WE ARE FIRMLY SCHEDULED TUESDAY 730. CONGRATULATIONS AND THANKS.

GENE RODDENBERRY

On March 7th, 1966, Black attended the first of about a dozen Star Trek pilot screenings［10］held to entice established Hollywood TV writers to pitch original stories or write story outlines based on story “springboards” that creator Gene Roddenberry had concocted (similar screenings of the first pilot had been held for some writers in 1965). This is how writers like Black and Jerry Sohl, Adrian Spies, George Clayton Johnson, Richard Matheson, Paul Schneider, and Barry Trivers got their story assignments. Others, including sf writers A.E. vanVogt and Robert Sheckley, got story assignments after attending one of these screenings but had the assignments “cut off” and never produced.［11］

Of this screening, Black said in 2001:

[I] went home, fired up with a story concept for the new series. The story was soon pitched, sold, outlined, and delivered into the efficient hands of Dorothy Fontana, then Gene's secretary. It centered on a space virus that nearly causes the destruction of the Enterprise. I called it "The Naked Time.”［12］

Even if Black hadn't already been on Roddenberry's radar, that would have changed two weeks after the screening when, on March 23rd, Black bagged that WGA Award.

I didn't recognize my name when it was read as the winner and had to be dragged up from my chair. […] But at least I had won.

[…]So had Harlan Ellison, for Dramatic Anthology, for his ‘Demon with a Glass Hand' on 'Outer Limits.' […] We were soon joined by Gene Roddenberry, who had recently hired each of us to write a segment for his new series. Harlan and I were invited, with our guests, to his house for a drink, to celebrate, to schmooze. And, I realized a few days later, to be scoped out.［14］

Black gave several accounts of his hiring decades after the fact. Here, from 1987, he wasn’t yet aware he’d gotten his script assignment:

“At that party, I found out, because my agent happened to be there, that I had an assignment on Star Trek. G.R. took me into the den and asked me if I would like to come onto the show as executive story consultant and associate producer. It was the first offer of that kind that I had ever gotten. So, I said, ‘What have you got?’ And he said. ‘I've got six assignments out, and your job would be to work with the writers and learn whatever production you want to learn.’”［15］

In 2001, the story was a bit different:

A few days later, an offer was made to my agent: in addition to my script assignment, would I be interested in coming aboard the STAR TREK team as executive story consultant and associate producer? I don't think that it occurred to me to refuse, even though I'd rejected a much more lucrative proposal a few months before.［16］

We point out these minor inconsistencies to illustrate a point: each time someone tells a story, they recall different details, leading to variations in what gets mentioned or omitted. On top of that, memory is fickle, especially after a remove of decades. Much of what we know about various players’ perspectives comes from accounts given long after the fact, and they don’t always align. Keep these caveats in mind going forward.

Fortunately, primary source documents from the production sometimes corroborate or contradict an anecdote. For example, a March 25, 1966 memo, issued two days after the awards ceremony, lines up dates-wise with the 1987 account that Black’s pitch had resulted in a script assignment around that time. That memo, from Bob Justman to Desilu’s director of business affairs Edwin “Ed” Perlstein,［17］indicates both Harlan Ellison and Black had story assignment contracts for stories #7 and #9, respectively.［18］Ellison’s assignment as #7 aligns with Black’s account that Roddenberry had six assignments out when they spoke.

Black’s story outline for “TNT” was received by the Star Trek office on April 4th, 1966.［19］

Back to the job offer…

But, there was one condition — that was agreed on — which was put forth to Desilu and directly to Gene. The writers who were being hired were, in the greater part, giants or near-giants in science fiction and/or television writing. My conviction was that the original writer must be given every chance to take his or her concept through to the final shooting script. My condition was that I would not rewrite a piece of material — nor would anyone else — unless the original writer had been given every possible opportunity to bring the material into satisfactory form.

The condition caused no problems for Desilu or for Gene. STAR TREK would be an idyllic home for writers. With this happy prospect, we had entered our first day on STAR TREK.［20］

We’ve seen no indication that Black’s condition was ever in writing. His actual contract isn’t in the Roddenberry papers at UCLA (that was Desilu legal’s purview), but a deal memo spelling out terms is.［21］Key to this story are these provisions:

1. He would be an Associate Producer in connection with acting as Story Editor (not Story Consultant, Executive, or otherwise)

2. The job specifically required him to do all services required of a Story Editor, including but not limited to polishes, rewrites, etc.

3. The contract required performing these duties on 13 of the 16 programs guaranteed by NBC. The three excluded were the two pilots and “The Naked Time,” which had a pre-existing commitment.

4. His start date was April 18th, 1966.

Note that number 2 was fundamentally at odds with his stated preferences and the condition he reputedly demanded.

Given his lack of sci-fi bona fides and inexperience as a story editor and rewrite man, it’s fair to ask why Roddenberry wanted to hire Black. One possible reason was that Black had written several well-received episodes Mr. Novak, including the “Hammer” episode, which features a pivotal seven-minute scene showcasing his knack for naturalistic dialogue. For another, Roddenberry may have wanted to capitalize on that WGA win—Black’s involvement could signal to Hollywood screenwriters that Star Trek wasn’t going to be the kind of juvenile fare televised sci-fi had a reputation for, as typified by Lost in Space. The hire may have been a little John D.F. Black-sploitation, if you will.

Whatever the motivation, Black started under contract as the show’s dramaturge on April 18th.

It would not go well.

With a Hammer In His Hand

In the 1990s, Star Trek’s famously acerbic associate producer Robert H. “Bob” Justman wrote of Black’s tenure on the series.

BOB: With John busy writing “The Naked Time,” his own first original script for the series, his Story Consultant responsibilities suffered accordingly and his rewriting output became less than prodigious.［23］

But Black didn’t immediately hammer out “TNT,” either. He’d been on staff for almost two months before turning in any script draft.

FACT TREK Note: Several accounts are circulating about the various script drafts and who supposedly wrote which, but they don’t necessarily align with the primary sources. The following is based on our review of the actual scripts, memos, and reports. If you’re interested in our breakdown of the scripts and their authorship, see the Appendix at this article’s end.

The first script was a “preliminary draft” dated June 14th, likely shared only within the Star Trek office (via Xerography, which was expensive and only used for short documents or those with limited distribution). The cover bore this:

TO ALL CONCERNED:　Here is a preliminary draft screenplay.　Please read and favor us with your comments at your earliest convenience.

There’s some confusion over what happened next, as some accounts say Roddenberry took this draft home and returned not just notes, but page rewrites. The scripts and memos we’ve seen to date don’t confirm this contention.

The following week, Black worked on a rewrite, which significantly altered the story details. This working document is undated, but the first page features the date June 20th, 1966, which is scratched out. It was typed up and became the yellow cover draft (what would usually be called the production first draft) dated June 23rd (a Thursday), which went to mimeo for limited distribution.［24］What’s significant is that this version concludes with the disease still in full force and the ship hurled “faster than light, faster than time” at the fade out, and puts a “(Part One”) on the title page and an “END OF PART ONE” on the last page. The cliffhanger was born.

According to Black’s then-secretary and later wife, Mary Black (née Stilwell), when she arrived for work on Monday the 27th, Fontana informed her that Roddenberry had rewritten “TNT” over the weekend and wanted all the secretaries to copy portions of it, but she refused to participate.［25］

The Great Bird of the Galaxy, “with a hammer in his hand,” had bashed out what went to mimeo as the June 28th Gray cover “Final Draft” (as typed on the script). This is the version that was filmed (with some page changes during production) and ends with the disease cured and the Enterprise flung into a time warp on an Earthbound trajectory.

Black was incensed that he’d been Roddenberry-ed. He related his reaction to unofficial Roddenberry biographer Joel Engel decades later:

“For God’s sake, Gene,” [Black] said. “I can maybe—maybe!— understand it for somebody who doesn’t know the show. But I’m the story executive. I work here. I know the show. And you know I know it.” 

“Well,” Roddenberry replied, “I want it the way I want it, and that’s it, and that’s the rewrite.”

Roddenberry stood there, Black says, wearing a “shit-eating, that’s-the-way-it-is-and-up-yours grin,” and Black began making plans to leave his employ. ［26］

BOB: […]Producer Roddenberry realized it was up to Writer Roddenberry to rework most of the early scripts. No Star Trek writer’s work was immune from the process, regardless of experience, talent, or position.

John had put in a great deal of time and hard work in writing his first draft, and he was proud of every single word he had written. After turning in his script, he expected kudos from his boss.

A week later, John rushed into my office, frantically waving a mimeographed copy of Gene’s rewrite of “The Naked Time.”

“He can’t do this to me!” trumpeted the aggrieved writer, breathing hard, his nostrils flaring with rage.

Gene had read the script, rewrote it without telling John, and sent it out to be mimeographed. Now John knew how it felt to be rewritten by the Great Bird of the Galaxy. (Several years later, the Writers Guild ruled that scriptwriters must be given the opportunity to do their own first rewrite and, if they chose not to do so, specifically forbade producers from rewriting a script without first consulting the writer.)［28］

As Justman indicated, many of the early scripts had to be rewritten, sometimes because writers who’d only seen the second pilot didn’t quite have a handle on the developing regular characters and format, or because some sci-fi writers didn’t understand TV dramatic script structure, or to ensure the episodes conformed to the action-adventure format NBC had been sold. Nominally, that was Black’s job, so why did the Great Bird of the Galaxy “do something nasty” on Black’s script?［29］Why go to that trouble instead of sitting down with Black, giving him notes, and having him rewrite it?

Funnily enough, time may have been the critical factor. Justman indicated that Black’s story editor duties were suffering because he was working on “TNT,” and the converse seems to have been the case: “TNT” was suffering because of his other obligations, some of which may not have been related to Star Trek at all (we’ll get to that). Desilu’s Herbert F. “Herb” Solow, citing Justman, indicated Black wasn’t exactly a speedy writer.

HERB: Bob often waited impatiently for script pages from John D. F. Black, who, with his secretary, the estimable and highly likable Mary Stilwell, worked behind closed doors. DO NOT DISTURB! When they emerged hours later, Justman complained about the paltry number of script pages that were forthcoming. Like Oliver Twist, he wanted more.

And what were they doing in there all that time? “Writing, Bob” was Black’s standard reply. When the pages were excellent, Justman, a glint in his eye, would confront Black. “Hey, John, this is terrific. Did Mary do all the writing again?”［23］

From the beginning, the series struggled to have shootable scripts ready［30］so much so that Roddenberry famously rewrote “Shore Leave” on location as the episode was filming.［31］

BOB: He [Roddenberry] was so busy trying to keep shootable scripts coming that any interruption of the always-close-to-crisis writing process caused problems."［32］

FACT TREK Note: Star Trek was not unique in this area, even at Desilu. Mission: Impossible suffered from the same problem.

The pair’s abrupt exit had disastrous consequences. ‘“When Billy and Allan went out, there were almost no scripts,” says their script consultant, Robert E. Thompson. “They were the scripts. They were doing one this week to shoot next week.”’ […] Suddenly, Mission had no producer and worse, no scripts. “There was nothing there,” Thompson states, “‘only one first draft.”［33］

To him [Paul Playdon] fell the burden of coming up with the rest of the season’s scripts, and rewriting the few usable ones coming in from other writers. “Something had to be done and it had to look like this thing called Mission: Impossible. There was no way to keep the show going unless I was writing twelve to fifteen pages a day. There was no time to go through a story outline. I look back and cannot quite think how I put some of those scripts together. Sometimes I winced and wished that I had two or three more days, but they were shooting first drafts. That was the best that I could do.” Playdon was a prodigious writer who turned out a script a week until he collapsed from exhaustion in his office one late evening.［34］

Roddenberry was an inveterate rewriter, especially on Star Trek. Black himself addressed this habit in the 2000s.

This is the reality. When stories came in on Thursday or Friday, I would read them, make my notes, copies would be made, and GR would take them home on the weekend. And instead of notes, he would come in on Monday with a rewrite. He would have rewritten everything. God knows how much. And it would never, in my judgment, have been that much for the better.［35］

Roddenberry gets damned for this a lot, and rightfully so, especially in his later years, but what’s often missing from these anecdotes about the rewrites is if they were ever truly necessary to get the shows in front of the cameras.

Unlike the Enterprise, the production couldn’t implode the warp engines and throw themselves back three days to gain some pre-production runway. Black’s yellow cover draft went to mimeo literally one week before the episode was to go before the cameras and may have landed in staff inboxes as late as Friday the 24th, only six days from production start.

Coming in close to the wire wasn’t unique to the episode. "The Man Trap" yellow cover script was dated just nine days before filming; "The Enemy Within," eight; and "TNT," seven. Still, six of the first nine episodes had yellow cover drafts at least 10 days ahead of shooting［36］Black was really pushing it.

Black expected to get notes when he came in after the weekend,［37］but Monday was only three days before filming, and any rewrite would still need to be typed up and go through mimeo. Considering it took nine days for his Preliminary Draft to become a yellow cover, it’s doubtful the process could move fast enough to meet the shooting schedule.

At that time, Andreea “Ande” Kindryd (née Richardson, later Gene Coon’s secretary) was a floater secretary at Desilu, but she tells us that the Star Trek office staff mostly worked Monday through Friday. Writers working weekends was the exception, not the rule — Roddenberry’s weekend rewrites aside. When we told her about Roddenberry’s draft and the timeline, she said, “They must have been in trouble.”［38］

Why he didn’t call Black and say, “We have a problem” is another question. Roddenberry was known to avoid direct conflict,［39］ and given the time crunch, he may have decided it was easier to hammer out a self-approved, production-ready Final Draft on his own rather than deal with Black. Or maybe he just thought he knew the show better and could fix it on his own. Or maybe he was just cavalier about doing it.

Possibly all three.

Black v. Bird

There’s no way to discuss the introduction and eventual scrapping of the cliffhanger without addressing what we call Black v. Bird—the latter being the Great Bird of the Galaxy, Roddenberry.

In retrospect, conflict seemed inevitable. Roddenberry’s penchant for rewriting other writers’ scripts clashed with Black’s reluctance to do so.［40]

TV shows are mills grinding out episodes, and the grist for them is shootable scripts. If a script was late or too far off the show’s format to be usable, the usual options were to shelve it or have someone in the Star Trek office rewrite it. The story editor’s job was to work with the freelance writers to make their scripts filmable, even if it meant rewriting the scripts themselves. The producer might undertake the task if necessary. As Justman wrote, staff rewrites became the norm early on.

BOB: […] to his dismay, Roddenberry soon discovered that some of the science-fiction writers had great difficulty with the transition. While their inventiveness ran amok with wild and exciting concepts, they were often incapable of developing them into believable dramas and do-able scripts. Unfortunately, they were both marvelous storytellers and lousy dramatists.

And unfortunately, Roddenberry had given himself yet another problem. Most of the science-fiction writer scripts had to be heavily rewritten — and he had to do it.［42］

Conspicuous in its absence from the preceding is why Roddenberry had to handle the rewrites instead of the story editor, Black. Justman indicated that Black’s rewrite duties had suffered. Black was reluctant to do rewrites unless absolutely necessary. Perhaps what qualified as “necessary” was what he and Roddenberry couldn’t agree on—especially when it came to his own script.

Another factor to consider is that “The Naked Time” was a separate contract, distinct from Black’s Star Trek job, meaning it fell squarely under WGA freelancer rules. All a show could expect under the standard contract were a story outline, a first draft script, a final draft (rewrite), and a polish (minor adjustments). The production could cut off the assignment at any stage, but the writer still had to be paid through the last assigned step. Anything beyond that required additional compensation.

Though Black labeled his first draft as “preliminary,” under the WGA framework, it could still be considered his official first draft, making the subsequent yellow cover draft his rewrite/final draft, which is exactly how Roddenberry characterized them (covered later in this article and in the Appendix). That would have left the production with the option of requesting only a polish unless it was willing to negotiate payment for an additional draft. “The Naked Time” had been explicitly excluded from Black’s staff duties, so he couldn’t do a draft as story editor, either. He could have argued that the “preliminary” draft wasn’t his first draft, just a working document he wanted feedback on. And even if it was his first draft, he could have written another draft gratis, as Ellison did with his third “The City On the Edge Of Forever” draft, but the Guild frowned on such unpaid work. Perversely, Roddenberry rewriting the script was playing by the rules, though it’s unlikely this was the catalyst.

Whatever Roddenberry’s motivations for the rewrite, it marked the moment Black effectively stopped being a team player on Star Trek.

BOB: I knew we couldn’t afford to lose him. He was a talented man, and we couldn’t survive with only Roddenberry to do all the rewrites. But after Gene’s heavy-handed dealing with John Black’s script, the party was over and it was time to call it a day. John never again had the same positive disposition toward Star Trek. He came to the office every day, closed his door, and went to work. The door stayed closed most of the time. He kept precise hours, never staying late, never leaving early.

On the day his contract expired, he and Mary Stilwell opened a bottle of champagne in his office and, toasting the occasion, celebrated the fact that he no longer worked for Gene Roddenberry.［43］

The script situation remained dire as the end of Black’s term loomed. For instance, Ellison’s “City” first draft was received June 3rd, 1966, and no one in the Star Trek office thought it was usable as was. His August final draft, dated just days before Black’s exit, was also deemed unfilmable, which implies that Black hadn’t successfully worked with him to address staff concerns about the script, Ellison ignored his input, or both.

Desilu made no effort to retain Black. Weeks before his contract ended, a memo made clear that he was to be paid in full by his final day, with no further obligations to Star Trek. His secretary was to be let go at the same time.［44］

All this may have precipitated the rethink of the staff that followed. Roddenberry stepped back from the Producer role to Executive Producer and instead of hiring someone to succeed Black in his specific roles as Associate Producer and Story Editor, Gene L. Coon was brought in as a producer,［45］ and the Story Editor job was given to Steven Carabatsos.

Just after Black’s contract ended, Roddenberry wrote:

Unfortunately, our current situation has necessitated an additional producer and another rewrite man.［46］

This agrees with Justman’s assessment that Black’s rewriting duties suffered due to his other obligations. But those obligations appear to have extended beyond Star Trek. And Roddenberry later suggested Black failed to fulfill the duties spelled out in his deal in part because he was also working on other shows.

I don't know whether or not John was "exclusive" to us but I do have information indicating that he wrote a LAREDO script during the time he was working with us and possibly a RUN FOR YOUR LIFE script also. WGA contracts could probably establish the dates of these.［47］

It’s unlikely Black was exclusive to Desilu, as exclusivity is not one of the terms laid out in the deal memo. Black himself said as much in 2001: 

The spring of '66 had been a frenetic time for us. In addition to the STAR TREK segment, I had script commitments locked for two other series.［48］

While Black didn’t I.D. his other commitments, Roddenberry’s suggestion that Black wrote for Laredo and Run for Your Life while at Star Trek is at least half true. Black’s Run For Your Life script, “The Shock of Recognition”, has an initial cover date of June 22nd: the day before the “TNT” preliminary draft.［49］ (Production of that episode was announced five weeks after his Trek gig ended.)［50］ As for Laredo, Black’s seven confirmed writing credits for that series were from the 1965–66 season and before Star Trek. If he wrote anything for that series for the 1966–67 season, we’ve found no evidence of it, though it’s possible he had a Laredo script assignment that was cut off and never produced.

Black moonlighting should come as no surprise, given he wasn’t yet working for Desilu at the start of pre-production for shows for the 1966–67 season. It was common for dramatists to grab multiple assignments in the spring when the networks ordered shows. As Harlan Ellison wrote decades later:

How it went, was this: the new season began in September; every show got an order for 28 to 32 segments from the networks; but they got those purchase orders earlier, in May or June. And then they would start showing the pilot episode to every writer in town. They had “cattle calls” in which you'd be sitting with twenty or thirty other scenarists, in a screening room at the studio. And after you'd seen the pilot episode they’d shot the year before, everyone would trample his gramma to get to the producer or story editor, to pitch an idea. 

And it all happened during a couple of weeks in the spring. What you would have to live on for the rest of the year was predicated on how fast, and how many, gigs you could smash‘n’grab during the cattle-call fortnight.[…] So if you wanted to live above the poverty line in expensive L.A., you glommed onto three or four assignments all at the same time.［51］

Ellison was a bit off on a few particulars, but he correctly summarized the process. This is how Black landed his “TNT” assignment. But this mad pitching wasn’t only for new shows. As soon as existing series were picked up, writers would again “trample their grammas” to pitch.

All this suggests that Black’s multiple commitments may have stretched him too thin. If it were the case that Roddenberry was already concerned about Black’s performance by the time that “TNT” First Draft finally emerged, it may have been a factor in his decision to rewrite the script himself.

The story only gets messier from there.

The “Envelope,” Please

Despite his specific job duties, Black was assigned to write the “envelope” script to incorporate the expensive first pilot into the series. The May 27th writers report records this assignment, eventually titled “From The First Day To The Last.” 

Black turned in his first draft of this script almost literally on his way out the door. It remained in the writers reports for a month after his departure before its status was officially changed to “shelved,” whereupon Roddenberry wrote a “revised envelope” (“The Menagerie”) to replace it. Beginning October 28th, Black’s script was listed as a story cut-off.［52］

This seems straightforward, but it wasn’t. A series of letters and memos related to Black and the script complicate the picture. Here, from a memo from Desilu’s Ed Perlstein to Herb Solow: 

As I have indicated to you over the past several months, John D.F. Black claims he is due writing fees in connection with the two parter for THE MENAGERIE since he wrote the envelope script for this two parter.

I never made a deal with Black or his agent and was completely unaware of the fact that he did write any script for THE MENAGERIE two parter until after his completion of employment when his agent advised me that he was due monies for this script.［53］

Desilu’s position, as articulated by Perlstein, was that Black had spent time on this material “in lieu of doing other rewrites.” In other words, the studio argued he had neglected his story editor duties—duties he was already being paid for—and thus was owed nothing extra for writing his envelope on company time.

Roddenberry minced no words in his response, detailing what work Black had done in his assigned role, saying he’d performed full rewrite services on only four of 12 scripts, light polishes on four others, and nothing at all to the remaining four. He added, tartly:

It would seem to me obvious anyway that with a rewrite man around drawing a $1,000.00 a week he had to be doing something while I was doing the work he was contracted to do, and that something was his version of the two-parter.［55］

No mention is made in any of this correspondence of Black’s “condition” for coming aboard as an explanation for how little rewriting he did. This further suggests that it was not something ever put in writing.

What’s missing from the surviving documentation is any clarity on how Black got the assignment in the first place. The envelope script was neither fish nor fowl—not a rewrite, not a polish, but new story elements grafted onto existing film—falling outside Black’s contracted job duties. Perlstein maintained that “no deal or assignment for story and/or teleplay could be given without Business Affairs having made the deal,” meaning it was never properly assigned. This implies a striking level of naïveté from both Black and Bird.

Despite Desilu’s contention that it owed Black nothing, Perlstein detailed how two monetary offers to settle the matter were refused as insufficient. In January 1967, Black filed a grievance with the WGA for pay.［57］We've yet to find the outcome of that. Black later said he sought co-writing credit for “The Menagerie” and lost.［58］To date, we’ve seen no documentation that indicated the issue with the WGA was over credit.

This was the ugly end of Black’s association with Roddenberry and Star Trek…at least until he pitched a Trek movie story in the mid-70s and then came back briefly for Star Trek: The Next Generation, but that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of Ferengi.

Whose Time Warp Is It Anyway?

Going by the scripts alone, it seems the time warp finale to “TNT” was Black’s invention, first appearing in his June 20th working draft. But this doesn’t mean the idea wasn’t batted around with others between the “preliminary” draft and the subsequent one. Sadly, none of the documentation or decades of interviews address exactly who came up with the idea of a cliffhanger and why.

The decision was late, coming as it did at the script stage rather than the outline stage. Given the show’s ongoing script problems, it was likely an ill-considered change. Whatever the idea’s origins, it persisted in Roddenberry’s rewrite and right through shooting; therefore, the Bird was ultimately responsible for allowing it to make it to the soundstage.

To our knowledge, Black never implied that he was to write this prospective Part II. Indeed, his responsibilities seemed to preclude it. In all the memos, letters, and interviews we’ve consulted, only one staffer mentioned a Part II: Dorothy Fontana. Thirty years later, she suggested that Black had a conflicting commitment.

Originally, it was supposed to be a two-parter, but John D.F. Black had a movie deal and couldn't be involved with the second part.［59］

At the point of the yellow cover script, Black had nine weeks remaining on his Desilu gig, so the issue wasn’t lack of time, but more likely that his existing contract didn’t include writing original scripts for Star Trek, and he’d already — improperly — been assigned the envelope.

If Black had gotten a movie deal and began working on it while still employed by Desilu, that could have further impacted his job performance on Star Trek.

What was this movie? Likely it was Universal’s Nobody’s Perfect (1968), a feature film comedy with Black as the sole credited screenwriter, which Variety’s Dec. 2, 1966, edition mentioned Black working on when it was titled Winning Position. ［60］

So what the hell was going on?

A Part I requires — nay, demands — a Part II—so where is it? Part I wasn’t intended as a season-ending climax (something that wouldn’t really exist on network TV for another decade and not become a staple until later still). Any two-parter would need to air as sequential episodes, which required a sequel script ready to go within weeks of wrapping “TNT,” but the show’s writers reports hold no evidence that anyone was ever assigned to write that second part. The moment a story was assigned, it was documented in the next report and updated thereafter. If anyone had been contracted to write this Part II, it would be in those reports. It ain’t.

We must conclude it was never formally assigned.

For Tomorrow Is Another Yesterday 

The Enterprise would “do the time warp again” in future episodes, and conventional wisdom long held that “Tomorrow Is Yesterday” was originally intended to follow up on “TNT” and its scrapped climax. The whole gimmick seems tailor-made to be the missing Part II. “TNT was filmed to end with the ship in a time warp and heading for Earth in who-knows-when, and “Tomorrow” opened with the starship over Earth in the 1960s.

But the timeline — pun intended — doesn’t support that contention, and neither does the extant documentation. If Dorothy Fontana was supposed to write what became “Tomorrow Is Yesterday” as a Part II, why wasn’t that story, titled or not, prioritized, assigned, and listed in the writers reports, like every other story? As it happened, the revised ending to “TNT” had been filmed five weeks before Fontana’s assignment first appeared in a writers report, which itself was just six days before “TNT” aired on NBC, and she delivered the story outline four days after. A Part II had been moot for a production eternity.

We consulted with Trek franchise vet Michael Okuda on this matter to see if he had any insights from his interactions with Justman.［61］He concurs with our conclusion that "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" was more of a spiritual successor to the time warp idea at the finale of the original "Naked Time" cliffhanger and never intended to be an actual follow-up.

Case closed? Well…

Justman Time

Herbert F. Solow and Robert H. Justman’s 1996 book Inside Star Trek: The Real Story muddles the “Tomorrow” matter by reproducing an April 12, 1966 memo from Robert Justman containing a three-paragraph story suggestion that broadly aligns with “TIY.” Justman’s idea—in toto—was as follows (emphasis ours):

The Enterprise is returning to earth [sic] where refitting, rotation of crew, taking on of supplies, etc., is planned. On approaching earth there is malfunction of the ship's machinery with regard to its time warp capabilities. The Enterprise, due to this malfunction, does arrive back at a familiar planet which, of course, does turn out to be earth. But this is the earth of 1966 and not of their time.

There follows a situation with which we are becoming familiar. Every spring, about this time, there are sighting reports of UFOs. The Enterprise's shadow craft is sighted and is identified as a UFO. Kirk and Spock and the others realize upon contact with the denizens of the earth where they are in time. Thereupon, our story develops and Kirk begins to see that by breaking through time, he is starting off a whole new and different sequence of events, which will affect the history and civilization of our planet in future years. Who knows where this will lead? Perhaps it will turn out that he and Spock and the Enterprise and its crew will therefore never really exist in the future. He will also see that the whole future course of events will be changed so radically, as to cause irreparable damage to any future earth civilization. Thereupon, the problem arises as to how they are to go back and change what they have already set in motion.

Finally, after much experimentation with the ship's machinery, they do in fact go back to the moment when they arrive back at the earth in 1966. UFO reports go out again, but Kirk and the Enterprise disappear before any contact can be made with our 1966 world denizens. There only remains on earth the usual mass of spring UFO sighting reports, which is checked out by various governmental agencies and found to be without foundation.［62］

This is barely a sketch of a premise with no definite story and no characters.

Black hadn’t started at Trek when Justman wrote this, but he was cc’d on story-related memos, including this one. But It would be hard to argue that Black wrote “TNT” using Justman's idea as a springboard for a Part II as his initial draft didn't incorporate the concept at all. And the Earthbound trajectory only appears in Roddenberry’s rewrite.

Adding fuel to the fire is a cheeky memo — reproduced in the book — that Justman penned during the production of “Tomorrow” which notes the broad similarities of that episode to his idea memo of eight months prior:

Attached you will find a copy of a story idea memo I wrote last April 12th. I would appreciate your perusing the memo and letting me know whether you like the idea. If you like the idea, I would appreciate your okaying my submitting a request to be paid for an original story. I would entitle the screenplay something like "ALL OUR YESTERDAYS", or "TOMORROW THE WORLD", or "TOMORROW IS YESTERDAY". Please let me hear from you at your earliest convenience, as otherwise I feel I shall be forced to sell this story idea to "TIME TUNNEL.”［63］

Further, a Solow aside states that this follow-up memo caused Roddenberry to assign Justman’s story to Dorothy Fontana. However, the memo in question was written three weeks after Fontana turned in her Final Draft script and two months after her story outline. Actual time travel would be necessary to fix that paradox, so we must dismiss it.

It’s important to note that Justman does not state or imply that his story idea was supposed to be part II of “TNT.” If anyone considered it for that purpose, the paper trail doesn’t record it.

Further, Fontana maintained “Tomorrow” was a complete original—unlike “Charlie X,” which was developed from a Roddenberry springboard and story outline. As she told us in 2018:

I didn't have the nerve to try an original ST at the beginning—which is why I picked a Roddenberry story from the bible—"Charlie X" - to do as my first script. The second one I did was all mine - "Tomorrow is Yesterday."［65］

Had she been aware of Justman’s idea? She said no, but her initial story outline begins, as Justman’s does, with the Enterprise bound for Earth’s solar system for resupply. She was Roddenberry’s secretary when that story memo was sent out, so she might have seen Justman’s idea in that capacity and forgotten she’d seen it when pitching “Tomorrow.” But might doesn’t mean she did.

And Justman was in the loop for scripts in development, so if it was an issue, would he have waited until the episode was being filmed before half-jokingly asking for compensation?

And Now the Conclusion…

As with so much about the development of “The Naked Time,” what we’ve learned makes about as much rational sense as the infected crew in the episode itself. And unfortunately, Dr. McCoy isn’t here to hypo spray some sanity into the matter.

Of the questions we began with, the answer to why the cliffhanger was scrapped seems obvious. It was a late addition to a script that wasn’t conceived with such an ending. Black felt burned by how his script was rewritten. No one received an actual assignment to write a Part II, and without it, the filmed cliffhanger was a pointless and audience-confusing loose end. Given those factors, there was little choice but to alter the originally filmed ending and button off the story.

Sadly, that’s the only clear answer we’ve gleaned.

One reason it took us so long to complete Part II is that this story is so maddeningly incomplete. We kept looking through documents and searching for long out-of-print or otherwise forgotten interviews in hopes of finding that missing puzzle piece, that elusive “aha!” element that would connect the dots, draw a clear picture, and result in a satisfying conclusion to all the vexing questions about this episode’s development.

The key answers we sought stayed stubbornly out of reach. The more we uncovered, the more complicated the story became, and with the key players long gone, there’s no one left to fill in the blanks. But that doesn’t mean it was all for nothing. We—and we hope you, too— learned a lot about the process, the context, and the decisions that shaped things. We know more about how the sausage was made, even if we’ll never have the whole recipe. Along the way, we also set the record straight on a few points, like the script timelines, fuzzy memories about "Tomorrow Is Yesterday," Black’s culpability in what happened, and why Roddenberry may sometimes have been justified in taking "a hammer in his hand" to get scripts ready to go before the cameras even as he completely mishandled the human elements that were the writers he rewrote.

So, no, we didn’t answer the questions we went in with, but we found plenty of answers to questions we didn’t even know we had.

And that’s the naked truth.

—30—

Appendix: The Scripts

The elephant in the airlock are the script timelines published and reprinted elsewhere. We do not believe these accounts to be accurate. Here’s what we’ve determined based on looking at the actual script contents (Black and Roddenberry had distinct writing styles and handwriting), memos, and the dates.

• 1966-6-14 (Tuesday) Preliminary Draft (UCLA): Writers internal draft, written by Black. “First Draft” on the title page is scratched out, and a note on the cover identifies it as a “preliminary” draft. Story ends with disease burning itself out and no time warp. No “Part I”. Roddenberry referred to this as Black’s “first draft”.

In some accounts, John D.F. and Mary Black intimated that Roddenberry did two rewrites, saying he delivered notes and retyped pages the day after seeing the preliminary draft. The Roddenberry Star Trek papers at UCLA contain no “TNT” script pages from this draft with the Bird’s handwriting. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, but neither is it proof.

• 1966-6-20 (possibly later date) (UCLA). A Tuesday. Writers internal draft. A modified and retyped version of the 6-14 draft, likely done by Black (the writing style and handwriting seem to match). It contains penciled changes and some change pages. It too has “First Draft” scratched off on the cover. Also, the dates have been crossed off. This is because this is the second writer’s internal draft, prepped for retyping and mimeo into the first studio draft. It ends with Spock catatonic, the disease uncured and the ship flung into “faster than light, faster than time” on an unspecified trajectory. For the first time, “Part I” and the cliffhanger appear.

Our associate David Tilotta reviewed the material and concluded that it was largely a photocopy of Black’s June 14 draft. This draft was lightly edited, retyped, and had additional pages inserted before Black hand-annotated it into what became the first studio draft. The key question is whether Black or Bird added those extra pages. The evidence—such as Black’s frequent use of ellipses and consistent typewriter characteristics—suggests that Black likely wrote them.

• 1966-6-23 First Draft studio script. (UCLA) Thursday. Yellow cover. Typed up for mimeo. Content identical to the 6-20 working version, including “Part I” designation and the cliffhanger. This is Black’s handiwork. Roddenberry referred to this as Black’s “final draft”.

• 1966-6-28 Final Draft studio script. Tuesday. Gray cover. The story ends with the disease cured but the ship flung into a time warp on a trajectory towards Earth. “Part I” and the cliffhanger persists (UCLA).

  NOTE: The copy at UCLA has been conformed to include the change pages. The original ending and other replaced pages come from another copy (Kobylak collection).

  This is almost certainly Roddenberry’s rewrite, as it changes a lot of material and is stylistically different from the previous drafts. It lines up with various accounts by the participants that Roddenberry wrote the script over a weekend, as the Yellow cover draft for mimeo was Thursday the 23rd, and the very-different Final draft was typed for mimeo Tuesday the 28th, two days before the episode was set to begin filming.

• 1966-07-01 Blue change pages (new or revised pages) (UCLA).

• 1966-07-05 Blue & Pink change pages (new or revised pages) (UCLA).

• 1966-8-11 Blue change pages. These are the revised pages that change the ending to eliminate the cliffhanger (UCLA).

Revision History

• February 19, 2025. Original post

• February 27, 2025. Added quote from Herb Solow

• March 11, 2025. Added images of scripts and screen credit on Combat! Added mention of Black’s mid-70s Star Trek movie pitch

Acknowledgements

• Huge thanks to FACT TREK Associate David Tilotta for his invaluable assistance on both of these articles concerning “The Naked Time,” both in terms of providing reference materials and offering input on the text as it was being written. His help in reviewing the various scripts was invaluable.

  • Follow him on Bluesky here

  • Read his Fact Trek article The Lost Voyage of the Small Enterprise Model here

  • And run out and buy his and Curt McAloney’s terrific book Star Trek Lost Scenes here (link)

• Thanks to Andreea “Ande” Kindryd (née Richardson) for patiently answering our pesky questions about how the Star Trek office worked. For more insights into that, buy her biography: From Slavery to the Stars as an audio book (here), an ebook (here), or as physical media (here).

• Special thanks to FACT TREK Research Fellow Bill Kobylak for providing us with a scan of the complete gray cover June 28 [revised] final draft of the script. May the Great Bird of the Galaxy roost upon your planet.

• Grande grazie a Marcello Rossi for sending us scans of the articles by John D.F. and Mary Black wrote for Star Trek The Magazine (from a never-published memoir) to make sure we hadn’t overlooked any comments they might’ve made about the episode.

• Trekcore, for the screenshots from the episode.

• As always, thanks to FACT TREK Associate Ryan Thomas Riddle. You can follow his adventures through time and space on Bluesky (link) and see his work on his homepage (link).

See Also

• The Naked Cliffhanger (Part I of this series)

End Notes & Sources

[1] AFI Catalog Spotlight: SHAFT, July 1, 2021 (link)

[2] Tom Weaver, Science Fiction Confidential, p18. “And out of that came [Black's nom de screen] ‘Geoffrey Dennis’—which was a very classy name!”

[3] John D.F. and Mary Black Video Interview Part 1, Published Nov 5, 2014. StarTrek.com video interview (time index 5:45–6:21) (link)

[4] IMDb list of John D.F. Black writing credits between The Unearthly and Star Trek. Internet Movie Database, accessed Dec. 31, 2024. (link)

[5] “8 CBS-TV Shows Up For WGAwards; NBC-TV 6, ABC 5,” Daily Variety, Vol. 130, No.54, Thursday Feb, 17, 1966, p1 & 10. Black’s nom is mentioned on page 10.

[6] Screencaps from the topic Mr. Novak, NBC TV Series 1963-65, post #424 by user Flashgear on the Home Theater Forum (link)

[7] “John D. F. Black has received citation from Braille Institute of America for his script, ‘An Elephant is Like a Tree’ on ‘Mr. Novak.’” Chatter, Daily Variety, March 4, 1965, p4.

[8] Chuck Harter, Mr. Novak: An Acclaimed Television Series, ISBN 987-1-62933-164-5, 2017, p.130

[9] Telegram from Gene Roddenberry, February 27, 1966. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[10] Various documents related to Star Trek pilot screenings. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[11] Writers Report for the week ending June 24, 1966. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[12] John D.F. Black and Mary Black, “On The Frontier: Offers and Auditions”, STAR TREK: The Magazine, Vol. 1 Issue 24, April 2001, p.10-11

[13] Writers Guild Honors 18 Members for Work, The Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, California, Friday, March 25, 1966, p.82

[14] John D.F. Black and Mary Black, “On The Frontier: Offers and Auditions”, STAR TREK: The Magazine, Vol. 1 Issue 24, April 2001, p.11

[15] Beyond the Naked Time, Starlog Magazine #119, June 1987, p.13.

[16] John D.F. Black and Mary Black, “On The Frontier: Offers and Auditions”, STAR TREK: The Magazine, Vol. 1 Issue 24, April 2001, p.11

[17] Obituary for Edwin Perlstein, Entertainment lawyer, by Billy Gil, Variety.com, July 14, 2003 (link)

[18] 1966-03-25 Memo from Robert H. Justman to Ed Perlstein re Star Trek writers assigned to date, UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[19] August 15, 1966 script library memo from Star Trek office (typed by Dorothy Fontana) to Ernie Scanlon. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969

[20] John D.F. Black and Mary Black, “On The Frontier: Offers and Auditions”, STAR TREK: The Magazine, Vol. 1 Issue 24, April 2001, p.10-11.

[21] 1966-4-12 Memo from Ed Perlstein to Shirley Stahnke. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[22] Los Angeles Evening Citizen News, Sat, Jun 18, 1966 p. 8.

[23] Herbert F. Solow & Robert H. Justman, Inside Star Trek, 1996, p.128.

[24] Mimeographing Work Order From Desilu Productions to Ed Leavitt & Co., June 23, 1966. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[25] Joel Engel, Gene Roddenberry The Myth and the Man Behind Star Trek, 1994 (hardcover) p.97. Account by Mary Black née Stilwell.

[26] Joel Engel, Gene Roddenberry The Myth and the Man Behind Star Trek, 1994 (hardcover) p.98. Account by John D.F. Black.

[27] August 15, 1966 script library memo from Star Trek office (typed by Dorothy Fontana) to Ernie Scanlon. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[28] Herbert F. Solow & Robert H. Justman, Inside Star Trek, 1996, p.138.

[29] Steven E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry, The Making of Star Trek, 1968, p. 288. Memo to Matt Jefferies from Bob Justman, subject: SET SKETCHES—"MUDD'S WOMEN". July 28, 1966 “If I don't get those preliminary set sketches for ‘Mudd's Women,’ the Great Bird of the Galaxy is going to do something nasty on you.”

[30] Herbert F. Solow & Robert H. Justman, Inside Star Trek, 1996, p.232. Solow recalled Justman saying, in effect, "We're already scrambling for shootable scripts. We can't hold anything back."

[31] Herbert F. Solow & Robert H. Justman, Inside Star Trek, 1996, p.209.

[32] Herbert F. Solow & Robert H. Justman, Inside Star Trek 1996, p.237.

[33] White, Patrick J. White, The Complete Mission Impossible Dossier., ISBN: 0-380-75877-6, p.164.

[34] White, Patrick J. White, The Complete Mission Impossible Dossier., ISBN: 0-380-75877-6, p.165.

[35] John D.F. Black quote. Edward Gross & Mark A. Altman, The Fifty-Year Mission: The Complete, Uncensored, Unauthorized Oral History of Star Trek: The First 25 Years, 2016, p.123.

[36] August 15, 1966 script library memo from Star Trek office (typed by Dorothy Fontana) to Ernie Scanlon. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[37] Joel Engel, Gene Roddenberry The Myth and the Man Behind Star Trek, 1994 (hardcover) p.97.

[38] Andreea Kindryd, via email with Fact Trek, Feb 6, 2025.

[39] Joel Engel, Gene Roddenberry The Myth and the Man Behind Star Trek, 1994 (hardcover), p.155.

Any number of Roddenberry's former colleagues agree that he preferred crawling through verbal minefields to facing confrontations. "It made him uncomfortable, " Robert Justman says. "He'd rather have said yes to somebody than tell them what they didn't want to hear."

[40] John D.F. and Mary Black Video Interview Part 1, Published Nov 5, 2014. StarTrek.com video interview (time index 5:45–6:21). (link)

[41] Annotated photo from OBITUARY, John DF Black, December 30, 1932 – November 29, 2018 via Dignity Memorial site (link).

[42] Robert Justman, Herbert F. Solow & Robert H. Justman, Inside Star Trek, 1996, p.128.

[43] Robert Justman, Herbert F. Solow & Robert H .Justman, Inside Star Trek, 1996, p.139.

[44] July 27, 1966 memo to Shirley Stahnke from Ed Perlstein re John D. F. Black -- Star Trek. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[45] Announced in Variety. “Coons 'Trek' Producer,” Daily Variety, Tues, August 9, 1966, p3.

[46] Letter from Gene Roddenberry to Del Rayburn dated August 17, 1966. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[47] Memo from Gene Roddenberry to Howard Barton, February 2, 1968. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969

[48] John D.F. Black and Mary Black, “On The Frontier: Offers and Auditions”, STAR TREK: The Magazine, Vol. 1 Issue 24, April 2001, p.11.

[49] Run for Your Life - The Shock of Recognition - Teleplay (Original) (rev. 9/21/66) Loose Leaf –January 1, 1966, Amazon (Note: sources like this are ephemeral and cannot be saved to the Wayback Machine, so this may vanish at some point after publication) (link).

[50] Hale Steers 'Shock' Daily Variety, Fri., September 16, 1966, p.19.

[51] Harlan Ellison, The City On The Edge Of Forever: The Original Teleplay That Became The Classic Star Trek® Episode, 1996, p38–39. ISBN 1-56504-964-0 (p.40–45 in the 2014 Open Road edition).

[52] Weekly Writers Report, October 28th, 1966. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[53] Memo from Ed Perlstein to Herb Solow, January 4, 1967. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[54] Undated Photo of Edwin Perlstein from Find A Grave. (link)

[55] Letter from Gene Roddenberry to Howard Barton, subject John D.F. Black, February 2, 1968 p2. Note. There are two versions of this letter in the Roddenberry papers at UCLA. This is from the longer version. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[56] “From the First Day to the Last” teleplay by John D.F. Black. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[57] Certified letter from Anthony F. Sauber, Resident Counsel, Writers Guild of America west, Inc., to Howard Barton, Esq., Paramount Pictures, re: John D.F. Black - Desilu Productions, Inc., “Star Trek”, January 26, 1968. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[58] John D.F. Black, quoted by Joel Engel, Gene Roddenberry The Myth and the Man Behind Star Trek, 1994 (hardcover) p.118.

[59] Dorothy Fontana, Captains' Logs: The Unauthorized Complete Trek Voyages (1995) by Ed Gross & Mark A. Altman, p.36. ISBN 9780316329576.

[60] Howard Christie Casting 3 Pix At Univ., Daily Variety, Friday Dec. 2, 1966, p4.

[61] FACT TREK correspondence with Michael Okuda, May 7–12, 2023.

[62] Memo from Bob Justman to Gene Roddenberry, “Story Idea,” April 12 , 1966. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[63] Memo from Bob Justman to Gene Roddenberry, “What’s Fair Is Fair,” December 1, 1966. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[64] Story Outline by D.C. Fontana, “Tomorrow Is Yesterday,” October 3, 1966. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[65] Email from Dorothy Fontana to Michael Kmet, May 1, 2018.

Associated Press

By David Tilotta

The U.S.S. Enterprise — the iconic spaceship from the original Star Trek television series — was designed in 1964 by Art Director Matt Jefferies using input from series-creator Gene Roddenberry. Two models of the ship were built for filming — a small, 33-inch version and a large, 11-foot version (approximate sizes). 

The history of the large filming model has been extensively documented because it was donated to the Smithsonian Institution in 1974. It was restored during 2014-2016 and is now visited regularly by Star Trek and other science fiction enthusiasts.

But what about the small model — the model that wasn’t used a great deal but served as the prototype for the large one?

Roddenberry with the 33” miniature on his desk, ca. 1976

After the original series ended, and prior to the late 1970s, that beloved model sat on Roddenberry’s desk. Then, around the time that Star Trek—The Motion Picture (ST—TMP) was being filmed, Roddenberry loaned it to Paramount through Jon Povill (based on the former’s claim a November 5, 1979 memo from Roddenberry to Jeffrey Katzenberg) and it vanished … for approximately 45 years … until it turned up in a storage locker in California in October 2023.

What was the model doing there? What was (probably) its last filming voyage? 

This article will answer these questions because the author acquired several rolls of 35 mm film that accompanied the model in the storage locker. The film shows the 33-inch model, which has been independently corroborated, as well as other objects and scenes. From the telecined footage of all of the film, the author has learned that a rainbow multiplex hologram of the model was fabricated. This article will present the evidence for this. 

Be forewarned, however, that this story is still unfolding. Accordingly, when new information is learned, this article will be updated.

The Multiplex Holographic Process

Before getting into the details of the connection of the small Enterprise model to holography, it’s necessary to trip the light fantastic and go forth and multiplex.

In simple terms, a hologram is a three-dimensional image of an object produced by light that is shined through an interference pattern or patterns. Often, the interference pattern(s) is obtained by shining laser light onto the object and then combining it with laser reference light onto photographic film or other detection apparatus.

The multiplex hologram, also called an integral hologram or a composite hologram, is a unique type of hologram that was popularized in the surrogation sequence that occurs towards the end of the 1976 movie, Logan’s Run. It was also used in the electro-mechanical game "Gun Smoke" that was mainly seen in Japan. This type of hologram was first identified in 1967 by Robert Pole at IBM. Eventually, Lloyd Cross at the University of Michigan refined the technology to make it efficient and commercially viable. Cross would go on to form The Multiplex Company located in San Francisco. More about this company in a bit.

Video clip from 1976’s Logan’s Run featuring six multiplex holograms. Note how the rainbow effect shifts vertically in relation to the camera’s height to the hologram.

A multiplex hologram using the Cross technology was basically created in two steps. The first one involved placing an object on a rotating turntable and photographing it under studio lights using a synchronized camera. A 35 mm Mitchell camera loaded with black and white (B/W) film was typically used, and Cross determined that, in order to produce a relatively smooth hologram, one frame of film needed to be captured for every 1/3 degree of object rotation. Note that the photographic process developed by Cross favored the horizontal axis. This will be relevant later.

A frame from a roll of 35 mm film found in the storage locker with the Enterprise rolls. The roll was used to create a multiplex hologram and the slate marked the start of the turntable rotation. Note the studio light "barn door" visible on the right. This particular film of a man dressed as Santa Claus was shot in 1979 by Robert Hollingsworth, who worked at BHI at the time and was supposedly the lease holder of the storage locker.

After the film was exposed, it was processed like any other B/W film.

The second step in the Cross process was to place the film in a special printer — called a multiplex printer — to generate the hologram. The multiplex printer worked by shining monochromatic laser light through each frame of film in succession. The laser light was then passed through special lenses in order to shape it into a thin vertical image where it was combined with reference laser light, also shaped into a thin vertical image, onto the surface of a large (about 9+ inches in height) photographic plate. The two laser beams — the one that passed through the film frame and the one from the reference — resulted in a thin, vertical interference pattern on the plate for each frame. 

Essentially, what the multiplex printer did, was to convert all the frames of film into thin vertical interference patterns on the photographic plate. The resultant hologram has geometry similar to a vertical blind … but much smaller, of course … where the “louvers” approximately represent the frames of film. When this photographic plate, or a copy of it, is curved into a semi-circle or circle and illuminated from within, the light waves from the object on the rotating table are recreated from the interference patterns when you walk around it (or when you rotate the hologram). The three-dimensional nature of the object arises because one eye looks at one vertical strip and the other eye looks at a different, adjacent one that is spatially separated. 

One additional, important detail: The Cross process utilizes a technique developed in 1969 by Stephen Benton of Polaroid. Benton determined a way to create holograms so that they could be viewed using white light in addition to monochromatic laser light. Cross employed a variation of Benton’s work so that his multiplex holograms could be viewed using ordinary Edison-type, incandescent white light bulbs. The tradeoffs, however, are that these types of holograms essentially lose their vertical parallax and the resultant holograms break into rainbows in the vertical direction. This is why they’re sometimes referred to as rainbow holograms.

The Making of the Small Enterprise Model Hologram: How Many Studios Did It Take?

Now, onto the small Enterprise hologram and where the ship hits the film cans.

Not counting the laboratories that processed the film, making the hologram of the small Enterprise model involved four studios: Paramount Studios, Burton Holmes International (BHI, sometimes known as Burton Holmes Incorporated), The Howard A. Anderson Company, and The Multiplex Company. Here are the details.

• Paramount Studios, that first started working on Star Trek II/Star Trek Phase II before switching to ST—TMP, likely loaned the small model to BHI to photograph it on the rotating turntable, perhaps with the forgotten permission of Gene Roddenberry. BHI was one of several “pass-through” studios that worked with The Multiplex Company. 

It’s been reported that Robert Abel and Associates (RA&A) obtained the model for their work on ST—TMP. However, according to Richard Winn Taylor who was employed by RA&A as the lead designer on ST—TMP — until RA&A was removed in February 1979 — the model was never there. “Never saw it,” Taylor said, adding that RA&A only ever saw the incomplete Don Loos television build for the aborted series. Additionally, Andrew Probert, who worked with Taylor on the redesign of the Enterprise for ST—TMP, indicates that he never saw the small Enterprise model either at RA&A or Douglas Trumbull’s Entertainment Effects Group company.

One of three film canisters containing multiplex and related film shot and/or used by BHI. Note the older Burton Holmes business card, from before BHI was formed from BH Travelogues, in the middle of the bottom of the can, on the right.

• Burton Holmes International photographed the model on the rotating turntable to obtain the footage for the multiplex hologram. It is at this point the model was likely physically modified by, among other things, adding metallic foil diffraction grating tape to some of its windows. This was done to bring the model to life by reflecting the studio lights as it rotated on the turntable. 

"For unknown reasons, only a 120-degree hologram — approximately a third of a circle — was requested. Therefore, the model was photographed through a 180-degree arc against a black background. The edge codes of the 35 mm B/W positive film generated during this photography indicate that it was done in either 1978 or 1979 because both dates appear on the film’s Kodak stock in different rolls. After the BHI film had been processed, likely by Consolidated Film Industries and/or Hal Mann Laboratories, the Howard A. Anderson Company worked on it further.

What became of the small Enterprise model? It was likely retained by BHI until the company went inactive in the mid- to late 1980s. At that point, many of BHI's assets were put into storage, and the model went with them… and out of public view.

A frame of film from one of the rolls showing the photography of the model on the turntable. The "lit" windows are metallic foil diffraction grating tape.

• The Howard A. Anderson Company, a name that should be known to Trek fans worldwide since they were responsible for a lion’s share of the optical effects in The Original Series, added (composited) a “space” background to the model footage complete with stars and a comet. This was done in 1979 in order to give an otherwise static model even more life.

Left: A frame from a roll of reference film from a B/W workprint of the 11-foot Enterprise model supplied by the Howard A. Anderson Company. The roll was found in one of the BHI film canisters and was used as an example of a star field for the work done on the compositing of the 33-inch model. Right: A screen cap from the episode, “Let That Be Your last Battlefield,” which matches the Anderson workprint film, minus the text.

Upper right: A frame from the film leader of the composited Enterprise film. Note the very faint, very large Howard A. Anderson Company logo superimposed over the black background. Lower left: The Howard A. Anderson Company logo shown as reference.

• The composited film, deemed as complete and lively as possible, was shipped to The Multiplex Company, where the final hologram was manufactured using their special printer.

NEW PHOTO BELOW

A frame of the finished, composited film by the Howard A. Anderson Company.

Whither the Hologram?

So, what did Paramount need with a holographic starship? And where is that hologram today?

It was produced, and a version of it is in Tempe, Arizona.

A photograph of the hologram made from the small Enterprise model in the Vintage Lasers and Holograms Museum, courtesy of Mr. Jerry Diaz.

According to Bob Hess, the owner of the Vintage Lasers and Holograms Museum located in Tempe, the hologram was supposedly made for the premiere party of ST—TMP. He learned this from Joe Belk, who worked for The Multiplex Company and who gave Mr. Hess a rejected copy of the hologram. Given the time that has elapsed since the premiere of ST—TMP, however, it has been difficult to find confirmation of this.

You can see the hologram if you visit Mr. Hess’s museum, which I encourage you to do. It’s fascinating and educational.

A close-up of the multiplex hologram made from the small Enterprise model composited with the space elements, the latter difficult to photograph. Note the thin vertical segments in the hologram.

According to Mr. Hess, there are a couple of caveats with respect to viewing the hologram today, and these limitations slightly impact how exactly the hologram matches the found film.

1. The hologram has some scratches in it due to handling and age.

2. It was originally presented to Mr. Hess as a flat photographic plate so he inserted it into a period correct holder. His is for a 360 degree cylindrical plate, but the intended geometry for the original, 120 degree Enterprise hologram, is unknown.

3. The original illumination of the hologram was via an Edison light bulb. Today, it’s lit with a modern semiconductor variety so it might introduce some distortion in the appearance of the hologram.

4. The hologram was originally rejected by The Multiplex Company, likely due to a printing error, so there’s some distortion in it around its middle.

NEW PHOTO BELOW

A comparison of the stars (circled) in the composited film, left, and the hologram, right. Due to the difficulty in photographing the hologram, the picture is somewhat distorted and not all the stars were able to be captured. Notwithstanding these issues, however, the six stars visible in the hologram photograph correlate with those in the composited film.

Despite these limitations, the hologram is eminently viewable and pretty neat. And, when viewing it in person, you can even see the stars if you look carefully,

NEW VIDEO BELOW

A video of the Enterprise hologram made in the Vintage Lasers and Holograms Museum. Museum. Keep in mind that the limitations discussed previously, i.e., items 1 through 4 above, and the difficulty of photographing a hologram, affect the quality of the presentation of this hologram.

— 30 —

About the Author

David Tilotta is a Star Trek fan and memorabilia collector and has co-written (along with his writing partner, Curt McAloney) 22 original series collecting and history articles for the official Star Trek webpage. He is also a co-author of the book, Star Trek: Lost Scenes (ISBN: 9781785653773, Titan Publishing, 2018, 270 pp.), with Curt McAloney. By day, he is a Professor Emeritus at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, NC.

He’s also a key member of our FACT TREK family. This is his first article for us.

Revision Notes

• October 16, 2024. Original version.

• November 2, 2024. Minor update to clarify a few points and to add new images and a video clip.

Acknowledgements

Any errors in this article are the author’s but he is indebted to the following for their assistance:

• Jerry Diaz

• Bob Hess

• Gary Kerr

• Michael Kmet

• Bill Kobylak

• Maurice Molyneaux

• Mike Okuda

• Mark Stevens

Resources

• “White Light Holograms,” Emmett N Leith, Scientific American, Vol. 235, No. 4 (Oct. 1976), pp. 80-95.

• The Multiplex Company Hologram Brochure (link)

• Sharon McCormack Collection and Archives (link)

• Burton Holmes, Extraordinary Traveler (link)

• Logan’s Run and How It Was Filmed, by ASC Staff, The American Cinematographer, April 17, 2020 (link)

• FACT TREK video interview with Richard Winn Taylor, August 25, 2024, conducted by Maurice Molyneaux

• FACT TREK interview with Andrew Probert, October 24, 2024, conducted by Maurice Molyneaux

Mad Magazine (or MAD) was infamous for its impudent take on… well, everything. It spoofed, satirized, and skewered politics, social issues, fads, celebrities, music, etc., plus movies and TV shows.

Trek Gone Mad

Star Trek got the MAD treatment midway through the airing of its second season as “Star Blecch.” (Interestingly, one joke in it prefigures by months Spock’s “ears” line in “The Trouble With Tribbles.”)

This is opinion, obviously, but its great Mort Drucker art was unable to elevate a tepid, toothless Dick DeBartolo script that didn’t grok the show well enough to definitively harpoon it. Ironically enough, the cover of that issue reads “We don’t try very hard!” which was certainly the case with Star Blecch.” End of opinion.

The “Star Blecch” issue showed up on the Star Trek set during location shooting for “A Private Little War" on October 2, 1967, and photos were taken of William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy reading it.[2]

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

Not to be outdone, Trek’s Desilu neighbor Mission: Impossible got in on the joke. Stars Martin Landau and Barbara Bain were photographed with the same issue,[3] and this was submitted to MAD along with a letter reputedly signed by them,[4] but this might have been the work of the publicity department. (Their show would get the MAD treatment as “Mission: Ridiculous” three issues later[5]).

Interestingly, around the same time the “Star Blecch” issue of MAD was on newsstands, the second-ever episode of The Carol Burnett Show on CBS did a Star Trek spoof titled “Star Trip,” but similarly didn’t really get what it was sending up, being a generic parody of 1950s sci-fi other than guest Sid Caesar’s enormous eared Mr. Spook and a throwaway line about logic. Given Trek wasn’t a hit, most of the audience probably wouldn’t have gotten the joke of a more targeted sendup.[6]

Video of the sketch.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

The Carol Burnett Show’s 1967 Star Trek spoof.[7]

Trektennial 1976

Most TV shows that were curs— er, blessed with a MAD satire received the treatment only once. That short-lived Star Trek got a second one seven years following its cancelation is a testament to just how successful it was in syndication, and how visible its growing fandom had become.

Thus it was that in the bicentennial year of 1976, MAD had another go at the Star Trek enterprise, and this time nailed it. Mort Drucker’s art accompanied Frank Jacobs’[8] sharp satire of not just the show’s characters and its format, but its syndication success, fandom, and the lucrative business of selling merch to Trekkies… And did so in the format of a musical titled “Keep on Trekin’.”

One reason this 1976 parody was so spot-on was because MAD reached out to the fandom itself via the Federation Trading Post in New York City. As Doug Drexler said in a 2006 interview:

Doug Drexler: Anytime anyone in big-time NY media did anything Star Trek, they came to our store first. Saturday Night Live, Mad Magazine[…][9]

We chatted with Mr. Drexler about MAD specifically, and he told us:

Doug Drexler: Ron Barlow used to work at The Monster Times. We managed the Federation Trading Post store together. MAD came to us for all the reference material. They knew about us because the store became famous. There was no place else to get the kind of stuff we could provide. Paramount sure wouldn't provide anything. I used to visit the MAD offices regularly.[10]

From our very first post, we’ve said that the series and the franchise that spawned from it are best understood when considered within the social and media landscapes in which they were birthed and lived.

For some context, the previous year of 1975 saw the end of the animated series and Paramount’s rejection of Roddenberry’s “Star Trek II” screenplay[11] (which fandom calls “The God Thing” because that was to be the title of a never-published novel based on that script). Around that time his assistant, Jon Povill, wrote a story outline concerning an ancient psychic cloud from Vulcan.[12]

And Bobby Pickett (famous for “The Monster Mash”) and Peter Ferrara recorded their novelty single “StarDrek” just in time to sell at the New York “Star Trek Lives!” convention the following February (as evidenced by the Tellurian Enterprises, Inc. text on the record label and sleeves.)[13]

Some of the humor in “StarDrek” is period-specific. Lt. Manura (whose single line refers to them having taken “a shellackin' out here!”) sounds like a takeoff of Flip Wilson’s character “Geraldine Jones.”[14] The elevator’s “I’m fine, how are you?” was a commonplace comeback to anyone who came on too strong.

In 1976 Povill and Roddenberry wrote two variations on a time travel story in which Kirk meets famous 20th-century figures, including JFK (no, no one shoots him, let alone Spock), all of which went nowhere.[15][16] On May 29th the variety show NBC's Saturday Night (later retitled Saturday Night Live) aired its sketch "The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise" with John Belushi as Captain Kirk.[17] (The makers of that sketch also reached out to The Federation Trading Post, even reportedly purchasing the tunics worn by the cast.[18][19])

On the fiction publishing side, 1976 saw the publication of The New Voyages (short story collection), Spock, Messiah! (novel), and three entries in the Star Trek Log series: Six, Seven, and Eight (novelizations of the animated show). On the reference side, the Ballantine edition of the Star Trek Concordance was published that year.

And in comics, the Gold Key series, which began in 1967, was still going strong.

In toys, MEGO had been beaming up dollars since 1974, and virtually all but three of their original series products had been released.[20] In 1976, AMT released its K-7 Space Station, its ninth Star Trek model kit.[21]

And not long after MAD mascot Alfred E. Neuman appeared in Vulcan guise and redshirt on newsstands (around August 1976), Chris Bryant and Allan Scott’s October “STAR TREK” story treatment[22] (what fandom calls “Planet of the Titans”) was approved to go to script.

Such was the state of Star Trek in media and the marketplace in America’s bicentennial year.

About That Crumby Title…

The title “Keep On Trekin’” was a play on the “Keep on Truckin’” phrase, which had permeated the mainstream by way of the underground… Underground “comix” that is.

In his 1968 Zap Comix #1 cartoonist Robert Crumb included a single-page strip with that title.[23] The phrase and the primary image at the top of that strip gained immense popularity and were reproduced and endlessly riffed on in various forms of media and merchandise from the end of the 1960s and well into the mid-late 70s. “Keep on Truckin’” appeared on posters, patches, T-shirts, mugs, pins, and many other items. Crumb never authorized any of this, sued over it, and grew to detest it, even drawing a satire of it in his 1972 XYZ Comics.[24]

View fullsize

View fullsize

Crumb’s strip popularized the phrase but didn’t invent it. His love of vernacular music likely exposed him to the phrase, which may have originated from a lyric from the song “Truckin' My Blues Away” recorded by Blind Boy Fuller in 1936, where “truckin’” served as a euphemistic bit of hokum blues slang for a different word ending in “uckin’.”

The 70s trucking craze embraced the catchphrase and further drove it into the ground via oversaturation.

So omnipresent was this catchphrase that in 1973 the genre newspaper The Monster Times printed a poster of a Trek-ed up version of Crumb’s original with the title “Keep on Trekin’…”[25]

Given all that, what else was MAD going to title their send-up?

Spock ‘N Roll Dept.

MAD had sent up music and musicals for years prior.[26] “The Mad ‘Comic” Opera” was printed as far back as 1960.[27]

1963’s ”East Side Story” took the premise of West Side Story and used the songs to spoof the United Nations.[28] And 1967’s “Stokely and Tess” adapted the music from the even-then-vintage opera Porgy and Bess and applied it to the state of Black America and the civil rights movement.[29]

Movies became prime targets for such “musical” spoofage. “On a Clear Day You Can See a Funny Girl Singing ‘Hello Dolly’ Forever” was published in 1971,[30] and “What’s Entertainment” in 1975.[31] Later would come “The Force and I" in 1978.[32]

But it appears Star Trek was the only TV series to ever be given the MAD musical treatment.

Being in a print magazine these “musicals” were by necessity silent. The writers would pen parody lyrics to popular songs most of their readers would be familiar with, and call out those songs in the text as “Sung to the tune of.” You’d sing it in your head, so to speak.

What’s “fascinating” about the tunes chosen for the parody was that none of them were current in 1976. All but one predated the series or came out while it was on the air. So, intentional or not, nine of the ten songs are contemporary to the show.

Below we’re going to share the comic, but we can do something that MAD couldn’t during the Ford administration: provide links to the songs being parodied. So if you’re too young for these tunes to be familiar, you’ll be able to put the words to the music. We also cut the pages up a bit to keep songs together.

Without further ado, let’s raise the curtain on MAD’s “Keep On Trekin’.”

click/tap images to enlarge

“SEND IN THE CLOWNS” (1973)

This song is from 5 years after the original series ended, and the same year that the Filmation animated Star Trek debuted.

The song isn’t actually about clowns. Songwriter Stephen Sondheim once said of it:

In one sense, that’s what this comic is doing: sending in the clowns.

“I’ll Never Fall in Love Again” came from the 1968 musical Promises, Promises, and was popularized by Dionne Warwick.

“Aquarius” originated in the controversial 1967 musical Hair, and that’s the recording we’re linking to. Most people know it from its memorable cover by The 5th Dimension in a 1969 medley with “Let the Sunshine In,” also from Hair. (The lyrics start at 42 seconds in.)

MAD’s parody of “Aquarius” is brilliant; likely informed by Drexler and Barlow, who knew fans had been calling out the plot armor and redshirt phenomena long before either term was invented. This illustrates just how little fandom has changed in the past half-century.

“The Sound of Silence” hit No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 eight months before Star Trek’s TV debut. The following year it featured in the film The Graduate and its soundtrack album.

Many younger people will know it from the late 2015 cover by American heavy metal band Disturbed.

The drawing of McCoy at the center of the page is the most perfect cartoon of DeForest Kelley we’ve ever seen.

Glen Campbell’s 1967 cover of “Gentle On My Mind” popularized John Hartford’s song, and got onto the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 twice. In 1968 it won four Grammy awards. Within a year ≈50 other artists had covered the song. There’s little question most MAD readers would recognize it.

1966’s Cabaret first hit Broadway in the week between Trek’s “The Menagerie” part one and part two, but its title song hit the U.S. Billboard Top 40 Easy Listening chart in October, where it remained for 13 weeks.[34]

The 1972 film adaptation likely reinforced the song in the public consciousness.

1965’s “Yesterday” by the Beatles has been frequently listed as the most covered song of all time.[35] While we can’t speak to the accuracy of that, the song is certainly ubiquitous, and almost unavoidable. The lyrics here are to the first two verses.

Bob Dylan’s “Blowing In the Wind” (1963) was coved by folk trio Peter, Paul and Mary in June 1963. On August 17, 1963, it reached number two on the Billboard pop chart, with sales exceeding one million copies, and made the song world-famous.

​1965’s “​Call Me” by Petula Clark pre-dates Trek’s network run and shouldn’t be confused with New Wave band Blondie’s song of the same name, released almost five years after this MAD musical.

Bobby Hebb’s 1966 single “Sunny” was the tune selected to close “Keep on Trekin’.” The replacement lyrics are illustrative of the public perception of Hollywood. Surely the makers and cast of Star Trek were raking it in from the endless reruns and merchandising. Right?

The reality was something different.

The actors were only paid for the first five reruns,[36] and they weren’t compensated for the use of their likenesses in advertising and merchandising (which was a sticking point to getting Nimoy to return for The Motion Picture). At best, they made some cash through public appearances at the booming biz of Star Trek conventions.

Even those with contracted profit participation — William Shatner, Gene Roddenberry, and NBC itself — wouldn’t see a penny for another decade due to “Hollywood Accounting” practices..

So outside of Paramount and its licensors, it wasn’t “Sunny” where Star Trek money was concerned.

That’s what you might call MAD-ness.

—30—

FACT TREK NOTE: COVER DATES

If it seems strange for the December issue of MAD to be on-set in early October, that’s because the magazine would go on sale 7 to 9 weeks before the month listed on the cover. It was published eight times a year. See this image from the "Star Blecch" issue.[37]

Cover dates on many publications frequently misalign with when they are on newsstands. They often reflect the so-called “off-sale date.” As the Longman Business Dictionary puts it:

the date when a business selling newspapers and magazines calculates the amount sold and reports this to the wholesaler[38]

As such, the off-sale date may mean the date by which retailers are to pull the publication from the rack, something like the Sell By or Use By dates on groceries. This future dating may also be artifice, to make the material in the publication feel early or urgent, hence the Sunday edition of many newspapers being available the day beforehand.[39][40] After all, you want Christmas advertising in the issue on shelves the month prior, hence the December issue on stands in November.

Revision History

• 2023–10-15 Original post.

• 2025–03-09 Updated formatting. Added information and video about The Carol Burnett Show spoof. Fixed minor typos.

See Also

• 'Star Trek' Says Goodbye and Thank You to MAD Magazine, Startrek.com, July 14, 2019

Acknowledgments

• Thanks to Doug Drexler for dropping some great historical nuggets on this topic. You’re a mensch.

• Special thanks to Doug Gilford and his 26-year-old MAD Cover site, which was an invaluable resource in helping us research the history of MAD musicals. (link)

• Great thanks to Fact Trek Associate David Tilotta for his always-helpful input and for helping us pin down the date on which the photos of Shatner and Nimoy with Mad Magazine were taken.

End Notes & Sources

[1] “Star Blecch,” Mad Magazine #115, December 1967, p4. (link)

[2] David Tilotta pinned down the date of the Shatner–Nimoy photos using production documents and photos. He wrote:

According to the call sheet, Oct 2, 1967. I can be specific because of the costumes on Shatner and Nimoy (and Shatner's Clark Kent lock) and how they compare to the MAD mag photo. And, although I don't have any specific slates from the teaser, I have slates from other shots on that date that show that they were on schedule, at least until the end of that day.

[3] Photo source for Martin Landau and Barbara Bain: SAY CHEESE! 13 Times Celebrities Were Photographed Reading Comics, Dan Greenfield, 13thdimension.com, Jun 26, 2022 (link)

[4] Letter from Martin Landau and Barbara Bain, Mad Magazine #118, April 1968, p2. (link).

[5] “Mission: Ridiculous,” Mad Magazine #118, April 1968, p. 27. (link)

[6] “Star Trip” sketch, The Carol Burnett Show, S1, E2, September 18, 1967. IMDb entry (link).

[7] Video: SP15- The Carol Burnett Show Star Trek Parodies (With a HARD to FIND, Rarely Seen Sketch!), by Triangulum Music Studios (link to channel) on YouTube, from 8:50 to 17:22. (link to video)

[8] Mad Magazine Contributors: Frank Jacobs, Doug Gilford’s MAD Cover site. (link)

[9] Doug Drexler Interview, Trekplace, 2006. (link)

[10] Doug Drexler, via private correspondence with FACT TREK, Oct. 16, 2023.

[11] Screenplay STAR TREK II, by Gene Roddenberry, June 30, 1975, with pages 1 –86 revised by July 11, 1975.

[12] Story Proposal For STAR TREK II, by John Povill, August 28, 1975.

[13] Tidbits and Anecdotes, Star Trek Lives! (convention)/1976, Program Book. The program book refers to the governing body as “Tellurian Enterprises, Inc.”, which is the same name on the “StarDrek” records sold at the con. (link) (link) Later editions of the single would be released on the Pizzaria Records label. (link)

[14] Flip Wilson: The Persistence of Geraldine Jones, by Robert Lloyd, Los Angeles Times, May 5, 2013. (link)

[15] Motion Picture Proposal for STAR TREK II, by John Povill and Gene Roddenberry, Jan 9, 1976.

[16] Story Treatment for STAR TREK II, by John Povill and Gene Roddenberry, July 22, 1976.

[17] Video: “The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise,” NBC’s Saturday Night. Aired May 29th, 1976 on the NBC television network. (link)

[18] Doug Drexler, FACT TREK, ibid.

[19] Doug Drexler quoted in The Fifty Year Mission: The Complete, Uncensored, Unauthorized Oral History by Edward Gross and Mark A. Altman, 2016, p. 254.

[20] Mego Star Trek 1974-1977, The Toy Collectors Guide. (link)

[21] Star Trek model kits; Licensed model kit release chronology, Memory Alpha. (link)

[22] First Draft Story, STAR TREK, October 1976, By Allan Scott and Chris Bryant.

[23] “Keep on Truckin’”, Robert Crumb, ZAP Comix #1, published by Apex Novelty/Print Mint, 1968.

[24] “Remember Keep on Truckin’?” Robert Crumb, XYZ Comics, published by Kitchen Sink Enterprises, 1972.

[25] “Keep on Trekin’...” poster, The Monster Times, Vol. 1 #20, cover and p16–17. (link)

[26] “Sung To The Tune Of...” (A list of songs parodied over the years within Mad Magazine articles), Doug Gilford’s thorough MAD Cover site. (link)

[27] “The Mad ‘Comic’ Opera,'“ Mad Magazine #56, July 1960, p25-30, Written by Frank Jacobs, art by Wally Wood. (Link to comic on DR HERMES REVIEWS, on Live Journal, October 29th, 201 ; link to comic excerpts on Tom Richmond’s Inside MAD Inside Stuff! page; link to comic on Internet Archive (some song titles obscured at page bottoms)).

[28] “East Side Story,” Mad Magazine #78, April 1963, p.4. (link)

[29] On a Clear Day You Can See a Funny Girl Singing ‘Hello Dolly’ Forever, MAD Magazine #143, June 1971, p4. (link)

[30] “Stokely and Tess,” MAD Magazine #111, June 1967, p.4. (link)

[31] “What’s Entertainment?,” MAD Magazine #175, June 1975, p.4. (link)

[32] “The Force and I,” MAD Magazine #203, December 1978. p.4. (link)

[33] Stephen Sondheim on "Send in the Clowns." Interview 5:38. (link)

[34] #Billboard Billboard magazine, October 1 — December 24, 1966.

[35] Beatles “Yesterday,” The Beatles Official Website. (link)

[36] Star Trek First Production Year Pay Rates document, UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek Television Series Collection, 1966–1969. May 31, 1966.

[37] Mad Magazine #115, p1. (link)

[38] Off-sales date Longman Business Dictionary, Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English Online (link)

[39] “Why are magazines dated ahead of the time they actually appear?” Straight Dope, Cecil Adams, June 21, 1990. (link)

[40] Off-Sale Date definition, Law Insider. (link)

NBC shattered all television precedent and asked for a second pilot. This caused quite a stir within the industry, because up until that time no network had ever asked for a second pilot. [1]

To be fair to Whitfield (the nom de plume of Stephen Edward Poe, who shared credit with Gene Roddenberry, but wrote most of the book himself), he wasn't claiming that a second television pilot had never been produced for the same property before — only that, prior to Star Trek, no television network had ever asked for a second pilot episode after rejecting the first one.

We’ve previously covered the historicity of this claim (see The Off-Center Seat), but not in any sort of detail.

Let’s remedy that.

The Making of Star Trek Mythos

In the years since Whitfield's book was first published, the record-setting mythology about Star Trek's second pilot episode has only grown. By the time The Making of Star Trek—The Motion Picture (1980) was published, Star Trek's second pilot episode had become “unprecedented” in and of itself:

It was rejected by all three networks. Later, an unprecedented second pilot was ordered (“Where No Man Has Gone Before”), and NBC added Star Trek to its fall lineup for 1966.[2]

(Many other examples of this sort of claim can be found in an appendix at the end of this piece.)

Like any oft-repeated contention about Star Trek breaking television precedent, we have to ask the question — is it true? Is any of it true? Did “Where No Man Has Gone Before” truly mark the first time a prospective series had a second pilot episode? Was NBC really the first television network to order a second pilot after rejecting the first one? Did the move actually cause "quite a stir within the industry," as first claimed in The Making of Star Trek?

Contemporary accounts in newspapers and trade magazines are helpful in answering these questions. Consider the following, from the Los Angeles Times:

Desilu is reshooting two pilot films. Star Trek, which reportedly cost $500,000 the first time around, is being filmed again without Jeffrey Hunter. The Good Old Days is undergoing script and premise revisions and will be shot a second time with another actor replacing Darryl Hickman.[3]

The passage above was not the lead in the newspaper's regular "Inside TV" column — that was dedicated to announcing the series that would become Green Acres (1965-71). The news about Star Trek's second pilot was buried in the column's fourth paragraph and, notably, was announced alongside the news that another Desilu program for NBC was also receiving a second pilot and recasting its lead.

Nine days later, Weekly Variety covered the same story in a little more detail:

Two Desilu pilots shot for next season, but not sold, may yet be aired. 

NBC-TV has okayed production of a second seg of "Star Trek," hour-long sci-fi series, and William Shatner will replace Jeffrey Hunter as the lead in this projected series. Web has also okayed three more scripts, and is interested in "Trek" for a mid-season or 1966-67 start. Second seg rolls around July 5, with Gene Roddenberry, who produced the first one, producing it. 

Second Desilu pilot involved is "The Good Old Days," half-hour comedy starring Darryl Hickman. NBC-TV, for which it was made, and Desilu execs are talking of the possibility of reshooting this pilot, and there may be a change in its cast if this is done.[4] 

Buried on the bottom of page 167, the news about Star Trek wasn't treated as a prominent story by Weekly Variety, either. And, once again, it was covered alongside the news that another Desilu series for NBC was being slated for a second pilot. In light of this information, the claim that “Where No Man Has Gone Before“ was causing "quite a stir within the [entertainment] industry" seems dubious at best.

Having established these facts, however, we could find no evidence in the Hollywood trades that a second pilot was actually produced for The Good Old Days, a proposed half-hour sitcom "about a caveman who goes searching for adventure." Does that mean “Where No Man Has Gone Before” really was the first time a second pilot was produced for a single series — or, at least, the first time the same network ordered a second pilot after rejecting the first one?

Strike One, Pilot Two

The answer is a resounding no — not even close. What follows is a chronological list of ten pilot episodes that were rejected, but followed by a second pilot episode. Not all of these second pilots became series (such is the nature of television pilots, most don't sell), but all of them were produced before Gene Roddenberry began developing Star Trek at Desilu.

This list should not be viewed as comprehensive or exhaustive. If there are other programs with second (or even third) pilot episodes that do not appear here — especially if they were produced before 1965 — we’d love to hear about them.

Lum and Abner (Pilots: 1948, 1949, 1951, 1956)

The earliest program we’ve found with a second pilot is, so far, the pilot king of this list. Lum and Abner was a successful and long-running (1931-1954) radio comedy program on CBS, which had been adapted for a series of six feature films (1940-1946) before it was piloted four times in eight years…and the fourth attempt yielded three episodes!

The first Lum and Abner TV pilot was filmed for CBS in 1948 and tried to emulate the daily fifteen-minute format of the radio show...CBS president William S. Paley supposedly like it but felt that the market for fifteen-minute television programs was rapidly going to disappear. He commissioned a second pilot, which was filmed during the summer of 1949.[5]

The first Lum and Abner pilot is not available, but the second pilot can be seen online. Surprisingly, after rejecting the second, half-hour pilot late in 1949, CBS decided to try again and made a third television pilot about a year later:

A third Lum and Abner pilot actually made it onto CBS' airwaves in February 1951...Although the pilot received favorable reviews after its airing, it still did not lead to a series.[6]

A few years later, the fourth attempt to launch a Lum and Abner television series resulted in three half-hour episodes filmed in late 1954 and early 1955, but these trio of segments for a proposed series were never broadcast. Instead, they were hastily spliced together into the ersatz theatrical feature Lum and Abner Abroad (1956), which was released theatrically to poor reviews.

Fibber McGee and Molly (Pilots: 1954 and 1959)

Like Lum and Abner, Fibber McGee and Molly was an attempt to bring a successful radio program to television, having been broadcast on NBC radio from 1935 until 1959. The network twice attempted to develop the property for television. Their first effort was a half-hour pilot produced in early 1954:

NBC signed Frank Tashlin to produce and direct a pair of pilot telefilms for the "Fibber McGee and Molly" and "Great Gildersleeve" shows which the network owns. He reports next week and expects to finish the assignment by the end of February.[7]

Variety reported that sponsors were bidding on the pilot in May of 1954, but a series failed to materialize. Two years later, Weekly Variety reported that a second pilot was in the works:

Jim and Marion Jordan are once again interested in a television version of "Fibber & Molly" and a second pilot may be coming along soon...[8]

Interest, apparently, took a while to develop into action, but three years later the second pilot was finally ready to go before the cameras:

As a video entry, F & M will have Bob Sweeney and Cathy Lewis playing the lead roles. Pilot is being shot this month in Hollywood with Bill Lawrence as producer.[9]

The second attempt to bring Fibber McGee and Molly to television was only a little more successful than the first. Although it became a weekly series produced by William Asher for NBC, it only lasted twelve episodes before being canceled.

The Great Gildersleeve (Pilots: 1954, 1955)

The Great Gildersleeve was another attempt to bring a successful radio program to television. In fact, the character was spun off from the Fibber McGee and Molly radio show in 1941 and remained on the radio til 1958. After showing their first TV pilot episode in 1954, NBC announced they were commissioning a second pilot:

Apparently dissatisfied with audience reaction to its "Great Gildersleeve" pilot film, NBC yesterday announced that it has signed producer Robert S. Finkel to film a new pilot for the long-time radio program.

"Gildersleeve was previewed twice on the net this fall in order to gauge viewer response. The second pilot film, also starring Willard Waterman, will first be aired on January 6.[10]

The Great Gildersleeve's second pilot led to a weekly series, but it struggled to replicate the success of the radio show and was finally canceled after one season of 40 episodes.

“You know, you sound just like that guy on the radio: The Great Gildersneeze.”

Have Camera, Will Travel (Pilots: 1955 and 1956)

Have Camera, Will Travel never became a series, but not before going through two pilot films produced by Hal Roach Studios for NBC. In June of 1955, the first pilot was filmed:

Paul Gilbert pilot, to be filmed by NBC-TV, has been set to roll at Hal Roach Studios on June 6. Program, to deal with the adventures of a pair of photographers, has been titled, "Have Camera, Will Travel."[11]

NBC rejected this pilot, but ordered a second one:

A second pilot of the Paul Gilbert starrer, "Have Camera, Will Travel," will be shot from a new script, the thinking being that the concept is a sound one but that the first half-hour, lensed at Hal Roach Studios last spring, was mis-written and miscast.[12]

The second pilot (which costarred future Desilu Mannix star Mike “Touch” Conners, and guest starred a young Charles Bronson) was filmed in February of 1956. Daily Variety reported that this pilot was screened for NBC executives in April of 1956 along with four other potential shows.[13] That screening must have been unsuccessful; afterward, we can find no mention of the pilot or the proposed series in any of the Hollywood trade papers.

Double Indemnity (Pilots: Unknown and 1963)

We have been unable to find detailed information about the first of these two pilots, but a Weekly Variety story from late 1965 mentions that neither resulted in a series:

U TV has ventured into other Par pix as potential series, but not always with success. It made a pilot based on "Double Indemnity," the Par hit of yesteryear, but it didn't sell. A second pilot of the same property was made last season as a spinoff, but it didn't make the grade either.[14]

The spin-off mentioned above was an episode of Kraft Mystery Theater (1947-58), an anthology program that often broadcast potential pilots. Entitled 'Shadow of a Man,' and first aired on June 19, 1963, the pilot was a very loose adaptation of Double Indemnity with Broderick Crawford and Jack Kelly in the roles originated by Edward G. Robinson and Fred MacMurray in Billy Wilder's 1944 film version. This pilot can be viewed in full on YouTube here.

Tombstone Territory (Pilots: Both 1957)

From 1948 until 1960, Ziv Televisions Program, Inc. was a major supplier of syndicated television, sold directly to local television stations to fill out their schedules. Ziv also employed Gene Roddenberry early in his career, hiring him to write scripts for series including Mr. District Attorney, I Led Three Lives, Highway Patrol, Dr. Christian, Harbor Command, and West Point.

Beginning in 1956, Ziv also began selling programming directly to the networks, which was the case with Tombstone Territory, a half-hour western that began its life as a pilot called Tombstone in 1957:

Ziv TV today rolls pilot for a new western vidpix series, “Tombstone.” Jan Merlin co-stars with Richard Eastham and Norman Foster directs.[15]

Daily Variety later reported that the series had been sold to a sponsor, re-titled Gunfire Pass, and was set to appear on ABC:

“Gunfire Pass,” oater [Western] series starring Richard Eastham, has been sold by Ziv TV to Bristol-Myers, and will be seen on ABC-TV next season....Pat Conway has a featured lead in “Gunfire” series, which will be based on stories of Tombstone, Ariz., produced by Frank Pittman and Andy White. The 89 episodes go into production around the first of June.[16]

Although the sponsor (Bristol-Myers) was satisfied with this pilot, apparently ABC had second thoughts, forcing Ziv to produce a second pilot with significant revisions:

Following reshooting and recasting of a pilot nixed by ABC-TV, Ziv TV's second pilot, called "Tombstone Territory," has been okayed by the network and will be seen on ABC next season, with Bristol-Myers sponsoring.

Ziv had originally lensed a pilot called "Town at Gunfire Pass," which BM bought, but ABC termed "unacceptable." As as result, pilot was recast, with Pat Conway, who was second lead in the first pilot, upped to top lead, and the second pilot proved acceptable both to the sponsor and the network. Pilot was directed by Eddie Davis.

Conway plays role of a sheriff of Tombstone, while the crusading editor of the Tombstone Epitaph - originally the lead character - is now relegated to a secondary role. Series will be on Wednesday nights following "Disneyland."[17]

Tombstone Territory's second pilot was enough to convince ABC to go forward with the series, which premiered with its second pilot episode on October 16, 1957. ABC eventually broadcast the first pilot (with a new title, “Guilt of a Town”) on March 19, 1958. Tombstone Territory lasted for three seasons and a total of 91 episodes.

Collector's Item (Pilots: Both 1957)

The earliest mention of this Vincent Price-Peter Lorre television vehicle we've found is a casting item that appeared in an early 1957 issue of Daily Variety, indicating that the pilot would begin filming on January 29, 1957:

Jockey Billy Pearson has been cast by producer Julian Claman in pilot of "Collector's Item," new telepix series 20th-Fox rolls tomorrow for CBS. Vincent Price, who appeared with Pearson on "$64,000 Challenge" stars in series, as does Peter Lorre.[18]

Variety followed this story a few weeks later with more detail on the prospective program:

An adventure-comedy series co-starring Vincent Price and Peter Lorre called "Collector's Item." This is a wholly-owned CBS property created by west coast program exec Hunt Stromberg Jr., the idea stemming from the audience excitement generated by Price's recent participation in "$64,000 Challenge" with Edward G. Robinson. However, this one's not a quiz show; strictly comedy with adventure overtones in which Price portrays the owner of a N.Y. art gallery with Lorre as a phony art dealer who goes to work for Price. Web's hopes are particularly high on this one.[19]

A few weeks later, according to a story in the March 16, 1957 issue of The Billboard, Collector’s Item was ready to be shown to advertising agencies in New York, in search of a potential sponsor. CBS was apparently unsuccessful. However, not ready to abandon the project, CBS hired a new writing team to script a second pilot:

Gwen Bagni and Irwin Gielgud have  been  signed  by CBS-TV  to teleplay pilot of a new vidpix series, "Collector's   Item," which will  star Vincent Price and Peter Lorre.[20]

Bagni and Gielgud did not work out, leading CBS to go with Herb Meadow instead:

CBS-TV has signed Herb Meadow to a five-year pact as producer-writer and assigned him to produce its new series, "Collector's Item," starring Vincent Price and Peter Lorre. Meadow scripted pilot, which rolls soon. First pilot of series, made long ago, was junked.[21]

By the end of the year, the second pilot was completed (it can be viewed in three parts here, here, and here), and CBS again went looking for a sponsor for the show:

Collector's Item—Remake of last season's pilot, starring Vincent Price as an art collector who becomes embroiled in crime and mystery.[22]

Once again, the network came up empty, and the second pilot ended up on the shelf. Interestingly enough, however, this was not the last time the series would be mentioned in the Hollywood trades. About eight months later, Weekly Variety reported that CBS still thought the core idea of Collector's Item had potential, and was considering filming new episodes:

The question of what to do with shelved pilots again was being bandied around, but this time with a new twist.

If the basic idea is good, why give up the ghost if the execution didn't come off well?...

CBS along with its syndication subsid, is pruning all of the unsold pilots, discarding those which it feels don't have a good basic idea. But those such as "The City" and "Collector's Item," dealing with fraudulent art practices and starring Vincent Price, are being revived. New episodes may be shot on the latter. Reason for the approach is that what are considered basic good ideas for a series aren't too plentiful. Advertisers and agency execs will be urged to give the second tries a fresh look. Plan will be abandoned if the new pilot is met with that "I've seen that one before" comment, when screened along Madison Ave.[23] 

There are a few more references to the potential series in late 1958, which indicate that CBS considered producing the series for syndication with a different lead, but it appears nothing came of it. As far as we can tell, neither pilot was ever broadcast.

Tarzan (Pilots: 1957 and 1958)

Edgar Rice Burroughs' Tarzan stories have been filmed on many occasions. Relevant to Star Trek is the 1966-68 television series, which featured Nichelle Nichols in two episodes and served as Star Trek's second season lead-in on NBC (to disastrous results; Tarzan went from being a top thirty show in the 1966-67 broadcast season to a canceled flop in 1967-68).

Prior to both those versions, however, producer Sol Lesser twice attempted to bring the character to the small screen with veteran Tarzan actor Gordon Scott. The first attempt was made for NBC in early 1957:

Deal has been finalized for NBC to be partnered with Sol Lesser in his "Tarzan" theatrical films under an agreement concluded with Alan Livingston, the net's program vee-pee in Hollywood. Included in the joint control is "Tarzan and Lost Safari," now being released by Metro, and the library of animal and native tribe footage shot in Africa. Lesser will produce the half-hour "Tarzan" telepix series for NBC, with Laslo Benedek directing the first episode. Lisa Davis has femme lead opposite Gordon Scott.[24]

Ultimately, NBC passed on the project, but Lesser was undeterred:

With a Tarzan theatrical film now before the cameras, Sol Lesser has reactivated his plans to shoot a vidpix series based on the character created by Edgar Rice Burroughs.
 
 Previously, Lesser filmed a pilot with Gordon Scott and Lisa Davis co-starred but objections and a legal hassle with Commodore Productions at that time curtailed continuation of the "Tarzan" telefilms. Now, however, Lesser is resuming shooting on the "Tarzan" telepix and has already completed filming a second pilot film at Desilu-Culver.

Eve Brent, femme lead of the theatrical version, co-stars with Scott in the televersion. Rickie Sorensen, also in the theatrical film, will recreate his "boy" role in the series.

Pilot, it's understood, is entitled "Tarzan and the Trappers." Latter pic is now in the editing stages and will be available for agency screening shortly.[25]

Unfortunately for Lesser, Tarzan and the Trappers did not sell. Following a shake-up in leadership at Lesser's company, it was decided to forgo television exploitation of Tarzan altogether:

Lesser had completed a pilot film for the possible introduction of Tarzan as a telepix series. However, after analyzing the costs and market potential, it was considered "complete insanity," according to Howard, to go into TV. Howard's point being that it would be suicide to destroy a property which has grossed some $ 200,000,000 in 40 years. Since 1918, there have been 32 Tarzan films and, according to Howard, there has never been a loss on a Tarzan film. He said the smallest profit has been $ 500,000.[26]

Tarzan and the Trappers was Sol Lesser's final producing credit. The television pilot was re-edited and sold to television as a “movie,” first airing on a Fort Myers, Florida affiliate on Saturday, December 4, 1965, and repeatedly seen on television thereafter.

I Remember Caviar (Pilot: 1959) and All in the Family (Pilot: 1960)

I Remember Caviar was a thirty minute sitcom pilot that starred Pat Crowley (later to star in Please Don’t Eat the Daisies), about a wealthy family forced into poverty—a premise vaguely like Schitt's Creek (2015–2020). It was produced by Screen Gems for NBC, but was not picked up.

However, NBC and Screen Gems decided to try again, shooting a second pilot called All in the Family (not to be confused with the Norman Lear show that would be produced a decade later — after three different pilot episodes, incidentally), again with Pat Crowley in the lead, and with Adam West, years before Batman (1966–1968):

Stars of one of last year's unsold Screen Gems pilots, "I Remember Caviar," reportedly are being recalled to the studio... Although sources at the Columbia vidsubsid will admit only that there is discussion of doing a second pilot of the vehicle, Pat Crowley, who starred in the original, has been paged for the return chore.[27]

Unlike Star Trek, after giving the Pat Crowley-starring series a second chance, NBC passed on the prospective series. Both pilots ended up being broadcast as installments of Alcoa-Goodyear Theater (a popular graveyard for failed pilots, including the Gene Roddenberry scripted 333 Montgomery, which starred DeForest Kelley), one in 1959 and one in 1960.

Head of the Family (Pilot: 1958) and The Dick Van Dyke Show (Pilot: 1961)

When Carl Reiner first developed a half-hour sitcom about a television writer and his family, he intended to star in the show himself. Indeed, Reiner starred in a pilot that he wrote, called "Head of the Family," in 1958. Ultimately, however, this pilot did not sell, and it ended up being broadcast on CBS during the summer of 1960:

CBS-TV will inject a dubious element of freshness info three of its summer time slots with series consisting entirely of unsold pilots. Two of them will be devoted fully to comedy pilots-the "Hennessey" replacement Monday at 10 and the Red Skelton slot Tuesday at 9: 30. Third show will consist of dramatic pilots mostly CBS' own, on Fridays at 9...

Comedy lineup includes Carl Reiner in "Head of the Family," which he scripted and starred in and was produced by Peter Lawford...[28]

Later, with producer Sheldon Leonard, Reiner re-conceived the material for actor Dick Van Dyke. A new pilot episode, "The Sick Boy and the Sitter," was filmed on January 20, 1961. This incarnation picked up a committed sponsor, Proctor & Gamble, and the series (now called The Dick Van Dyke Show) debuted on CBS on October 3, 1961. It lasted for five seasons and 158 episodes.

The Second Time Around

Ultimately, what can be said about “Where No Man Has Gone Before” as a second pilot is that it was unusual in 1965 — but not unprecedented. In the early history of television, when a pilot did not sell, that was most often the end of it. Cast contracts certainly had no contingency in them for second pilot episodes. Most typically, actors were signed for a pilot episode, and the studio had a limited option to continue their services — if a weekly series materialized within a set time frame. Such was the case with Star Trek, which is why Jeffrey Hunter could walk away without repercussions when he declined to do the second pilot.

It wasn’t even the first time NBC requested a second pilot, as demonstrated by Fibber McGee and Molly, Have Camera, Will Travel, The Great Gildersleeve, Tarzan, and I Remember Caviar, despite what Dorothy Fontana wrote later.[29]

In a few cases, however, one or more of the entities involved (be they the studio, the network, or the sponsor) liked a pilot enough to produce a second or even a third version of the concept. As we’ve outlined, this happened at least ten times prior to Star Trek.

Myth = Busted

—30—

Appendix: The Unprecedented Pilot—The Many Different Versions

Although it appears the above-cited example of The Making of Star Trek—The Motion Picture (1980) may be the first time that Star Trek getting a second pilot episode was characterized as "unprecedented," it was hardly the last. Below are a few of many, many examples printed over the past 42 years:

After spending approximately $630,000 on one pilot film, the network felt that there was enough quality present in the episode for the series to deserve a second chance. For the first time in television history, a second pilot was commissioned, but some changes were to be made.

—Allan Asherman, The Star Trek Compendium (first edition, 1981), p.41

The pilot was submitted to NBC in February, 1965. They rejected it. But the project wasn't canned; NBC still saw promise in the series and authorized an unprecedented second pilot—including an almost entirely new cast. 

—Author Unknown, Uncle John's Bathroom Reader (1988), p.86

However, instead of dumping the project, NBC did the unprecedented, giving Gene the go-ahead to film a second pilot that they hoped would be more appealing to the network’s sensibilities. 

—William Shatner with Chris Kreski, Star Trek Memories (1993), p.66

However, the executives were impressed enough by Roddenberry's efforts to make an unprecedented request for a second pilot, a more adventurous story by Samuel A. Peeples called "Where No Man Has Gone Before." 

—Jeff Bond, The Music of Star Trek: Profiles in Style (1999), p.14

NBC then made the unprecedented decision of asking Roddenberry to shoot a second pilot, but with changes... 

—David J. Shayler and Ian Moule, Women in Space: Following Valentina (2005), p.146

But NBC executives were impressed enough with "The Cage," Star Trek's rejected original telefilm, that they took the unprecedented step of ordering a second pilot rather than abandoning the concept. 

—Mark Clark, Star Trek FAQ: Everything Left to Know About the First Voyages of the Starship Enterprise (2012), p.71

Revision History

• 2016-04-05 An earlier version of this story was originally published as “Second Pilot Episodes Before Star Trek?” by Michael Kmet for the Star Trek Fact Check blog (link).

• 2023—08-06 Published this updated version of that piece with additional information and some new photos…plus Bugs Bunny for the win.

See Also

Our Where Some Pilots Had Gone Before playlist can be viewed below. It includes some first and second pilots for series that had more than one.

Revision History

• August 6, 223. Original post.

• January 29 2025. Added clarification and a citation to correct Fontana’s inaccurate statement that NBC itself had not previously ordered a second pilot. It had.

Acknowledgments

• Special thanks to Neil B. for offering many corrections and suggestions after reading an early version of this post. Any errors that remain are entirely our own.

• Images from “Where No Man Has Gone Before“ courtesy of Trek Core.

End Notes & Sources

Appendix items include their citations in-line.

• [1] The Making of Star Trek (Stephen Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry, 1968), p126

• [2] Susan Sackett and Gene Roddenberry, The Making of Star Trek—The Motion Picture (1980), p9

• [3] Inside TV: Eddie Albert to Play Rural Lawyer, Los Angeles Times (May 3, 1965), p.D28

• [4] 'Definite Maybe' for 2 Unsold Desilu Pilots, Weekly Variety (May 12, 1965), p.167

• [5] Tim Hollis, Ain't That a Knee-Slapper: Rural Comedy in the Twentieth Century (2008), p.148-149

• Hollis, p.149–150

• [7] NBC Sets Tashlin To Guide Telepix On 'Fibber' & 'Gildersleeve, Weekly Variety (January 13, 1954) p.26

• [8] From the Production Centres, Weekly Variety (March 21, 1956), p.30

• [9] Johnson Wax Still Loves That Fibber, Weekly Variety (March 18, 1959), p.32

• [10] NBC Sets New 'Gildie' Pilot, The Billboard (December 25, 1954), p.7

• [11] NBC-TV Skeds June 6 Start for 'Camera,' The Billboard (June 4, 1955), p.13

• [12] NBC-TV Bears Down on Color Programs, The Billboard (October 22, 1955), p.14

• [13] Light And Airy, Jack Hellman for Daily Variety (April 9, 1956), p.10

• [14] Universal TV Tries More Old Par Pix as Video Vehicles, Weekly Variety (October 13, 1965), p.34

• [15] Daily Variety (February 12, 1957), p.11

• [16] Ziv Sells 'Gunfire' To Bristol-Myers For ABC-TV, Daily Variety (May 23, 1957), p.9

• [17] Ziv Tombstone' Passes Muster After ABC Nix, Daily Variety (August 22, 1957), p.15

• [18]—Collector's' Mount For Billy Pearson, Daily Variety (January 28, 1957), p.3

• [19] Hopes High on 30-Min. Bundle, Daily Variety (February 20, 1957), p.23

• [20] Pair Plotting "Item," Daily Variety (July 10, 1957), p.3

• [21] Herb Meadow's 5-Year CBS-TV Prod.-Writer Pact, Weekly Variety (November 6, 1957), p.52

• [22] Nets Vary Widely On Show Types For Fall, The Billboard (February 3, 1958), p.6

• [23] What to Do With Old Pilots, Weekly Variety (September 24, 1958), p.23

• [24] NBC, Sol Lesser Partner in "Tarzan," Daily Variety (March 22, 1957), p.16

• [25] Lesser's Tarzan Telepix on Again, Weekly Variety (February 19, 1958), p.25

• [26] Untried Blood Guiding New Lesser Co.; More Films, One Message: 'Escapism,' Weekly Variety (July 23, 1958), p.4

• [27] SG 'Caviar' Pilot Stars Recalled To Serve Up Another, Daily Variety (November 5, 1959), p.6

• [28] Like Old Razor Blades, What Do You Do With Unsold Pilots? CBS Giving 'Em Summer Airing, Weekly Variety (May 25, 1960), p.27

• [29] Dorothy Fontana, Star Trek 365 (2010), from the book's introduction. “But they [NBC] requested a second pilot. This was unheard of in NBC history.”

“The Naked Time” is an all-time classic Star Trek episode memorable for characters going berserk and revealing their “naked” psyches, notably shirtless Sulu with a fencing foil, Spock breaking down over the emotions he struggles to keep in check, and Kirk’s obsession with the Enterprise. The episode ends with a “laws of physics” defying bang as the starship restarts her engines cold in an “implosion” and is hurled into a time warp, ending—as Spock observes—in the recent past.

SPOCK

(bland)

We have regressed in time seventy-one hours ... It is now three days ago, Captain. We have three days to live over again.

But a redo didn’t just happen on the screen. It happened in the production of the episode.   

On the afternoon and early evening of Thursday, July 7th, 1966, on Stage 9 at Desilu Gower in Hollywood, the closing scenes of “The Naked Time” went before the cameras.

By the end of that day, the company had completed 32 setups and printed 3,950 feet of film—more printed footage than any other day of the shoot—but the finale filmed on this day would not make it to the air intact.[1]

Six weeks later, in the early evening of Wednesday, August 17th, and just after the wrap of “Dagger of the Mind”, from 5:25–7:00PM, the closing scenes of “The Naked Time” went before the cameras yet again, for the last time…[2] A new ending.

Why did this happen? What was this ending? It's long been said to have been a cliffhanger. Is that true?

Let’s risk an implosion and time warp back 57 years to find out.

First Time Naked Time

There’s a Hollywood aphorism that the show you set out to make isn’t what ends up on screen. This was as true for Star Trek as any other show.

As was and is typical of television production, lines of dialogue and even entire scenes were discarded for various reasons during editing. Episodes would run long and need to be tightened to meet NBC’s time slot constraints. Moments that seemed to work on the page might fall flat on film. Expensive opticals might be trimmed to save the budget. And so on.

FACT TREK Note: If you’re further interested in the subject, we highly recommend Star Trek: Lost Scenes (link) by David Tilotta and Curt McAloney.

The endings of several episodes were altered between stage and screen. Notably the deletion of Kirk and his nephew on the bridge at the end of “Operation—Annihilate!”, the snipping of Lt. Palamas’ pregnancy at the close of “Who Mourns for Adonais?”, and the excision of Kang and Mara on the bridge of the Enterprise in the tag of “Day of the Dove”. 

What sets “The Naked Time” apart from every other episode of Star Trek is why this scene wasn’t used. It wasn’t merely trimmed. It was scripted and filmed as a cliffhanger, then parts of it were scrapped, rescripted and reshot.

No Cliffs, No Hangers

“The Naked Time” didn’t start out with a cliffhanger. The Roddenberry papers at UCLA contain Black’s story outline (undated, but per other documents, written on or before April 4th[3]) and a June 14th dated “Preliminary Draft”, both of which end the story on an unambiguous note. The Enterprise’s escape from the planet doesn’t involve mixing matter and antimatter cold or an implosion...let alone feature Scotty’s classic “I can’t change the laws of physics” line. They retake the engine room, activate the engines, and…well what happens next is wacko (and we’ll discuss in a future article), but the ship escapes the planet in the nick of, er, time, minus any hint of time warping shenanigans.[4]

What’s also important at this juncture is that although the disease of the week is still acting on the crew as the Enterprise escapes Psi 2000, it conveniently ceases to be a problem for the tag. Here, from the “preliminary draft” is McCoy’s summation: 

McCoy

A virus...lasts twenty-four hours
and dies...a cold lasts a bit
longer...one symptom...a moist-
ness on the palms of your hands
...is communicated by physical
contact...no explanation and no
cure...but it affects the afflicted
like a quart of bourbon...lets
out everything you try to keep 
hidden.

Poor Bones didn’t even get to save the day. As in H.G. Wells’ The War of the Worlds, the threat died by dint of Deus Ex Machina.

FACT TREK Note:

Heading For the Cliff

At this early stage Star Trek hadn’t yet done a two-part anything, and ultimately would only do it once with “The Menagerie.” Cliffhangers weren’t unknown on TV at the time. Lost In Space ended its first and second season episodes on cliffhangers, but—outside of the first six episodes—these were simple gimmicks restricted to the tag and teaser to vaguely connect unrelated stories and keep viewers tuning in. Space employed only one true two-parter, “The Keeper”, which was one story split over two episodes, much like an episode of Batman. (The Time Tunnel would likewise employ cliffhangers when it premiered, but in the vein of Lost In Space.)

View fullsize

View fullsize

As above “The Naked Time” was originally outlined and “Preliminary Draft”’ed as a typical self-contained episode. But this abruptly changed with what the script reports identify as the yellow-cover “First Draft” dated Thursday, June 23rd, 1966. In it, the disease neither self-resolves nor does McCoy concoct a cure. With Kirk fully in the throes of the infection, the Enterprise fires all her power units simultaneously and is hurled away from the planet and into a time warp from which it does not escape before the fade out. It concluded:

And Kirk bursts out of his chair... fury unbridled now... control gone... and his eyes rake across the room... the equipment... the goddam ship... the beautiful ship... the captain’s life... the goddam life!!!

KIRK

(at it - to it - a consummation of this marriage)

Never lose you... never... never... didn’t explode..!

(at Janice - softly - suddenly)

No beach to walk on... never... no sound of waves running...

(at the ship)

Never lose you...

And the energy of his words sweep him to Spock...then his eyes are drawn to Spock's console...and he whirls...

KIRK

(voice building)

Faster than light...we're going faster than light...faster than time...

EXT. SPACE

The stars seeming to distort... bunch... compress... and over it...

KIRK'S VOICE

Faster than light... faster than time... faster than man has ever gone Before!!!!!

FADE OUT

END OF PART ONE

THE NAKED TIME

From yellow cover script (FIRST  DRAFT, June 23, 1966). Sc. 132 (p.67)

And with this draft something new has been added: “PART I” appears on the title page and “END OF PART ONE” on the final page.

This is a literal cliffhanger. The only thing that’s been resolved is the ship escaping the planet, but it has leapt out of the frying pan into the fire.

Likewise, the June 28th, 1966 Final Draft’s gray cover and subsequent title page both feature “(PART I)” and the final page concludes with “END PART ONE”.

The revised story likewise ends with the ship caught in a time warp. This time Bones has found a cure and shoots Kirk up, eliminating the loose end of the disease. But now Scotty mixes matter and antimatter cold, precipitating the time warp and adding the wrinkle that the ship is heading towards Earth… slowing, but when will it be when it stops in Part Two?

EMPHASIZING KIRK  Turning, a quick glance at McCoy, then Spock.
 

KIRK

(continuing) 

Begin reversing power, helm.  Slowly.

SULU

(adjusts controls)

Helm answering, sir. Power reversing. 

SPOCK

(to Kirk)

Course?

KIRK

Course, Navigator?

NAVIGATOR

You asked for "Earth", sir.

KIRK

(considers it; nods)

 Earth, then. Steady as we go. 

As they eye the viewing screen, uncertain, waiting:
  FADE OUT. END PART ONE

Shooting Script (FINAL DRAFT, June 28, 1966). Sc. 125 (p. 61-62)

This last-minute unresolved cliffhanger appears to have been exactly what was filmed. The July 1st and 5th change pages (revisions) were delivered as the show was shooting, but none of those pages altered the ending. The daily production reports support that this open-ended time warp ending was filmed.

But as we all know, that’s not the ending that aired…because A Funny Thing Happened On the Way To the Airdate.

FACT TREK Note: "Mimeo" refers to a mimeograph; a low-cost duplicating machine with an ink roller which required a typed up “master” stencil for each page. Although xerography / photocopying existed at this time, it was expensive and generally not used for large documents with large distribution lists.

Backing Away From the Cliff

Principal photography on the episode initially wrapped on July 11th, and the Episode Status Reports on July 18th, 25th, and August 1st list its status as “Principal Photography completed. Editing” with the lattermost including the note “Will screen First Cut 8/4/66” (August 4th).[8]

But one week after the First Cut was screened, on August 11th—and a month after principal photography wrapped—a whole new ending came out of mimeo. The header for all four of these new blue pages read “NEW ENDING - 8/11/66”, which makes plain this was no minor tweak. The changed material constitutes approximately 2¼ pages, or about 100 seconds worth of material, scripted to intercut with some of the material shot previously and stock footage. This climax is the one that aired: the Enterprise is flung into a time warp from which they exit three days into the past. These change pages close the story with a conclusive END TITLE, and no suggestion of a follow-up.

Then, in the early evening of Wednesday, August 17th, just after the wrap of “Dagger of the Mind”, parts of the closing scenes of “The Naked Time” went before the cameras yet again, and for the last time.[9] (These scenes were almost certainly directed by Vincent McEveety and not Marc Daniels, who otherwise directed the rest of "The Naked Time".)

There’s no mention of this new filming in the subsequent Episode Status Reports. The August 8th, 15th, 23rd, and 29th ones all list the episode as “Principal Photography completed. Editing” before finally switching to “Principal Photography completed. Dubbing” in the September 6th report.[10] However, it is accounted for in the production budgets dated 1966-11-12 and 1967-1-20.[11]

FACT TREK Note: You can easily spot the new material because only Shatner and Nimoy were on set for these pickups, so it’s largely closeups of them, concerned with the realization that they can go back through time, and that Kirk would rather not relive those last three days. Any shots including other characters on the bridge were from the original ending’s shoot or stock footage (like Sulu at the helm).

Going Off the Cliff

So, somewhere on the road to a cliffhanger, “The Naked Time” went off a cliff. In summation:

1. “The Naked Time” was outlined, approved for script, and initially drafted as a stand-alone episode.

2. Somewhere between the Preliminary Draft and First Draft, a decision was made to make “The Naked Time” part one of a two-parter.

3. The episode was filmed with an open-ended finale wherein the ship was in a time warp on course towards Earth.

4. A little over a month later, and days after screening a first cut, a new ending was written, which scrapped the cliffhanger and the idea of a part two. 

5. The following week the new ending was filmed.

But the 64,000 credit question is why was a cliffhanger added in the first place? A cliffhanger was an aberration for Star Trek. Why did Black add it? Why did Roddenberry keep it? Why did they film it? And just why did they scrap it?

Unfortunately, the Roddenberry Papers at UCLA don’t appear to contain the answers. The finding aid for one of the folders for “The Naked Time” contains the note “Includes correspondence regarding or with: * Black, John D.F.” But no such correspondence is found, so no firm answers there. We checked interviews with Black and articles he and his wife—Mary Black—wrote about their time on Star Trek. We looked high and low and were unable to find any answer.

What it left us with were more questions. Who films a Part One without a Part Two in the pipeline? Who was supposed to write this follow-up? And just what was this prospective second part to be?

“Tomorrow is Yesterday!” we hear some of you cry.

But, as ever, we ask, “Is it true?”

Tune in to Part Two for the answer. 

FADE OUT

END OF PART ONE

THE NAKED CLIFFHANGER

P.S. And, unlike “The Naked Time” there is a part two: The Naked Time Warp.

—30—

Revision History

• April 26, 2023. Original post

• February 23, 2025. Added link to Part 2.

Acknowledgements

• Huge thanks to FACT TREK Associate David Tilotta for his invaluable assistance in sorting out the various rough and mimeoed drafts of the script, providing photos and images of documents, critiquing, and generally being a mensch. Consider him a co-author of this piece, cuz we do. Buy his and Curt McAloney’s terrific book Star Trek Lost Scenes here (link).

• Special thanks to FACT TREK Research Fellow Bill Kobylak (who we previously anonymized as Sgt. Bilko) for providing us with a scan of the complete gray cover June 28 [revised] final draft of the script with the original ending. May the Great Bird of the Galaxy roost upon your planet.

• Grande grazie a Marcello Rossi for sending us scans of the articles by John D.F. and Mary Black wrote for Star Trek The Magazine (from a never-published memoir) to make sure we hadn’t overlooked any comments they might’ve made about the episode.

• Trekcore, for the screenshots from the episode.

• And thanks as always to FACT TREK Associate Ryan Thomas Riddle for applying his editorial superpowers to this article. Follow his adventures through time and space on Twitter (link) and see his work on his homepage (link).

See Also

• TV Finales: Rethinking The Cliffhanger Casey McCormick / McGill University, October 24, 2016

End Notes & Sources

[1] “The Naked Time” Daily Production Report, July 7, 1966, UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[2] “Dagger of the Mind” Daily Production Report, August 17, 1966, UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[3] Writer Reports, memos, and status reports. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[4] “The Naked Time, outlines and teleplays. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[5] 1968-05-14 memo from Gene Roddenberry to Bob Justman floating the idea of rescinding the policy of sending Yellow cover scripts to actors. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[6] 1966-10-06 Letter from Gene Roddenberry to Linwood Dunn re first draft script of The Menagerie two-parter, explaining the color coded cover and page revision system for scripts. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[7] Mannix Television Script Collection, Heritage Auctions, Sold November 7, 2009.

[8] Episode Status reports, July–August 1966. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[9] “Dagger of the Mind” Daily Production Report, August 17, 1966, UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[10] Episode Status reports, August–September 1966. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[11] Production Budgets and/or Cost Reports for “The Naked Time”, November 12, 1966 and January 20, 1967. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

Two years and two-and-a-half months later she would be a participant in what has for decades been described as the first “interracial” kiss in TV history (meaning US TV, and even that is debated). Another three-and-a-half months afterwards, in response to a simulacrum of Abraham Lincoln apologizing for using the word "Negress," Uhura replied, "But why should I object to that term, sir? You see, in our century we've learned not to fear words."

The character has since become an iconic touchstone, so instead of retreading oft-told tales, let’s take a brief look instead at how Nichelle Nichols landed on Star Trek and the state of race portrayals on American TV in that era.

“The Lieutenant”, Not Yet Uhura

Jump to early 1964 when the notion of Star Trek was just percolating in the mind of Gene Roddenberry. Even as his first series, The Lieutenant, was about to be discharged from the airwaves he was already courting controversy with the topic of white-Black conflict.

This hot-button segment, titled “To Set It Right:” served as the national TV debut of future Uhura, Nichelle Nichols.

“To Set It Right” depicted a white marine (Dennis Hopper) and a Black Marine (Don Marshall, best known to Trek fans as Lt. Boma in “The Galileo Seven”) clashing over mutual race hatred. Producer Roddenberry fought for it to go to air despite the U.S. Marine Corps’ disapproval of the story’s portrayal of racism in the Corps, so much so that it withdrew its official seal and its consultant’s name from the closing credits of the segment.

In Dave Kaufman’s review in Daily Variety, he wrote: “Marshall turns in a fine performance as the rebellious young Negro; Nichelle Nichols is very good as Marshall's fiancee” concluding “Producer Gene Roddenberry handles a delicate subject sensibly and in good taste.”

State of Race

Black people were rarely portrayed as equals on TV in its first two decades. Terry Carter (best known to genre fans as Col. Tigh in 1978’s Battlestar Galactica) was a bit of an outlier in his role as Pvt. “Sugie” Sugarman in the military sitcom The Phil Silvers Show from 1955 to 1959, but apparently only because the star insisted.

And race was already a big topic on American TV that same 1963–64 season as The Lieutenant aired. The CBS network was running the drama East Side/West Side, featuring the breakthrough character Jane Foster (Cicely Tyson), a Black woman who was not a domestic but a professional in an office, a supporting role and the third listed in the show’s closing credits (only star George C. Scott appeared in the open). She even wore her hair “natural” and not straightened or hidden under a wig. That was a big deal in 1963.

But even as the press trumpeted the progressive nature of Tyson’s role, the show got hate mail accusing the series of miscegenation simply for depicting a white man being friendly to and concerned for his Black associate. Ultimately, her character was dropped with a format change in the closing part of the show’s single season amongst accusations that the series had kowtowed to a small group of very vocal bigots.

In the aftermath of The Lieutenant, Roddenberry’s first stabs at Star Trek weren’t written with much inclusivity in mind. Despite the character of Number One being described as having a vague “Nile Valley” look, and navigator Jose Tyler being a fiery Latin, all speaking roles were ultimately cast with “white” actors.

The first documented hint of real diversity on Roddenbery’s mind was in a brief memo to Herb Solow dated November 17, 1964, in which he suggested they should “discuss mixture of races we see on the spaceship U.S.S. Enterprise.” But this yielded only a couple of non-white background players.

It took Star Trek’s second pilot do-over to make the first steps towards inclusivity: with pan-asian physicist Sulu (George Takei), and Black communications officer Alden (Lloyd Haynes) added to the crew.

In Living Color On NBC…and CBS

But at this point, a year before the U.S.S. Enterprise would appear “in living color on NBC,” a different sort of “living color” was about to challenge the TV status quo in the form of two new shows: NBC’s I Spy and CBS’s Hogan’s Heroes. The former was the first US network TV series to co-star a Black actor (Bill Cosby) on equal footing with the white lead, and the latter featured a Black actor (Ivan Dixon) in a supporting role as a character treated as a peer and an equal by all the white characters, and who was the nominal second-in-command. That same season a Black actor (Raymond St. Jacques) was added to the western Rawhide (canceled midseason).

View fullsize

View fullsize

Jump forward a year to 1966. Four weeks before Trek’s debut NBC's senior vice president for programming and talent, Mort Werner, sent a letter to Roddenberry and other producers of NBC shows, promoting diversity in casting. Here it is.

View fullsize

View fullsize

Here’s a key quote:

We urge producers to cast Negroes, subject to their availability and competence as performers, as people who are an integral segment of the population, as well as in those roles where the fact of their minority status is of significance. An earnest attempt has been made to see that their presence contributes to an honest and natural reflection of places, situations and events, and we desire to intensify and extend this effort.[6]

Uhura was already part of the mix by this point, but just months earlier, as Star Trek was about to roll cameras for series production, there was no Black in the regular cast. Lt. Alden was one of three characters in the second pilot dropped. The first regular episode to be filmed, “The Corbomite Maneuver,” initially had Dave Bailey as the communications officer, but at the last minute his job was switched to navigator and most of the communications-related lines were assigned to an unnamed character, briefly identified only as “Black.” At the last minute Nichelle Nichols was cast, and, famously, her character’s name was based on what she was reading at the time: Robert Ruark’s novel Uhuru.

Although it’s been claimed that NBC worried that its “Dixie” affiliates in the American South might choose not to carry Star Trek because of Uhura, that seems unlikely. I Spy had already demonstrated that Black people in high-visibility roles were not a detriment to carrying affiliates, as only 3 out of 183 initially refused it. CBS’s Hogan’s Heroes was a top 10 show. (If there was any concern about Uhura, one might speculate it was on the part of NBC Sales fearing the miscegenation charges that were leveled against East Side/West Side three years earlier.)

The Female Frontier

Even as Star Trek debuted that fall other new programs included Black actors in their regular casts, including Greg Morris as electronics expert Barney Collier on Mission: Impossible (filmed at neighboring soundstages to Star Trek at Desilu Studios), Hari Rhodes as Mike Makula on Daktari, Robert Hooks (later Admiral Morrow in Star Trek III) on N.Y.P.D., Wayne Grice as Dan Carter on the short-lived Hawk, and Sammy Davis Jr. headlined his self-titled The Sammy Davis Jr. Show.

But Uhura was the only black woman in this first small wave. For any woman to be portrayed as a professional approaching equal footing with men was unusual. For minority women, the situation was even more dire. (For instance, the season after Trek concluded, 1958’s Best Supporting Actress Oscar winner (video) Miyoshi Umeki was cast as the shin Issei housekeeper to a white man and his son in the post-Trek series The Courtship of Eddie’s Father.)

Black people were so underrepresented on US TV that Jet magazine regularly printed a list of which Black people would appear on what upcoming shows. And when Black viewers saw people like themselves on TV, they would telephone family and friends to spread the word. A whole population hungered to see themselves depicted as part of the fabric of society.

Uhura — even if often in the background — was a rarity, so much so that Whoopi Goldberg (Guinan) has gone on record countless times to explain how important it was for her to see a Black woman included in a depiction of the future, and that she “isn’t a maid.”

Matters of Representation

August 1967 brought the first NAACP Image Awards, and TV shows so honored were The Big Valley, Mission: Impossible, Hogan’s Heroes, Daktari, and… Star Trek, all “presented awards for their ‘outstanding contributions to the furtherance of the image of the Negro by featuring Negroes in continuing or recurring roles.’"[8]

Beyond Uhura as a regular, throughout three seasons, Star Trek featured Black actors in guest and supporting speaking roles. These included:

• Wilson (Garland Thompson, “Charlie X” and “The Enemy Within”)

• Lt. Charlene Masters (Janet MacLachlan, “The Alternative Factor”)

• Commodore Stone (Percy Rodriguez, “Court Martial”)

• Lt. Boma (Don Marshall, “The Galileo Seven”)

• Yeoman Zahra (Maurishka Tagliaferro, "Operation Annihilate!")

• Engineer Lt. Shea (Carl Byrd, “By Any Other Name”)

• Nurse (Cindy Lou, “Return to Tomorrow”)

• Dr. M'Benga (Booker Bradshaw, “A Private Little War” and “That Which Survives”)

• Lt. Watkins (Kenneth Washington, “That Which Survives”)

• Security guard Lt. Evans (Lee Duncan, “Elaan of Troyius”)

• Salt Vampire as Uhura’s Crewman (Vince Howard, “The Man Trap”)

• Dr. Richard Daystrom (William Marshall, “The Ultimate Computer”)

• Don Linden (Mark Robert Brown, "And the Children Shall Lead").

• Ozaba (Davis Roberts, “The Empath”)

• Anka (Fred Williamson, “The Cloud Minders”) TOS’s single Black alien with dialog

Not to mention Black people were routinely seen amongst the non-speaking background players aboard the Enterprise. You never saw such diversity on, say, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea’s sub, Seaview.

In front of the cameras was one thing; behind them was another. Nichelle Nichols complained about racism amongst the old guard at Desilu, but three Black newcomers were key figures in Star Trek’s production:

1. Andreea “Ande” Kindryd (nee Richardson) was producer Gene L. Coon’s secretary. Politically active and connected, she was the first Black woman hired at Desilu. In her memoir (available here) she relates how she pushed against the default tendency for white casting.[9]

2. Charles Washburn graduated at the top of his class in the Director’s Guild of America trainee program and was one of the first Black second assistant directors in Hollywood, having apprenticed for the job in Star Trek’s second season before taking on the second assistant director role fully in its third.[10]

3. On the NBC Burbank side was NBC’s Manager of Film Program Operations Stanley Robertson, the first Black executive at an American TV network. When Roddenberry kvetched about NBC, he often meant Robertson. Whether Robertson’s impact on the show was for good or ill is debatable, but on one occasion he pushed back against a well-intentioned but tasteless (these authors have read it) and ultimately scrapped Trek script titled “Portrait In Black and White,” which depicted a strange new world where Blacks enslaved whites in a color-swapped American Civil War.[11]

For all this progress, it was still baby steps. When any whiff of possible miscegenation drew fire and rattled sponsors the networks steadfastly avoided suggestions of Black-white romance, let alone sex. When Eartha Kitt replaced Julie Newmar as the purrrrfect Catwoman on ABC’s Batman in 1967 all flirtation and suggested romantic attraction was dropped.

But, keen to make a point, in “Plato’s Stepchildren” Star Trek’s third season attempted to simultaneously address the issue while hedging around network concerns. This was done by having telekinetic aliens force Uhura and Kirk to kiss. Sadly, the result was less a taboo-busting act of passion than an act of battery. Six weeks prior to that kiss the season opener of CBS’s The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour had a field day testing the limits of network censorship in a sketch that suggested homosexual goings-on and teased the audience with the prospect of an interracial kiss when Black Rosie Greer was told to kiss white Cass Elliot, only to land the smooch on her forehead. Three months post-“Plato’s” NBC’s top show, Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In, hung a lantern on such network taboos by having all the white female cast members kiss white guest star James Garner, but when Black cast member Chelsea Brown appeared, she tells him, “all they'll let me do is shake your hand.” His reply, “Your place or mine?” leads to Arte Johnson’s WWII German soldier, Wolfgang, commenting, “Verrry interesting. But right now in Birmingham [Alabama] they're running a test pattern. You believe it!”[12]

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

But in the midst of all this — and only six weeks after the Uhura‑Kirk forced smooch — New Year’s Eve saw a brief, unforced farewell kiss between white Robert Wagner and Black Denise Nicholas on Gene Coon-produced It Takes A Thief on ABC, which closed 1968 with nary a comment or peep.*[15]

Legacies

Breakthroughs are never without controversy, and these first-wave characters were not immune from criticism. TV then as now struggled between integrative and distinctive portrayals: the former pretending the world didn’t notice or care about Blackness; the latter addressing it.[16] Most programs of the time opted for the former and ”created an invisible standard for Black actors on primetime TV; Blacks are acceptable as long as they are partnered with white co-stars.”[17]

Because she inhabited an aspirational future distanced from the audience’s reality, Uhura largely escaped the sort of scrutiny many of her TV Black contemporaries received. Perhaps that’s one reason she’s remained iconic; she represents a future we want, even as the show that birthed her often failed to employ her to her full potential.

Thus it was that the crew of the Enterprise and Uhura specifically were part of a vanguard of shows that finally dared to routinely portray Black people in positive roles and as equals. In the wake of Star Trek and its first wave peers the closing years of the 60s looked different—and beautifully blacker—than the years preceding it. All of which opened doors to broader representation in 70s TV and beyond.

IDIC and all that.

Farewell, Nichelle.

—30—

Revision History

• 2022—07-31 Original post.

• 2022-09 -18 Minor fixes of a few words and correction of an inactive link in the End Notes & Sources.

• 2023-01-22 Added information and citation regarding Black actor Terry Carter’s role on The Phil Silvers Show.

See Also

FACT TREK: NBC & Black America, 1966 (link)

End Notes & Sources

* Andreea Kindryd (nee Richardson), who was still working for Gene Coon during his time at Universal, tells us that Denise Nicholas “was hot and new in town” but was very light-skinned so the production “Max Factored” her to a darker shade. Via private email with FACT TREK, February 17, 2022.

[1] Joseph D’Agosta from a video call interview with FACT TREK, May 22, 2022.

[2] Daku (Dave Kaufman). Reaction, Telepix Followup, THE LIEUTENANT ("To Set It Right"), Daily Variety, Mon., Feb. 24, 1964. p8.

[2a] Terry Carter on Forging a Path for Black Actors in Hollywood, Midday on WNYC, March 13, 2018. Carter discusses his The Phil Silvers show role starting at 7:55 (link).

NOTE: Carter relates that the show and commercials were live, but it appears that most of the series was filmed in such a way as to simulate a live performance.

[3] Negro Comes to Television Sponsors Happy, Nashville Banner Nashville, Tennessee, Monday November 25, 1963, p29.

[4] November 17, 1964 Roddenberry memo, subject “CASTING - STAR TREK” regarding casting “races” for the first pilot, UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[5] Articles included in this collage:

• New York Times

  • Nov. 16, 1964. Cosby To Appear in TV Spy Series

  • Sept. 10, 1965 'I Spy’ With Negro Is Widely Booked, 180 Stations to Carry Show Co-Starring Bill Cosby

  Los Angeles Times

  • Jan. 30, 1994. The Man With the Golden Spy Run

• Variety

  • April 4, 1965. Cosby in 'Spy' Puts NBC Dixie Affils on Spot

  • Sept. 9, 1965-09-08., 'I Spy' With Negro Star, Cleared by All Save 3 NBC-TV Affils in South

• Ebony

  • August 1965. "I Spy"

[6] August 17, 1966 letter from NBC Programs Vice President Mort Werner to Gene Roddenberry, UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[7] Undated casting memo for “The Corbomite Maneuver”. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

NOTE: We can date the memo to late May, 1966 because in a May 20th revision Lt. Bailey’s role was switched from Communications to Navigator, and most of his communications-related lines were assigned to a new character: Uhura. A cast and crew rehearsal on May 23rd was attended by Nichelle Nichols.

[8] NAACP To Give ‘Image Awards' To 3 TV Stations, Daily Variety, Monday July 31st, 1967, p.10.

[9] Andreea Kindryd (nee Richardson) in private emails to FACT TREK and via draft text for her memoir, 2020–2022.

[10] Charles Washburn, Charlie Star Trek, DGA Quarterly, Summer 2011 (link). The first Black DGA member appears to have been Wendell Franklin. See Wendell Franklin, Groundbreaker, DGA Quarterly, Spring 2011 (link).

[11] Outlines and teleplay for “Portrait In Black and White” by Barry Trivers, UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[12] Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In, S2, E22, “Guest Starring James Garner”, aired March 3, 1969. IMDb (link).

[13] Box ad for Plato’s Stepchildren, Daily Variety, Friday, November 22, 1968, p.25.

[14] Daku (Dave Kaufman) Television Reviews Plato's Stepchildren (Star Trek), Daily Variety Monday, November 25, 1968, p.14.

[15] It Takes a Thief, S2,E12 “To Catch a Roaring Lion” aired Dec 31, 1968. IMDb (link).

[16] Ann duCille, Acting While Black in the Civil Rights Era: On the Challenges Facing Black TV Actors in the 1960s, Literary Hub via Duke University Press, September 17, 2018 (link). Excerpted from Technicolored: Reflections On Race In The Time of TV. Courtesy of Duke University Press. Copyright © 2018 by Ann duCille.

[17] Kimberlee Buck, The History of Black Television, Los Angeles Sentinel, February 8, 2018 (link).

Value-added historians that we are, we’ve decided to not only share the recording, and not merely transcribe the entire interview, but to annotate it and add historical context.

History of the Recording

By way of introduction, the following is from the 2013 post that announced the release of the recording:

Houstonian Releases A Lost Interview with Star Trek Creator Gene Roddenberry

RARE 1973 PHONE CHAT GIVES INCITE [sic] INTO THE BIRTH OF STAR TREK
Former Houston radio and television personality Scott Arthur was spring cleaning recently when he came across a telephone interview he did with the “Father” of Star Trek in 1973 [sic].

“It’s 40 years ago almost to the day. ”Scott said. “I was a young DJ at WARM radio in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Mr. Roddenberry was scheduled to speak at a local college and I got his phone number and set up an interview to promote the event in advance.” said the Texas Radio Hall of Famer.

“Before I began rolling tape ….he told me that the TV set was going to be the center of our lives. He said, your TV will have a typewriter in front of it – and open up the world to you. Just a glimpse of his genius and vision.” said Scott. “With all the hype of the new Trek Movie [Star Trek into Darkness] — this is fun to listen to. He shares how they invented the Spock character and was told to hide him, what the woman’s lib movement forced him to do … and what inspired the Transporter.”[1]

Now, oral history is history, but it’s history as filtered by how people who were there remember experiencing it…and people’s memories are not always accurate (see our piece The Off-Center Seat (link)). So, as ever, Fact Trekkers, caveat emptor to whatever The Great Bird of the Galaxy says here.

Play the video and read-along!

The Interview

NOTE: This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

Recorded January 24, 1974.*

For WARM radio, Scranton . . .

For WARM radio, Scranton . . .

Scott Arthur: I guess the first thing to talk about would be what you're most noted for, which would be Star Trek. Now, can you tell me, when was Star Trek first born?

Gene Roddenberry: Well, it was conceived in the early 1960s. And we did our first pilot in 1964 for NBC. That was one that did not—the first pilot did not sell. NBC thought it was too…“cerebral,” was the term they used. Then we went on to do a second one the following year and it did sell and the series went on the air.

SA: It’s easy for an author nowadays to borrow ideas from current events and even history, to simply write stories revolving around a car or a plane, but you had to look into the future and invent your own tools of tomorrow. Where did you get your ideas? On what were they based?

GR: I mention they were based—I’d read science fiction since I was a child. I suppose most of the ideas were a combination of things I had read and heard about, although I have a smattering of ignorance in scientific fields. And I had been an airline pilot. And I suppose all of that helped.

FACT TREK NOTE: Here as elsewhere Roddenberry claims he'd been reading science fiction since childhood. This claim has been contested by at least one Roddenberry biographer, Joel Engel. We're working on a piece covering that topic for future publication.

SA: How about some specifics on the show, Star Trek, like the transporter. Where did you get the idea for that?

GR: Well, the transporter really came out of a production need. I realized with this huge spaceship we had come up with, approximately the size of an aircraft carrier, that number one, I would blow the whole budget of the show just on landing the thing on a planet. And secondly, it would take a long time to get into our stories. And so the transporter idea was conceived so that we would get down—get our people down to the planet fast and easy and our story going by page two.

SA: How about the concept of heat shields?

GR: They’re pretty well-known in science fiction. Various types of deflector shields and that sort of thing. They were really borrowed from concepts of half-a-hundred authors that have been writing science fiction since the twenties.

SA: You had to create another civilization, like the Klingons. Where did you get the idea for that?

GR: That actually came from one of the writers, who did an episode and had them in it. They seemed to work as good heavies, so we kept them on. When people say I created Star Trek, yes, I created the basic idea and I guided the writers from then on, but many of the things on the show came from writers who did various episodes.

FACT TREK NOTE: The creator of the Klingons was, of course, writer-producer Gene L. Coon, who goes unnamed in the interview, though Roddenberry freely admits they were the creation of another writer. While Roddenberry has something of a rep as a credit hog, in this interview and many others of the era he was quick to acknowledge that not every idea was his alone.

GR: A television show is a cooperative effort. For instance, the Famous Spock Neck Pinch came from Leonard Nimoy and Bill Shatner fooling around on the set one day. They were playing a joke on a new director. Leonard says, “Look, I’ll do this to you and you fall unconscious.” And they did it for a laugh and someone said, “Hey, wait, that’s great.”

FACT TREK NOTE: Of course Roddenberry was not on the set for this. According to Leonard Nimoy, the FSNP (Famous Spock Neck Pinch) was invented because he didn't think it was in character for Spock to violently subdue the duplicate Kirk in "The Enemy Within" and he invented the FSNP as an option for director Leo Penn. This episode would be Penn's first and only Star Trek directing assignment.[2]

SA: What about some of the characters on the show? Did you create them with certain actors in mind?

GR: Leonard Nimoy was the one actor I definitely had in mind. We had worked together several years previously when I was producing a show called The Lieutenant. Leonard had done a guest star thing. And I was struck at the time with his high, slavic cheekbones and very interesting face. And I thought to myself, if I ever do this science fiction that I want to do, he’d make a great alien. With those cheekbones, some sort of pointed ear might go well. And then I forgot entirely about it until I began to lay out the Star Trek characters. And  then to cast Mr. Spock, I simply made one phone call to Leonard and that was it.

FACT TREK NOTE: In numerous interviews Roddenberry maintained that Nimoy was the only actor seriously considered for Spock; this was confirmed by Dorothy Fontana.[3] We address the rumors about alternate casting for the part in our piece in Search of… Spock (link).

SA: Were you satisfied with the way most of the characters were developed in Star Trek?

GR: I tried to... What I was trying to do was to get a sort of a family group representing different types of humanity so that our audience would feel at home on the ship. It was really an effort to give a twentieth century audience some handle in this future world of recognizable people.

SA: You seem to have let Spock develop on his own with more and more of a major role as an Enterprise crewmember. Did audience reaction encourage you to let Spock come into his own or was this planned?

GR: Well the Spock story is an interesting one. He was third or fourth most important in pilot number one. This was even before women’s lib, but I’d always felt that in a future world women would have positions of responsibility, so the number two in command at that time was a female called “Number One,” under the Captain. Among the things NBC didn’t like in the pilot was a woman in a position of command. And so they wanted that out, and they were very strong about that. But in making the pilot, I saw how the Spock character was working, and I wanted to elevate him up and make him the number two character. But NBC said, “No, we don’t want him, either, because the audience will never identify with a pointed eared creature from another planet.” I felt that was the one fight I had to win. So I said I wouldn’t do the show unless they let me leave at least him in. And they said, “Well, fine, you can leave him in, but keep him in the background, will you?”

FACT TREK NOTE: Roddenberry repeatedly stated that NBC didn't want a woman in command, whereas Desilu's Herb Solow claimed NBC didn't like the casting of the first pilot in general, and Majel Barrett in particular.[4] There's been some suggestion that test audience reaction to the character was a factor. We're writing a piece on Star Trek and Audience Research now, though we suspect the full truth of the matter may be entirely lost to time.

SA: Wow.

GR: And then when they put out their sales brochures on the show, they carefully rounded Spock’s ears and made him look human, so it wouldn’t scare off any potential advertisers. After the show had been on the air six or eight weeks, why of course the audience reaction to Spock was very strong, and a new NBC Vice President came to the west coast and he called me in, and he said, “What’s the matter with you? You’ve got this great character and you’re keeping him in the background!” And we pointed out the sales brochures and told him what NBC had asked us to do and his only answer was, “I think I’m going to throw up.” From then on, of course, Spock was number two.

FACT TREK NOTE: Roddenberry never named this supposed exec. The one known New York NBC V.P. associated with Star Trek was Mort Werner, who was hardly new in 1966, so it wasn't him...assuming the story is true at all.

SA: Why was Spock a half-breed? Why was he that?

GR: I wanted to have an interesting personality facet. I wanted him, parts of him, to be at war with one another. The human part fighting the alien part. And half-breeds, traditionally in drama, have always been highly interesting characters.

SA: How about Captain James T. Kirk? He was a sort of all-American boy, but on a larger scale. He was handsome, he was intelligent. Was it hard to keep him the basic nice guy in situation after situation?

GR: That is a problem, of course, but at the time we were putting Star Trek on, television was full of antiheroes. I had a feeling that the public likes heroes, people with goals in mind, people with honesty, dedication, and so on. And so I decided to go for straight, heroic roles on the show, and it paid off. My model for Kirk, for those who were interested, was Horatio Hornblower, the C.S. Forester sea stories, which I’ve always enjoyed.

FACT TREK NOTE: A September 28, 1965 Daily Variety column by Dave Kaufman noted, “There is a small trend in some of tv to make the heroes what are called anti-heroes, guys who err and goof and just aren’t heroic.”[5] In Kaufman’s column one year later, on September 7, 1966, William Shatner was quoted as saying about Star Trek, “If we make it, we will be setting a trend. In movies and tv, there is a cycle of anti-heroes. We are playing exactly opposite — if nothing else, it’s heroic.”[6]

Our view is that these claims exaggerate the presence of antiheroes on mid-60s television. Square jawed heroes were still widely in evidence throughout the decade.

For a historian's perspective on these trends, allow us to quote from Stephen Bowie about The Invaders (1966-68), "David Vincent may have been television’s first really nasty, hard-to-like antihero. The term antihero had previously been applied to characters like Richard Kimble and Route 66’s Tod and Buz because they in some way defied the establishment, but their rebellious attitudes didn’t get in the way of their basic cuddliness."[7]

SA: Did many actors try out for the role of Kirk or was Shatner the only one?

GR: No, we had a great deal of trouble casting it. Many actors turned us down and later, of course, wished they hadn’t. But science fiction at that time had a very bad name. And many serious actors had just made up their mind they wanted nothing to do with it, because the stuff they’d seen on television at that time was so bad they didn’t want their name associated with it.

SA: Here’s a loaded question. Now, Kirk was almost always involved in quick, superficial relationships and not much else romantically. Sometimes that was even more fictitious than the rest of the plot. Was Kirk married to the Enterprise, is that what happened?

GR: That was our... That was what we wanted to develop, yes. Married to his job and to his ship, that was his real love affair.

SA: What about the Enterprise itself? Where did you get that name?

GR: Well, although I had been an army bomber pilot in World War Two, I have always been fascinated by the navy, and particularly fascinated by the story of the Enterprise in World War Two, which at Midway really turned the tide of the whole war in our favor, and I’d always considered a very heroic ship and decided to use the name.

SA: In the making of Star Trek, did you find that you made any technical boo-boos that NASA or somebody else discovered and complained about?

GR: Oh, yeah, we made our share, but we tried not to. We had technical advice from NASA at times, from the RAND Corporation. We had a technical advisor/physicist at RAND who checked all of our scripts. And then we also had another script checking service. So, we did our best to avoid ‘em, but of course every now and then we would slip. [The fans] were quick to point it out.

FACT TREK NOTE: We can't at this time speak to NASA advisors, but the RAND Corporation advisor refers to Harvey P. Lynn, Jr., who provided feedback and science-related materials for script reference. For instance, he shared a June 13, 1965 article tilted "Antiworld Concept Backed By Antideuteron Discovery" which contains the text "if a spaceman from earth shook hands with a spaceman from the antiworld, both would disappear in a flash of light, heat and radiation"; just the kind of thing that may have inspired "The Alternative Factor". Although in truth Lynn's services did not continue beyond the first season.[9]

The "script checking service" was, of course, de Forest Research. See our piece about Kellam de Forest, which is called de Forest, Kellam (link).

SA: Offhand, did anything funny or really unexpected happen during the filming of the series?

GR: I should say a lot of—that it was probably the happiest crew that ever, as far as I know, has ever been assembled. The crew and the cast. Our schedules are very tight and we kept it that way with constant practical jokes. I think the book by Steve Whitfield, The Making of Star Trek, has pages of the things that went on. It’s very funny reading.

FACT TREK NOTE: Despite the fact Roddenberry is credited as co-author, here he acknowledges that Whitfield (née Poe) was the primary author of The Making of Star Trek.

SA: Gene, it’s a well-known story that Star Trek was saved from oblivion by audience reaction in the form of thousands of pieces of mail received by the network when the cancellation of the show was announced. How did that make you personally feel?

GR: Well, it surprised me, and of course it was gratifying. What particularly gratified me in it, though, was not the fact that a large number of people did that, but I got to meet and know Star Trek fans. And they range from children to Presidents of Universities. And really, a great bunch of people. One of my greatest enjoyments from the show was to find the kind of people we attracted, and some of the relationships we formed with them.

SA: Speaking of meeting and knowing the Star Trek fans, the “Trekkies” as they’re now called, the impact of the show is so great that these Trekkies hold annual conventions. They’ve got another one coming up February 15th. And I think, probably, you spoke at one of those Star Trek conventions.

GR: Yes, I did go to one of them and it was a remarkable experience. I am not sure that I have the strength to do it very often. My temperament is that of the writer. I like to be alone in the quiet room and work there. The sight of 8,000 people sitting out there really makes my knees shake.

FACT TREK NOTE: The con Scott Arthur mentions is likely the 3rd annual Star Trek Lives! convention held mere weeks after this interview in New York City on February 15-18, 1974.[10]

The con Roddenberry refers to having attended previously was the first Star Trek Lives!, held January 21–23, 1972. We printed a full transcript of Roddenberry's talk in our piece 1972 Gives Us the Bird (link).

View fullsize

View fullsize

SA: When you sat alone in your quiet room and you started on the Star Trek series, did you ever think that it would go that far, to have a convention of Trekkies?

GR: No. I’d hoped the series would be successful, but I was really astounded when it became a cult. The gratifying part of that is I made a real effort in Star Trek to write into it some of my own beliefs and philosophies on non-violence, on the fact that to be different is not necessarily—if someone else is different, it doesn’t mean they’re necessarily bad or wrong, and philosophies like that and thoughts like that. It was very gratifying that the Star Trek fans like that part of the show best of all, the fact that the show said something.

SA: I guess you know that part of the reason for the Trekkies is not only to pay tribute to Star Trek, but [to] try to resurrect it. Now comes the bonus question. Why can’t we resurrect—why can’t we have a new series with the same cast of Star Trek?

GR: Well, I’ve wondered that myself. There have been several efforts. NBC started talking about it once and then they asked for a new pilot. And that’s an enormous amount of work and risk and our attitude was we made 78 shows [sic], we didn’t see why we had to try out for them all over again. I think our best chance of getting it back on the air would probably be through the motion picture route. There’s some talk at Paramount of doing a Star Trek feature, a major feature. And I think that if we did a feature or if we were fortunate [and] went like Planet of the Apes did—they did a series of features—I think that would probably lead to getting back on the air.

SA: Is the cast willing to do that? Have you spoken to them?

GR: On a feature basis, that wouldn’t be too much of a problem, because they could do a feature and still take care of their other commitments. If we were just going to go straight on the air, we would have to probably plan it a year or a year and half ahead so that current commitments by all the actors could be gotten rid of.

SA: The cartoon version of Star Trek, is that a compromise, a pacifier?

GR: No, it wasn’t meant as that. NBC wanted a strong show in their morning cartoon timeslot and they were willing to go along with my demand that it not be written down to the kiddie level. I believe that children are much more intelligent than they’re given credit for. So we used regular Star Trek writers and the standard Star Trek type story. It wasn’t a pacifier, it was just an effort to do something a little better on Saturday morning.

SA: We here at WARM [radio] are starting a thing called “Keep on Trekking,” if you’ll pardon that.

GR: Ah, yes, I’ve heard.

SA: All we want to do is try and revive it or possibly something—what good would petitions do or letters do, sending to networks, would it convince them, do you think?

GR: I think they do keep interest alive, certainly. Paramount, who owns the basic copyright along with me, has been getting a lot of letters about a motion picture. I think that’s been helpful.

SA: The series seems to be more popular in the rerun circuit. More people have discovered Star Trek after it has been off and rerun many times. Do you ever watch the old shows?

GR: I started watching them about six months ago and I was really amazed. You know, when you make a show, you see each episode six or eight times by the time you cut it and put music  and all of that on it. And by the time they get on the air, you’re pretty tired of them. But after all these years, I went back and began looking at them on a local channel, and kind of enjoyed them.

SA: Looking back, would you do anything differently?

GR: Nothing basic. There are errors we made. There are sets, I think, looking back, we could improve. But as far as any basic differences, no.

SA: Okay

GR: I think we could keep the same configurations of the Enterprise and the bridge, although technology has advanced a lot since ‘64 and our instrumentation and everything could look a lot better. There are new plastics we could use. We would get better looking sets if we did it again.

SA: Okay, enough of Star Trek. [I’ll] give you a break here. Let’s talk about Gene Roddenberry. Now what background do you have to go into science fiction writing?

GR: I think, basically, it’s the background that most writers have. I always have been an omnivorous reader. When you read all your life, constantly, you store away a lot of miscellaneous information that’s very helpful. As I said, I liked science fiction. When I began writing, I was an airline pilot with Pan Am, and I think that helped me a bit in engineering and so on. It’s hard to analyze something like that.

SA: When you write, Gene, you write mostly about the future. Do you have a philosophy? Do you try to incorporate a moral, a message, in everything you do?

GR: Yes. I think that all—I think that any professional writer should have a theme, make a statement, in whatever he’s doing, weather it’s a Mr. District Attorney script or a great novel. To me, the whole purpose of writing is to make statements.

SA: Do you have one philosophy for everything, let’s say, futuristic that you write?

GR: I should say, if I have any overall philosophy, it’s a reverence for living things of all types and a great optimism about mankind. I think for all the foolish things we do, we’re a pretty remarkable creature and I think we’re still in our childhood compared to where we will be going.

SA: Do you think mankind needs saving of some sort?

GR: Oh, I think... My own philosophy is that mankind has, within himself, what he needs. I’d rather think that whatever God is, we are all a part of it.

SA: How about the UFO flurry, Gene? As a man who has created a UFO or two in his time on paper, do you believe in them to be flying saucers? Do you believe UFOs to be visitors from another world?

GR: I think it’s not impossible. I disbelieve most reports, but I think it is not at all impossible that we have been visited or are being visited. And sometimes I hope so. We tend to make such a mess of it ourselves, we could use some outside help.

SA: Do you as a producer, director, author, do you have a favorite movie from that viewpoint?

GR: A favorite Star Trek?

SA: No, a favorite movie, just in general.

GR: Never been asked that question. I really don’t. I’ve... I love movies and I have many favorites. I’m sorry that’s a disappointing answer, but I really don’t.

SA: How about a favorite science fiction writer? Anybody that you like to read more often than others?

GR: Well one of them would certainly be Isaac Asimov, and I think Arthur C. Clarke, and Heinlein would be my three favorites.

SA: Just a few more questions here. All your stuff is really believable. We are able to relate. Is that the secret to good science fiction, do you think, that we are able to relate and identify? Or is there a—

GR: That’s really the whole secret. And that’s why science fiction has so often been done badly. In writing and producing science fiction, you must give the same attention to believability that you do in doing a contemporary show. You must motivate your people, you must use every effort to make the audience believe they are there and that it’s really happening. So often in the past, in science fiction, they used bad directors. When someone said, “Well, why does he do this?” they would shrug and they’d say, “Oh yeah, it’s because it’s science fiction.” That’s not good enough. You should write science fiction with the same care that you use in writing anything else. I think the reason The Exorcist motion picture right now is such a hit is, instead of doing it like many horror films have been done—without motivation—they gave great effort to make it believable. And it shocks you right out of your chair because of it.

SA: Let’s talk about something you’ve done recently, a few things. First of all, Genesis II, about a man in our present who awakens in the post-nuclear war future, trying to help out. A pilot for possibly a new series. This seemed to be more commercial than any of the other Roddenberry creations. Why was that?

GR: Well, I wanted to do another show which had one thing Star Trek had, and that was a chance to visit different worlds every week. At the same time, I didn’t want to do planet hopping again. And so it occurred to me that if our earth went into a new Dark Ages before another civilization is built, society tends to fragment, and really does get like a hundred different worlds all over the earth. I decided that, although we did go two centuries ahead, I’d prefer to have the hero [be] a twentieth century man, and that’s when we came up with the idea of suspended animation to get him there. Perhaps that gave it a commercial look. The status of the show is that we made the pilot for CBS, they decided not to go into a series, ABC became interested in the general idea, and I revised and changed many things in the concept, and now am in the middle of writing a new pilot motion picture for ABC. The show will be recast, with new concepts, and I think this time we may get it into a series.

SA: Do you care to talk about that? The name of it? The plot, anything?

GR: Well, it’ll be on the air sometime this spring, but we don’t have an airdate. As a matter of fact, we begin shooting it in about ten days. I’m at home today working on the script, as a matter of fact, doing a polish on it.

SA: No hints as to what it is?

GR: I don’t even know what the name of the series will be. The working name we’re using right now is Planet Earth. Whether that will be the final name of the series or not, I don’t know.

FACT TREK NOTE: According to Variety, Planet Earth began shooting on Tuesday, February 12, 1974, 14 work days after this recording.[13] This, too, would not be picked up, and a third TV movie—minus Roddenberry—loosely based on the same material, Strange New World, would later air and also fail to get picked up.

SA: One more thing. Let’s talk about something that was on national TV last night, The Questor Tapes, which I thought was excellent. I think it’s one of the best Roddenberry things besides Star Trek that I have seen.

GR: Thank you.

SA: It was thoroughly believable, about a computerized humanlike robot, and what I liked best about it is you did not moralize. There was probably a horrible temptation at the end to moralize and to flash a red light and say, “This is what it is, and this is what it should be, and you people are doing this wrong.” But you let us do that for ourselves. Do you think that day will come when machines will really overtake and control man? Not like it did there, but like it could have happened?

GR: I think it’s certainly conceivable. The basic question in Questor was “what is life?” If you can create a thing out of a...a mechanical thing that thinks, is that necessarily any less alive than a thinking creation that’s made out of organic matter? I think it is certainly conceivable that computers could become more intelligent than we are.

SA: One more thing, what about the future of Gene Roddenberry and your writings? Where are you going to go from here?

GR: It’s hard to say. My.... The way I think about that is I think optimistically. I wake up every morning expecting something good to happen, and I’ve been fortunate. Good things do happen. I intend to get some more television going. Hopefully the Planet Earth, hopefully Questor. I’d like to do some features. I don’t want to confine myself exclusively to science fiction, but I do like imaginative things. I really have no plans other than enjoying myself, write as well as I can, and be honest with the audience.

—30—

Revision History

• 2022—07-22 Original post.

Special Thanks

• To Scott Arthur for allowing us to transcribe his recording and share it with you.

End Notes & Sources

* Recording date. Although the YouTube video dates this as being from 1973, we’ve determined the interview was conducted on January 24, 1974, since Mr. Arthur notes that it is the day after The Questor Tapes was first broadcast on national TV (January 23, 1975 from 9-11 p.m., on NBC).

[1] Houstonian Releases A Lost Interview with Star Trek Creator Gene Roddenberry, Dish-Houston blog (link).

[2] Leonard Nimoy, I Am Spock, 1995, New York, NY: Hatchette Books, p.58–59.

[3] “It was always Nimoy.” Dorothy Fontana, via in-person Fact Trek interview, June 2019.

[4] Herb Solow & Robert Justman, Inside Star Trek: The Real Story, ISBN 9780671896287, p.60.

[5] ‘U.N.C.L.E.’ To Rock & Roll; Ackerman On ‘Poppy’ Prowl, Dave Kaufman for Daily Variety, September 28, 1965, p.14.

[6] Shatner's ‘Heroic’ Switch; Spoofing Tarzan, ‘Peyton’, Dave Kaufman for Daily Variety, September 7, 1966, p.8.

[7] Stephen Bowie, The Invaders: The Nightmare Has Already Begun, Classic TV History blog (link)

[8] 'Antiworld' Concept Backed By Antideuteron Discovery. Date and paper unknown, but article is dated June 13, 1965. Identical and similar articles found in other newspapers are dated as early and June 14 (example). UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[9] Letters, memos and clipping from and to Harvey P. Lynn, Jr. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[10] The 1974 Star Trek Lives! convention at Fanlore (link).

[11] Star Trek Lives! (convention) 1972 flier cover (link) found on Fanlore scanned by Jim Rondeau and Melody Rondeau.

[12] Star Trek Lives! (convention) 1974 flier cover (link) found on Fanlore scanned by Mrs. Potato Head.

[13] Four Go To 'Planet', Daily Variety, Friday February 8th, 1974, p.12.

[14] Tuesday Movie of the Week, Planet Earth, Tone for Daily Variety, Tuesday April 23, 1974, p.7.

[15] Television Reviews, Planet Earth, Mick for Weekly Variety, Wednesday May 1, 1974, p.26.

[16] Telfilm Review, The Questor Tapes, Tone for Daily Variety, Thursday January 24, 1974, p.34.

[17] Television Reviews, The Questor Tapes, Bok for Weekly Variety, Wednesday, January 30, 1974, p.20.

[18] Ad, Daily Variety, Tuesday April 16, 1974, p.7.

Between 2006 and 2016, a popular Dos Equis beer ad campaign featured a debonair, gray-bearded gentleman, identified as “The Most Interesting Man in the World,” who ended each ad with a variation on the slogan —  “I don’t always drink beer, but when I do, I prefer Dos Equis. Stay thirsty, my friends.”

If you follow Star Trek anything on social media you probably know where this is going, because for a decade memes like the following have been circulating, and continue circulating a half-dozen years after the actor in question retired from his “Most Interesting” role.

The memes identify the actor as Jonathan Goldsmith and state he appeared as a non-speaking, unnamed redshirt in an episode of the original Star Trek.  

One of those is true.

His Myth Once Expanded Faster Than the Universe

In our age of social media and pop culture-related clickbait, this story has been shared and retold many times. Mr. Shatner's tweet is but one example. 

Lauren Davis offered this variation for io9 in 2012:

It sounds like a bit from the Dos Equis commercials, but in this case, it appears to be true. Jonathan Goldsmith, who plays the beer company's Most Interesting Man in the World, appeared in the second episode of the original Star Trek series, “The Corbomite Maneuver.” He only appears on screen for a moment, but he also doesn't get a death scene.[1]

Episode number error aside (“The Corbomite Maneuver” was the first series production episode of Star Trek filmed and the tenth to air, not the show's “second episode”), is it possible that the rest of the account is true? 

Today, Jonathan Goldsmith is a famous pitchman (sold to consumers as The Most Interesting Man in the World), but in 1966, he was a working actor, mostly appearing on episodic television. Perhaps he once had a small part on Star Trek?

Not if Mr. Goldsmith has anything to say about it.

The Most Interesting Denial In the World

During a 2013 Reddit AMA, Goldsmith offered a cheeky denial that he had ever appeared on the series:

Jonathan Goldsmith: Let me set the record straight... I have never appeared on Star Trek, if I remember correctly that is, which is always dubious.[2]

In a later interview with the Television Academy, Mr. Goldsmith dismissed the story again, this time with less ambiguity:

David M. Gutiérrez: It's fitting you're being sent to Mars [in a commercial], considering you're credited as being a "Redshirt" in the original Star Trek.

Jonathan Goldsmith: No, I wasn't. I've never done that show. I can’t convince the fans of that. They keep sending me pictures of a guy in a red shirt, but it ain't me.[3]

Since the actor himself has twice issued a denial, it begs asking — how did the rumor get started in the first place?

Myth Alert

...

Myth Alert ...

Lippe Service

The Most Interesting Matter here is just how stories like this are born, spread, and propagate to the point they’re gleefully accepted as fact when they, in truth, are patently false.

In this case the answer begins not on the web, but appears to originate in the pages of the 1995 edition of The Star Trek Concordance (this information is not present in previous editions of the book). In that book, the following names are included as part of the cast list for “The Corbomite Maneuver”:

Crewmen: Bruce Mars, John Gabriel, Jonathan Lippe, Stewart Moss, George Bochmane[4]

There are two things of note about these five names. First, Lippe was the surname of Jonathan Goldsmith’s stepfather, and the name Goldsmith used professionally until 1975.[5] Second, precisely none of the actors listed actually appear in “The Corbomite Maneuver.” Bruce Mars and Stewart Moss appeared in other episodes, while John Gabriel and Jonathan Lippe/Goldsmith didn't appear on Star Trek at all. “Bochmane” is probably a misspelling of George Backman, who had a brief acting career in the late 1960s, but never appeared on Star Trek.

How did Bjo Trimble, author of The Star Trek Concordance, come to believe that these five men appeared in “The Corbomite Maneuver”? The following portion of the author's note (emphasis added) provided the first clue:

For this new edition, I used video- and audiotapes, shooting and editing scripts, the UCLA Special Collections Library collections, private files and notes, interviews, letters from fans, books, help from people inside Paramount Studios, and computer bulletin board postings...to edit, expand, add to, and rewrite the original handful of notes into this book.[6]

When we sent the following casting schedule in a batch of documents to Dave Tilotta, co-author of Star Trek: Lost Scenes, he realized the importance of the following memo almost immediately — it has all five of the names listed as crewmen in The Star Trek Concordance, including Jonathan Lippe (Goldsmith).

It turns out that Bruce Mars, John Gabriel, Jonathan Lippe, Stuart Moss, and George Backman (here, spelled “George Bochman”) all were considered for the role of Lieutenant Dave Bailey, which eventually went to the second actor on the list — Anthony Call. 

It’s pretty obviously a list of actors up for two parts but it was the early 90s and Bjo Trimble was probably forced to take handwritten notes from the documents rather than photocopy or photograph them, and when consulting her notes erroneously concluded all of the actors listed on this memo actually appeared in “The Corbomite Maneuver.”

But, as often happens with inaccurate information—especially when published by a figure as established as Bjo—such erroneous cast listings inevitably ended up in other publications. When Michael and Denise Okuda updated The Star Trek Encyclopedia with a second edition in 1997, for example, they included the following in their cast list for “The Corbomite Maneuver”:

Bruce Mars, John Gabriel, Jonathan Lippe, Stewart Moss, George Bochman, Crewmen.[8]

That book's acknowledgments confirm that such information, which is not present in the first edition of The Star Trek Encyclopedia, most likely came from Trimble:

We would like to thank Bjo Trimble for permission to use some of her cast list research from the original Star Trek series that was incorporated into our cast appendix.[9]

Eventually, the claim that Jonathan Goldsmith appeared on Star Trek would make its way to IMDb (as early as 2010; though this listing has since been removed), as well as many other online sources. It was within one of those that this myth would take on a new dimension.

A Most Uninvestigated Meme

That source of all this social media activity? It appears to be an October 8, 2012 blog post by Joey deVilla, which identified a specific extra from “The Corbomite Maneuver” as Jonathan Goldsmith. Previous sources, like the Concordance and the Encyclopedia, claimed that Goldsmith played an unnamed crewman in the episode, but did not identify him with an actor on screen. 

Mr. deVilla, however, claimed that the extra in question was a red-shirted Enterprise crewman who only briefly appears (and we do mean briefly — the man in question, who has no lines and receives no screen credit, is on screen for less than five seconds).

The redshirt supposedly I.D. as Goldsmith…who isn’t.

This supposed positive I.D. quickly caught fire. Not only did it form the basis of the widely circulated meme and variations on it, but it was subsequently reported — without scrutiny, and often without attribution — by other online outlets.

Examples:

• October 13, 2012: I Don’t Always Play a Red Shirt on Star Trek. But When I Do, I Survive The Whole Episode (Neatorama)

• October 14, 2012: The Most Interesting Man in the World played a red shirt on Star Trek—and survived (io9)

• October 14, 2012: I Don’t Always Play a Red Shirt on Star Trek… (Patheos)

• September 17, 2013: Image Of The Day: The Most Interesting Star Trek Redshirt In The World (SyFyWire; link no longer available)

• March 9, 2014: Did You Know ‘The Most Interesting Man In the World’ Was On ‘Star Trek’? (KEKB-FM)

• March 2, 2016: 31 Actors And Celebrities You Didn’t Know Appeared In ‘Star Trek’ (UPROXX)

• March 9, 2016: Dos Equis' Most Interesting Man in the World was in all of your favorite TV shows (MeTV)

• April 5, 2016: 12 CELEBRITIES YOU MIGHT HAVE FORGOTTEN WERE ON 'STAR TREK' (MeTV)

• June 23, 2016: Dos Equis’ ‘Most Interesting Man In The World’ Has a Most Interesting Link to ‘Star Trek’ (Mic)

• June 23, 2016: Dos Equis’ ‘Most Interesting Man In The World’ Has a Most Interesting Link to ‘Star Trek’ (Yahoo Music)

• June 24, 2016: ‘Most Interesting Man’ Worked as an Extra on ‘Star Trek’ (Project Casting) [Article was updated September 29, 2021]

• July 4, 2016: The actor who plays “The Most Interesting Man In The World” also played a redshirt on Star Trek who survived (Curionic)

• January 18, 2017: “Did you know…that the “World’s Most Interesting Man” once played a “redshirt” in the original ’60’s Star Trek  episode “The Corbomite Maneuver” and lived to talk about it???” (Trek Mate)

• August 7, 2020: Who Is the Dos Equis “Most Interesting Man in The World”? (Better Marketing)

Who’s Interesting?

So, if the briefly glimpsed redshirt wasn’t our “Interesting” Goldsmith, who was he?

Unfortunately, we don't have access to the documentation necessary to identify this extra. Star Trek's daily production reports identified most speaking parts and stunt performers, but they never provided the names of any background performers. Only the total number of extras who appeared on any given day, their pay rates, and their hours worked would be listed.

Daily Production Report for “The Corbomite Maneuver” (June 2, 1966) [10]

Thus, the daily production reports for “The Corbomite Maneuver” cannot clear up his identity. The relevant section above, marked “ATMOSPHERE, WELFARE WORKERS, AND SIDELINE MUSICIANS” (bottom section of which does not identify any of the background performers who worked on June 2, 1966, when the shot Mr. deVilla identified was taken).

An entry on the Memory Alpha wiki suggests the same extra that deVilla mis-I.D.ed as Goldsmith also appeared—equally as briefly—in “What Are Little Girls Made Of”, and in “Charlie X” as one of the crewmen Charlie Evans barges through en-route to the bridge near the climax. If it’s the same actor, it’s clearly not Goldsmith.[11]

However, even though archival documentation cannot be used to clarify the actual identity of this extra, there are other reasons — beyond the actor's firm denial — that make it highly unlikely Mr. Goldsmith appeared on Star Trek in a background role.

SAG Not SEG

In 1966, Jonathan Goldsmith appeared on at least five different TV programs in eight different roles (and received screen credit). These were speaking roles, and Goldsmith was in the Screen Actors Guild (SAG). Extras received considerably less than SAG actors (both upfront and on the back end; extras did not receive any residuals if a show was rebroadcast, while SAG actors would receive payments for the first few reruns). 

Moreover, until 1990, background performers were represented by their own guild (SEG, the Screen Extras Guild) and SAG actors crossing over into background work was rare.

The reverse, however, was more common. On Star Trek, for example, Eddie Paskey was a background actor who appeared in 58 episodes, but he ended up with lines in five of those and screen credit in two.

Jonathan Goldsmith himself says he received his first speaking role — on The Doctors, a soap opera — when the producers gave him a line of dialogue while he was working as an extra.[12] By 1966, however, there's no evidence that Goldsmith was pursuing work as an extra, and zero evidence that he appeared on Star Trek.

Trek Adjacent

But it turns out that Goldsmith's not without a few Star Trek connections. In his memoir, Stay Interesting: I Don't Always Tell Stories About My Life, but When I Do They're True and Amazing, he relates that…

• When he first moved to Hollywood (after acting in New York), he stayed with a young actor named Walter Koenig (“His role on Star Trek and his success were much deserved and truly could not have happened to a nicer guy,” says Goldsmith)[13] Walter says they knew each other but never cohabitated.[14]

• Star Trek regular director Marc Daniels directed him in a 1966 television episode of Gunsmoke

• He shared the screen with the likes of both Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner— with the former on on an episode of Mission: Impossible and with the latter on three episodes of T.J. Hooker

But there’s absolutely no evidence that he ever appeared on an episode of Star Trek.

Fact Trequies

That this myth has gone so far based on misreading a single memo and repeated without scrutiny is The Most Interesting Fact In the Meme World…or at least we think so.

So the next time you see that spurious meme reshared, do your FACT TREKking duty and reply with this meme we’ve made just for you…

As “The Most Interesting” Mr. Goldsmith might say, “Stay skeptical, my friends.”

—30—

Note: This article is an expanded and updated version of a piece originally published as “The Most Interesting Article In The World” (link) on Fact Trek’s predecessor, the Star Trek Fact Check blog, on Monday, November 13, 2017.

Revision History

• 2020-06-02 Original post.

• 2020-07-04 Incorrect image of daily production report replaced with the one from the date mentioned. Typos and some grammar corrected.

Special Thanks

• To David Tilotta for connecting the dots between the Bailey casting memo and The Star Trek Concordance, and for generally being a real hep cat.

• To Star Trek casting director Joseph D’Agosta for explaining how the casting of extras/background was carried out.

• To FACT TREK Associate Ryan Thomas Riddle for his invaluable input and edits. Follow his adventures through time and space on Twitter (link) and see his work on his homepage (link).

End Notes & Sources

[1] Lauren Davis, "The Most Interesting Man in the World played a red shirt on Star Trek—and survived" (link),  io9, October 14, 2012

[2] Jonathan Goldsmith, "I don't always post to Reddit, but when I do, I do it from Central Vietnam's former DMZ. I am Jonathan Goldsmith, I play the Most Interesting Man in the World. Ask Me Anything" (link), Reddit, August 1, 2013.

[3] David M. Gutiérrez, “A Most Interesting Interview with a Most Interesting Man” (link), Emmys, June 17, 2016

[4] Bjo Trimble, The Star Trek Concordance: The A-To-Z Guide to the Classic Original Television Series and Films (1995), p.14

[5] Jonathan Goldsmith, Stay Interesting: I Don't Always Tell Stories About My Life, but When I Do They're True and Amazing (2017), p.50

[6] Bjo Trimble, The Star Trek Concordance (1995), p.vii

[7] Casting Schedule for "The Corbomite Maneuver," Joe Sargent, May 1966, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek Television Series Collection, UCLA

[8] Michael and Denise Okuda, The Star Trek Encyclopedia: A Reference Guide to the Future (Updated and Expanded Edition, 1997), p.88

[9] Michael and Denise Okuda, The Star Trek Encyclopedia: A Reference Guide to the Future (Updated and Expanded Edition, 1997), p.v

[10] Daily Production Report for "The Corbomite Maneuver," June 2, 1966, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek Television Series Collection, Box 3, Folder 9

[11] Unnamed USS Enterprise operations personnel, Engineer #2 on the Memory Alpha Wiki (link)

[12] Jonathan Goldsmith, Stay Interesting: I Don't Always Tell Stories About My Life, but When I Do They're True and Amazing (2017), p.50

[13] Jonathan Goldsmith, Stay Interesting:, p.121-125

[14] Walter Koening via email with Fact Trek, Jun 1, 2022.

“I knew Jonathan in New York. We were at the Neighborhood Playhouse together. He came out to L.A. about a year after I did and we hung out together for several years back in the sixties. Ran into him again a couple of years back. Not that it matters but we never lived together.”

See Also

• Jonathan Goldsmith on IMDb (link)

• In June 2017 Jonathan Goldsmith was interviewed on the PBS series The Tavis Smiley Show in 2017 (link). (According to IMDb the airdate was June 21, 2017, but this recording is dated June 22).

On September 16, 1968, four days before Star Trek’s third season premiere of “Spock’s Brain”, the second season opener of NBC’s Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In featured the very first Flying Fickle Finger of Fate award. That dubious honor — which became a weekly staple of the series — was awarded to public figures, corporations, and government agencies, for their many questionable achievements. As to that first one…

And the winner is: the United States Congress, established 1781 as a lobby for the American people, for ignoring the wishes of 200 million Americans and delaying passage of a gun control law, we hereby present Congress with the first Flying Fickle Finger of Fate.

Some things never change.

But even before that first Flying Fickle Finger of Fate, Star Trek fans were figuratively awarding a “delightful digit” of their own to NBC itself. The reason? The network’s March 1968 decision to rescind a plan to schedule the beloved series in a prime slot on Monday nights at 7:30 p.m. and instead bury it on Friday nights at 10 p.m. — the so-called “Friday Night Death Slot” — where it had previously intended to put Laugh-In.

The folly of this decision appears obvious in hindsight. After all, Star Trek became a hit in off-network syndication, spawning movies and ever-multiplying sequel series for almost 50 years, whereas Laugh-In is a largely-forgotten and — to modern audiences — unfunny relic.

On the surface, this seems to be so. As usual, the story is more complicated. 

It’s a tale of demographics and ratings, how those led to the cancellation and immediate revival of a popular CBS western, Lucille Ball’s perennial Top 10 series, how those created a “kamikaze” slot that doomed a former hit spy show, with a resulting hole in NBC’s schedule that would be filled either by explorers of the final frontier or a bunch of kooks who would “sock it to me” anything and everything, and which of them would discover if Friday night at 10 p.m. was — in fact — a Death Slot at all.

Join us as we take a Mod Mod World look at the News of the Past, 1968 style, to see just how — and if — NBC pulled a “sock it to me” on Star Trek.

Every Day the Same Thing, Variety*

🎶What's the news across the nation?

We have got the information

In a way we hope will amuse you

We just love to give you our views

Da da dee da!

Ladies and gents

Fact Trek looks at the news!🎶

We’re going to lean heavily on reporting by Hollywood trade paper Variety, contemporary news items, and a few books to tell much of this story. But a modicum of context is required:

A Note on Variety “Slanguage”

We quote papers verbatim, with our omissions indicated with [...]. But trade papers like Variety often employ industry lingo and their own shorthand. Examples:

guestar = guest star
preem = premier
oater = a western
sked = schedule
terrif = terrific
vidtape = videotape
web = a TV network

(Here’s Variety’s link to their own “slanguage”.)

Note also that press reporting of the series’ situation was all over the place. During the same weeks and often on the same day, some reporting Star Trek was kaput, others that it was safe. For instance (emphasis ours):

Kaput 

Cancellations on the two networks total 12. [...] NBC has decided to drop "Star Trek," The Jerry Lewis Show," "The Mothers-in-law," and "My Friend Tony," a mid-season replacement.[1]

Safe

"Star Trek" is being renewed for another season, it's third on NBC-TV. The program, which has had relatively low ratings and high prestige, has been threatened with cancellation since last September. NBC President Julian Goodman is mainly responsible for the decision to extend the series into a third year. Goodman said "Star Trek" draws more mail from upper educative viewers than any other program on NBC. The big Friday night ratings (8:30 to 9:30 p.m.) go to CBS programs, "Gomer Pyle" and the "Friday Night Movie."[2]

Some reported out-of-date scheduling information. Such conflicting accounts continued to be printed even weeks after the final decisions were made. This confusion possibly because not all papers were getting the most up-to-date information at the same time, or were using wire-service items delayed by days or weeks so they ended up hopelessly out-of-date.

This is why we prefer to lean on trade papers like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, which tend to be very current, being intimately connected to the biz.

NBC Cries U.N.C.L.E.

Our story begins in 1967, when CBS momentarily canceled and then immediately renewed its perennial Gunsmoke at the end of that series’ 12th season, and Lucille Ball sold her Desilu Studios to Gulf & Western to merge with Paramount. The following fall, Gunsmoke was rescheduled to Monday night at 7:30 to serve as the lead-in to The Lucy Show at 8:30, and NBC moved their former Top 20 series The Man from U.N.C.L.E. to 8:00 to face both.

NOTE ON AIRTIMES: All times listed in articles are U.S. Eastern Time. Central Time uses the same feed as the East, so all programming is an hour earlier. The feed is delayed by one hour for Mountain time and three hours for Pacific Time.

e.g. 8:30 Eastern & Pacific = 7:30 Central & Mountain.

Only weeks into the 1967–68 season. NBC was realizing its mistake, which would have repercussions affecting the fates of Star Trek and the upcoming Laugh-In. In late October Variety was reporting:

NBC; Suffering From Oldie Anemia, Poises Axe for 'UNCLE' and Mulls Flip-Flop of 2 Hours Mon. & Tues.

[...]A key difference between CBS and NBC in this season's rating derby is that the former has scored poorly with its new shows but got strong performances from its oldies, while at NBC the newies on the whole are doing well but some of the returning shows are falling apart.

A case in point is, "Man From UNCLE," which as of the moment looks like NBC's most likely candidate for midseason cancellation. Its doom was all but sealed at a network program meeting late last week. The series has probably been the victim of too many shifts in the schedule, seeming to occupy a new one every year.

Per present thinking at the web, "Star Trek" would be shifted out of 8:30 on Friday to replace "UNCLE," and that move has the network mulling a possible restructuring of Friday.

[...]Replacement series in the wings include [...] "Rowan & Martin Laugh-In."[sic][30]

FACT: This move was being considered more than a month before the Save Star Trek! campaign was to start.

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is an interesting case study. It is relevant to Star Trek not only because the demise of the former affected the latter but also because both were action-adventure programs with similar strong youth‡ and young adult audiences (though we don’t know how the former fared with the 35-to-49 demographic). Both series even occupied two of the same time slots.

Neither series was a hit coming out of the gate. Trek started well enough against a quickly canceled notorious flop (The Tammy Grimes Show), then quickly sank into the low middle of the pack in the Nielsen ratings. U.N.C.L.E. had an ignominious launch on Tuesdays at 8:30 p.m. with initially poor ratings.

View fullsize

U.N.C.L.E. received a midseason (1964–65 season) change to Monday at 8:00 p.m. (where it faced the back half of Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea and No Time for Sergeants on ABC, and I've Got a Secret and Top 10 The Andy Griffith Show on CBS), but savvy promotion on the part of its producers, and the college crowd discovering the show over the Christmas season, aided in building an audience.[4].

By the summer of 1965, U.N.C.L.E. was a hit.

For its second season (1965–66) the show changed producers, got a bit more tongue-in-cheek, and landed a new time slot that will be familiar to those who know Trek lore:

For the second season, the show underwent another time-slot change. It was moved from Monday night at eight P.M. to Friday nights at ten P.M. eastern time. [...] The decision was based, in part, on a study done in February 1965 showing that the appeal of the show was strongest with teenagers aged twelve to seventeen, and young adults aged eighteen to thirty-four. Friday night was chosen because studies showed that there was more of this audience available during that time period on Friday night than on any other weeknight; the later time would not be a drawback because the next day was not a school day. There were estimated to be more than 24 million viewers aged eighteen to thirty-four during that time period. At the time the study was done, it was anticipated that The Man from U.N.C.L.E. would be competing against Twelve O’Clock High on ABC and Coronet Blue on CBS. Direct comparison studies showed that U.N.C.L.E. would draw a larger share than either of those shows.[5]

If the above is accurate (the source doesn’t cite its source), and if Star Trek indeed had a similar audience makeup, then this runs contrary to everything Gene Roddenberry and conventional wisdom held about that time slot and that audience for 50 years.

We’ll circle back to that.

But not everyone was happy with the time-slot change. Letters were received complaining that the time was too late in the evening, and made housewives choose between watching the show and going out for the evening. Many teens pointed out that Friday was a date night, again prompting a difficult choice for the viewer. A survey by Newsweek of college campuses showed that U.N.C.L.E. was, for the second year in a row, one of three favorite shows on campus. A petition signed by 138 State University of New York at Buffalo students requested the Monday night slot be retained. Other surveys showed that the show had the largest male audience outside of sports programs.[6]

Roddenberry would parrot these objections two years later when Trek got the “Friday Night Death Slot.”

So, how did U.N.C.L.E. perform there? Did it “cry uncle”? 

On the contrary, it rocketed into the Top 20, landing at #13 for the season.

“Fascinating,” no?

Interestingly, on February 28, 1966 Broadcasting magazine reported the networks’ first stab at a 1966–67 schedule, and NBC considering shifting U.N.C.L.E. back 90 minutes to 8:30 with just-ordered Star Trek to debut in the 10 p.m. slot where U.N.C.L.E. was then flourishing. Was NBC hoping to catch lightning in a bottle twice if Trek could repeat that show’s success in the slot?[8]

When Star Trek finally premiered the following fall it landed on Thursdays at 8:30 p.m., and U.N.C.L.E. got moved to the Friday at 8:30 p.m. slot that Star Trek would occupy the following season. A format change (in part a response to the hit du jour that was Batman) to go more comedic, another new producer, and the new time slot saw U.N.C.L.E.’s ratings plummet to #46 for the year, still several slots above where Trek would land at its peak (#52 in its first season).

By the subsequent season (1967–68) U.N.C.L.E. was in deep doo doo ratings-wise, so desperate course corrections were attempted: yet another new producer was brought in, the Batman shtick got a bullet in the head as the show went back to a more serious tone, and NBC decided to put it back in the Monday at 8:00 p.m. slot where it had initially found success, with Star Trek taking the now-vacant Friday at 8:30 p.m. slot. But that Monday night position was fraught because of what CBS had wrought.

November 1, 1967, was the “pickup date” when the network would decide if it wanted to order the rest of the episodes for the season. The show [U.N.C.L.E.] had undergone another time-slot change for the fourth season, and was now seen on Monday nights again, at eight p.m. EST, opposite Gunsmoke and The Lucy Show on CBS, and Cowboy in Africa and The Rat Patrol on ABC. [Producer Norman] Felton tried to get the show moved to Saturday night, so it would be opposite The Jackie Gleason Show and The Dating Game, but was unsuccessful. The season before, CBS had almost canceled its long-running Gunsmoke, which was airing on Saturdays at ten p.m. EST, a time when many younger viewers were out of the home. Sponsors were reluctant to finance a show that held mainly an older audience, so for the 1967–68 season CBS decided to give Gunsmoke one more chance, and moved it to Monday nights at seven-thirty. The Man from U.N.C.L.E. would start half an hour later at eight, which meant that viewers already watching Gunsmoke were unlikely to switch over to U.N.C.L.E. in the middle. Similarly, when The Lucy Show came on, they would be unlikely to switch over for the second half of an U.N.C.L.E. story.[11]

The CBS one-two punch of Gunsmoke + Lucy was a knockout, and U.N.C.L.E. was T.O.A.S.T. It would go off the air mid-season–airing only 16 episodes for the season–leaving a gaping hole in NBC’s schedule that Star Trek was a candidate to fill.

But in that 8 p.m. slot it would have been up against that same one-two punch that’d made NBC cry “uncle” with U.N.C.L.E. With a similar audience demographic and a smaller (though likely more dedicated) existing audience base than U.N.C.L.E., Trek’s survivability in that slot was questionable at best.

The Monday “Kamikaze” Slot

Moving Star Trek wasn’t NBC’s only option; it had several midseason replacement series in the wings. One of them was Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In, which had aired as a special to good ratings[12] and notices at the top of the season. Variety was effusive in its praise for the special:

What a fresh breeze this was in the stale air of the new-season comedy, a wacky, brightly irreverent, unpretentious collection of sight gags, sketches and musical parody. "Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In" was a sneak preem pilot, and NBC should speed it into full production. [...] Not all the sight gags came off, but they came and went so fast nobody could care. Production val​​ues were particularly striking in this mix of film clips and vidtape.[13] 

NBC did in fact “speed it into production” and ultimately counter-programmed the CBS Monday Goliaths with Laugh-In as a mid-season replacement, choosing not to put Star Trek up against that killer one-two punch.

But Laugh-In was no sure thing, either, as cast member Judy Carne related in her memoir:

NBC gave us a "kamikaze" time slot, as our fearless leader, George Schlatter, liked to call it: Monday night at 8 p.m., opposite "Gunsmoke" and "The Lucy Show." Even the popular "Man from U.N.C.L.E." failed in this slot, causing NBC to cancel it at mid-season.[14]

Laugh-In as a series debuted on Jan. 22, 1968. In that premiere it had a bit of cheeky fun with its barely-deceased predecessor, featuring U.N.C.L.E.’s Leo G. Carroll in a cameo.

It was safely assumed that the audience would recognize Waverly, the pen communicator, and the references to Solo, Kuryakin, and THRUSH — a testimonial to the impact the show had on American television in the 1960s.[15]

…well, except Solo wasn’t mentioned. Details, details.

The NBC Shuffle

With the balance of the 1967-68 season settled, in early 1968 NBC turned to putting together its 1968–69 “sked”. This was always a chaotic period where shows got moved around as the networks tried to figure out how to assemble “building blocks” where lead-in shows would establish an audience that would carry over into subsequent shows, and which sponsors would, er, sponsor what shows in each time slot.

By January 31st, just days after Laugh-In’s sophomore episode, the trades were reporting NBC’s initial approach:

Last year with a format change (the addition of a femme character), ABC reprieved “Batman” at the 11th hour and lost on the bet. CBS reinstated “Gunsmoke” after cancellation, for a new timeslot and won. Now “Batman” goes out, creating a new program problem for ABC next fall, but “Gunsmoke” stays in and relieves CBS of any Monday 7:30 concern.

The very tentative NBC sked has “Monkees,” “Run For Your Life” and Danny Thomas tossed out, along with “Mothers-in-Law” “Hollywood Squares” and “The Saint.” But Jerry Lewis is pencilled [sic] in for retention in a new Tuesday period, 7:30; “Star Trek” is down for the leadoff hour on Fridays [7:30 p.m.]; and the still unproven “Rowan & Martin Laugh-In” is indicated stet on Mondays. “I Spy” and “Dragnet” are up in the air, the former bidding against “The Outsider” and a new Phyllis Diller show for Fridays at 10 p.m. and the latter challenged on Thursdays by “Adam 12.”[16] 

On Fridays at 7:30 p.m. Star Trek would've had no prime-time lead-in and been the first show of the night on NBC. If the other networks hadn’t shuffled things in response to such a move, Trek would have found itself up against the final season of CBS's The Wild Wild West, and ABC's Operation: Entertainment in the fall & then This Is Tom Jones in the spring. None of those shows cracked the Top 30 that season. But Friday at 7:30 twas not to be as we'll see...

The Man from D.O.D.G.E.

By Valentine’s Day NBC was thinking differently, and reporting was:

Monday—”Star Trek” a possibility at 7:30; 8:30 half hour open; movies.

[...]

Friday—”Tarzan” looks to get the nod over “Monkees” and “I Dream of Jeannie,” which have been considered for the lead-in hour; Uni’s 90-minute “Name of the Game” from 8:30 to 10, and either “Outsider” or “Laugh-In” to close.[17]

That “8:30 half-hour open” after Star Trek would be critical to what ultimately happened because that was a “Death Slot” of its own: the CBS “Lucy” slot. Lucille Ball’s The Lucy Show was ending, to be replaced in the fall by her new show, Here’s Lucy.[18] But no Lucy show had ever fallen out of the Top 10 (and none would until 1972–73),[19] so this would be stiff competition for anything NBC would put up against it.

At this point, Laugh-In had just aired its fourth episode, and the full ratings picture was only available — at best — for two. NBC had little idea how well it would perform in that slot. Some series started strong and died. Other times they built over a series of weeks.

In fact, the plan was no longer to put Star Trek exactly in the former U.N.C.L.E. slot that Laugh-In currently inhabited but a half-hour earlier, Monday at 7:30, trying to outdraw Dodge City’s Matt Dillon on Gunsmoke, which was now in the Top 10.

Captain Kirk vs. Marshall Dillon. Talk about an epic showdown!

Life & Death by Demographics

Perhaps the only thing in Star Trek‘s favor in a Gunsmoke shootout was its demographics. 

Yes, demographics. They were a thing before Trek’s cancellation, despite what Roddenberry told us. 

In the 1966–67 season Gunsmoke had landed just outside the “safe” Top 30, placing #34, some 18 positions ahead of Star Trek, and yet it still got canceled — if only for an instant — partly because of its poor youth demographics. As reported a year earlier, in March 1967:

As far as broadcasting is concerned, the population drops into four categories: the 18-to-34 viewers (and their young children); to 35-to-49 plus growing kids; the 50-to-64s, and the 65-plus. 

Gunsmoke, which certainly looked healthy enough on the Nielsen chart, recently was pulling a 21.7 rating and placed 26th in the popularity poll. That was better than The Monkees, Star Trek, Lost in Space — all renewed for another season and all counted among the successful programs. 

GUNSMOKE'S ailment is in the demographic area. Surveys reveal that its popularity with viewers over 50 is infinitely greater than with the 18-to-34 and the 35-to-49 groups. And, after all, the over-50s are constantly getting older or dying off — and they are in smaller families that don't buy as much soap, beer, ice boxes, cars, cake mixes or anything else as young consumers. So, Gunsmoke was shaky — particularly since it costs about $200,000 a week to produce.[20]

View fullsize

Star Trek was reportedly strongest with youth demographics. Earlier in the same article regarding Gunsmoke:

The Gunsmoke ailment was a familiar one in television: statistics. But instead of giving up the patient as lost, the network is sending it away for a change of scenery in hopes of effecting a cure. By moving the show from the end of its Saturday night schedule to the head of its Monday night lineup next season, it hopes to attract a whole new audience as well as the hard core viewers who follow it from its old location.​​

Here’s a comment about Gunsmoke‘s demographics after its move:

It wasn't as though Gunsmoke suddenly acquired a significantly younger audience, though the viewers were undoubtedly of a somewhat different demographic makeup. According to Mike Dann, for years the network's senior v. p. for programing [sic], Gunsmoke's demographics were probably among the worst in television on the basis of the number of young people in the audience, but with an audience as large as Gunsmoke enjoyed, "Who cared whether they all wore dentures?"[21] 

But by the time Gunsmoke received its last-minute reprieve the fall schedule had all but been locked, and there was no room for it. So CBS chief William Paley asked for a read of two comedies on Monday night, one of which was newly ordered (Doc, starring Forrest Tucker[22]) and the other was Gilligan’s Island,[23] neither of which were “selling” with sponsors. Both were scuttled[24] to give Gunsmoke its second chance.

Save[d] Star Trek

Now back to 1968.

On Feb. 21st Variety reported NBC’s tentative schedule for 1968-69. Relevant to this discussion are Monday and Friday, so we’re omitting other days of the week in this excerpt.

NBC sent up its trial balloon over Madison Ave. yesterday as the first draft of next season’s schedule. Taken off schedule were eight shows and slots were given to six new programs. Network emphasized that it is not the final wrapup and other changes may be made before the fall semester is teed up in September.

MONDAY

7:30—Star Trek

8:30—Adam 12

9—Movie

FRIDAY

7:30—Jerry Lewis

8:30—Name Of The Game

10—Rowan And Martin Laugh-In[25]

So was Trek fated to be slated against high-rated Gunsmoke? It was not a sure thing.

During all of this the Save Star Trek! letter-writing campaign had been going full tilt, and just over a week later, during the March 1st airing of “The Omega Glory,” NBC reportedly made an on-air announcement that the series would be continuing the following season. The book The Making of Star Trek addresses this, but we have to date been unable to locate the press release to verify it. Here’s the text as related in that book:

NBC’s V.P. Mort Werner dashed off a letter confirming the pickup, printed in TV Guide magazine covering the week of March 16–22.[27]

View fullsize

View fullsize

But on March 15th, the programming sands shifted.

And the same day, Weekly Variety reported:

‘Trek’ May Be Off NBC’S Track In Fall

Paramount TVs “Star Trek” series on NBC-TV, which the network said it renewed because of terrif mail requests that the sci-fi series remain on, suddenly has become a question mark.

When network disclosed its fall sked it had the series slotted at 7:30 p.m. Mondays, but is now moving it to 10 p.m. Fridays, with Rowan & Martin’s “Laugh-In” shifting from the Friday slot to Monday (see story P. 24).

Asked for comment, exec producer Gene Roddenberry of “Star Trek” was close-mouthed. He said only that he is not signing a new contract to produce the series until he knows definitely what night it will be on, and in what time slot.

NBC-TV veepee Mort Werner is due in this week, will confer with Roddenberry on the issue.[29]

The “‘Lucy’-Beater”

So, what happened?

This…

Meanwhile, NBC’s decision to retain the Monday night slot for “Laugh-In” instead of moving the hour comedy to Friday night has resulted In new time periods for three other shows. Network is said to have been impressed with the ratings of R&M† against the competition of “Lucy.”[30]

† “R&M” meaning Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In.

Remember we said that the “8:30 half hour open” against Lucy would be critical to what ultimately happened? This was cemented in reporting on March 20th:

‘Laugh-In' Click As ‘Lucy'-Beater Clinches Slot

Weekly Variety, March 20, 1968, p32

The Nielsen rating sample has been staying in and tuning in to "Laugh-In" with such persistency [sic] that NBC-TV last week made still another juggle of its fall slate in order to leave the Rowan-Martin spread in its Monday night time slot. 

In the New York overnights last week for Monday (11), R&M on WNBC-TV pulled a 43 share of audience, topping the combined shares of opposition network fare on WCBS-TV ("Lucy") and WABCTV ("Rat Patrol"). Same time, the midseason hit was the fifth in the 30-market Nielsen last week, and the tell-tale force of the combined numbers story was enough to make the web's program nabobs lay down the putters and take another fast look at that little old fall schedule. 

Result of the relook was that "Laugh-in" stays Monday nights 8 to 9 p.m., leading into the new movie grind, while "Star Trek" takes the Friday, 10 to 11 p.m. to which "Laugh-In" was to swing under original scheduling.

Dislodged by "Laugh-In's" stay-in were "Adam 12," moving now to Saturdays at 7:30 p.m. and sending "I Dream of Jeannie" to Mondays at 7:30 p.m. "Star Trek" had been slated for 7:30 to 8:30 Mondays, and "Adam 12" had been set for 8:30 to 9 the same night. "Jeannie" had previously been slated to kick off Saturdays as part of a comedy bloc.[31]

Laugh-In as a “Lucy-beater” was something NBC wasn’t about to mess with.

Laugh-In was “in” and strong in those same 18-to-34 and the 35-to-49 groups as Star Trek…probably stronger given its “mod” cred.

And because Laugh-In was an hour-long program running from 8–9, Star Trek couldn’t take the planned 7:30–8:30 slot, which overlapped.

It appears the single hour-long hole remaining in NBC’s “sked” was the one that had been intended for Laugh-In back when it was unproven: Friday nights at 10 p.m. And, unless NBC was willing to move other shows around at the last minute — or sink a scheduled show as CBS had Gilligan — that’s where Star Trek was fated to end up.

The irony of Laugh-In as a “‘Lucy’-beater” was that Lucille Ball, the former executive whose studio birthed Star Trek, was a factor in that show losing its shot at Monday night … for better or for worse.

Fan Friction

As one might expect, fan reaction to this was swift and merciless. Barely a month after the trades reported NBC’s reversal, the second issue of fanzine Spockanalia summed up what they’d been told by Star Trek Insiders and had gleaned from comments Roddenberry had made in the press.

A relevant quote: 

NEW BETRAYAL COMES: Having announced that STAR TREK would be broadcast on Mondays at 7:30, the Klingons network now renegs. The show is scheduled for Fridays at 10:00. This is a death night. We can only infer that NBC wants to kill the program. Perhaps they're afraid of a show whose viewers can exert effective pressure.[32]

This demonstrates the conventional wisdom about Fridays at 10 p.m. that was already present in fandom.

And speaking of that…on to the final issue: the “Death Slot” itself.

Friday’s Child

Star Trek had been launched into a Friday 10 p.m. orbit, but was that truly a “Death Slot”? Let’s look at the bigger picture.

First, did NBC think it was such a thing, and if so, why would they have intended to slot a promising new series like Laugh-In there?

Second, the slot certainly didn’t automatically guarantee low ratings, as first U.N.C.L.E. and then the CBS Friday Night Movie had both landed in the Top 20 in that slot for the three seasons prior (1965–1967).

As to successes in that slot, let’s get a suborbital view:

Top 30 shows in the "Death Slot" 1955–1980 [33]
—1955-56 - CBS: The Lineup (10-10:30pm, #17)
—1956-57 - CBS: The Lineup (10-10:30pm, #15)
—1957-58 - CBS: The Lineup (10-10:30pm, #18)
—1965-66 - NBC: The Man From U.N.C.L.E. (10-11pm, #13)
—1966-67 - CBS: Friday Night Movie (9-11pm, #17)
—1967-68 - CBS: Friday Night Movie (9-11pm, #15)
—1971-72 - CBS: Friday Night Movie (9-11pm, #30)
—1973-74 - CBS: Friday Night Movie (9-11pm, #19)
—1974-75 - NBC: Police Woman (10-11pm, #15)
—1975-76 - NBC: Police Woman (10-11pm, #30)
—1976-77 - ABC: Friday Night Movie (9-11pm, #28)
—1978-79 - CBS: Dallas (10-11pm, #15)
—1979-80 - CBS: Dallas (10-11pm, #6)

The history of Friday nights at 10 p.m. bracketing Trek‘s network run illustrates that in 25 years of programming, there were as few as six series that got into the Top 30 in or overlapping this so-called “Death Slot. This means there was one Top 30 show in that time slot for 13 out of 25 years: more than half

Is that low? To determine if Friday at 10 p.m. was truly unique would require a much larger assessment of average ratings in various time slots.

We can’t speak to the demographics of those other “Death Slot” Top 30 programs, but at a glance, it’s apparent that The Man From U.N.C.L.E. was the only “fantastical” series to do well in that position. Did that mean the aforementioned survey which suggested Friday at 10 p.m. to be ideal for U.N.C.L.E. was correct? Or was the show some outlier; a momentary fad that burned out?

In other words, with similar demographics on the same network in the same time slot, how was it that U.N.C.L.E. agents Napoleon Solo and Illya Kuryakin could land in the Top 20 in that “Death Slot” when Kirk and Spock could not?

The reality is there are no easy answers for Star Trek’s poor performance on NBC. There are many factors affecting a show’s success or failure beyond the mere fact of its time slot. What’s its lead-in program? What shows are programmed opposite it? Does it begin in the middle of popular competing programs? What’s its total “coverage” with affiliates (the percentage that carries it)? How do all of these impact its Nielsen rating? Do its demographics skew too young or too old to command profitable ad rates? Do sponsors want to be associated with it? And does the network have other shows waiting in the wings that it believes could perform better?

In short: it’s complicated.

We don’t claim to have the answers, but in 55 years since Star Trek’s debut, it’s interesting that no one seems to have asked these questions.

Perhaps no one wants to.

Inconvenient truths and all that.

What-If?

It’s impossible to know what actually would have happened had Star Trek gotten a Monday slot, but it’s difficult to imagine it gunning down Matt Dillon at 7:30, or surviving in that 8 p.m. “kamikaze” time slot against half of Gunsmoke and Lucy herself.

Had Star Trek performed poorly on Mondays it could have been canceled mid-season, as was U.N.C.L.E. before it, and there’d be only 71 episodes instead of 79. (A series typically got an initial order of 16 episodes, enough to get to the mid-season; U.N.C.L.E. was canned after 16 episodes of its fourth season.)

Perhaps, sans that last-minute “Death Slot” schedule shift, Roddenberry would have had more involvement in even an abbreviated third season and we’d have eight fewer but 16 overall better third-season episodes than the mixed bag we got.

Or maybe Trek would have surprised everyone, held its own and gone on to a 4th season.

It’s a what-if with no clear answers to be sure.

Speculation aside, all we can know is what’s apparent only with 20/20 hindsight: Star Trek had a longevity that Laugh-In didn’t. But that’s not to say NBC made the wrong choice…for NBC.

But that’s a story for another article, and you can bet your sweet bippy we’re already at work on it.

“Say Good Night, Dick”

🎶That's the news across the nation

Now you’ve got the information

Thanks a lot we hope it amused you

We just love to give you our views

Da da dee da!

Ladies and gents

Fact Trek looked at the news!🎶

So there you have it, how Star Trek ended its network run in a “Death Slot” that maybe wasn’t by being robbed of a chance at a “kamikaze” time slot which might’ve cut its too-short run even shorter.

Whether this was a good or a bad thing remains an open question.

Was Laugh-In truly to blame for Star Trek’s network demise?

Perhaps only inasmuch as it was the hit NBC needed in order to win a crucial night.

Did NBC deserve its very own Flying Fickle Finger of Fate for this decision?

We leave such nominations up to you.

“Good night, Dick.”

— 30 —

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Star Trek Lost Scenes co-author David Tilotta for his insightful (and sometimes inciting) comments on a draft version of this article, and for providing the NBC promo image of Spock and Kirk seen herein. Buy Star Trek Lost Scenes here.

Thanks also to Gideon Marcus for pointing us to scans of the Spockanalia fanzine and other resources. Visit his award-winning project Galactic Journey, 55 Years Ago: Science Fact and Fiction to get a retro point of view on Star Trek and its place in the media landscape which spawned it.

Notes

* “Every day the same thing: variety,” is a quote from the Bugs Bunny cartoon Shishkabugs (1962), where the king complains to his chef, Yosemite Sam: “Take it back! Every day the same thing, variety. I want something different. Fix me hasenpfeffer right away!” Yes, we like old theatrical cartoons as much as old TV.

‡ Child audiences weren’t considered viable prime time advertising targets:

"After all," said a veteran of the programming wars, "Why should a sponsor pay $3 in advertising to reach 1,000 viewers when he can tap the kid audience for about $1 per thousand with those Saturday morning cartoons?”[20]

Revision History

• March 18, 2022. Original version published.

• May 4, 2025. Added Broadcasting Magazine clip & citation. Renumbered citations to match.

Sources & Citations

Every Day the Same Thing, Variety

[1] TV In Review, Muncie Evening Press, Muncie, Indiana, Friday February 21, 1969, p8.

NBC Cries U.N.C.L.E.

[2] The Journal Herald, Dayton, Ohio, Wed. February 21, 1969, p37.

[3] NBC; Suffering From Oldie Anemia, Poises Axe for 'UNCLE' and Mulls Flip-Flop of 2 Hours Mon. & Tues., Variety, October 25, 1967, p25.

[4] Jon Heitland, The Man From U.N.C.L.E. Book, p.46.

[5] Heitland, p.58–59.

[6] Heitland, p.59.

[7] Sponsors snap up '66 -67 schedule, Broadcasting Magazine, February 28, 1966, p.25.

[8] Sponsors snap up '66 -67 schedule, sidebar: Here's how the network programs shape up for next fall, Broadcasting magazine, February 28, 1966, p.24–25. (link)

[9] No Man Is Free: Benzadmiral's Man from U.N.C.L.E. Reviews, "The Deadly Smorgasbord Affair" (ep. 3/18)

[10] "The Deadly Smorgasbord Affair" on IMDb. 

[11] Heitland, p.189–190.

The Monday Night “Kamikaze” Slot

[12] A.C. Nielsen report for September 10, 1967. The Laugh-In special’s average audience in its first half-hour was lower than the programs opposite it, but it shot up in the second half. Its total audience was higher than all the shows that overlapped its timeslot.

[13] Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In Review, Variety, Weds., September 13, 1967, p.44.

[14] Judy Carne, Laughing on the Outside, Crying on the Inside: The Bittersweet Saga of the Sock-It-To-Me Girl, Hardcover, October 1, 1985, p120.

[15] Heitland, p.192.

The NBC Shuffle

[16] AGONIZING OVER MARGINAL SERIES, Les Brown for Weekly Variety, January 31, 1968, p.35 & 56 

The Man from D.O.D.G.E.

[17] NBC-TV’s Fall Shapeup, Variety, February 14, 1968, p.27.

[18] “Lucy Ball Renews Tommy Thompson,” Daily Variety, April 15, 1968, p.16

“Tommy Thompson has been re-signed as producer of Lucille Ball’s CBS-TV series for next season, with the new format tentatively titled ‘Here’s Lucy.’ Exec producer Gary Morton also has re-signed Jack Donohue to direct the comedy series which rolls under the aegis of Lucille Ball Production, in mid-May at Paramount Gower.”

[19] Wikipedia on the ratings for The Lucy Show. Also see Classic TV Hits; TV Rating for years 1951–56 and 1962–1972 (link).

Life & Death by Demographics

[20] Cynthia Lowry, Associated Press, Why Gunsmoke Almost Fell--Young Folks Don't Watch It, Press & Sun Bulletin, Sun, March 19, 1967, p.40.

[21] Robert Metz, CBS: Reflections In A Bloodshot Eye, 1975, p.202.

[22] NBC Pilot Push Lowest in Years, Weds, Nov. 29, 1967, Variety, p.24

[23] Why Gunsmoke Almost Fell, ibid.

[24] Gilligan’s Island producer Sherwood Schwartz on how CBS’s revival of Gunsmoke sunk his show. Video link.

Save[d] Star Trek

[25] NBC-TV Axes 8 Programs, Adds Six New For Fall, Daily Variety, February 21, 1968, p.1 & 14.

[26] March 4th, 1968 NBC press release including the announcement reprinted in The Making of Star Trek by Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry (1st Edition), p.394-395).

[27]  Letters, TV Guide Magazine, March 16, 1968, p.A-2.

[28] Laugh-In Staying Put, Broadcasting Magazine, March 18, 1968, p9.

[29] ‘Trek’ May Be Off NBC’S Track In Fall, Daily Variety, March 18, 1968, p.1 & 26.

The ‘Lucy’-Beater

[30] ‘Champions’ R&M Summer Sub, Daily Variety, March 18, 1968, p.24

[31] ‘Laugh-In' Click As ‘Lucy'-Beater Clinches Slot, Variety, March 20, 1968, p32.

Fan Friction

[32] “Off the Top” [editorial], Spockanalia No.2, April 19, 1968, p.7. Courtesy Fanac.org. (link)

Friday’s Child

[33] Data collected from Primetime data linked from the page Lists of United States network television schedules on Wikipedia (link).

[34] NBC postcard with primetime schedule, 1968–69.

In today’s post-truth, fact-challenged world, just what, in fact, is a fact? 

Let’s consider this tweet by the makers of the 2021 series The Center Seat: 55 Years of Star Trek, which states:

Get all the facts behind the phenomenon with the new series, The Center Seat: 55 Years of Star Trek, OUT NOW on @history.

Now, note the subtitle of its companion book is The Center Seat - 55 Years of Trek: The Complete, Unauthorized Oral History of Star Trek.

Spot the difference?

The latter plainly advertises itself as an “oral history,” the series does not.

Oral history relies on interviews with people who have direct and personal experience/memories of an event.

With that in mind, let’s look specifically at The Center Seat episode one, “Lucy Loves Star Trek.” It offers a smattering of extremely brief oral history soundbites from a scant few veterans of the Star Trek production, a few snippets of archival clips, and (perhaps obviously) no one from Desilu.

But what results when the people with such personal experience are no longer with us? Can you have an oral history if they are not the primary subjects interviewed? Absent the people who’d “been there, done that,” the episode falls back on second-, third- or nth-hand accounts by people who weren’t there.

In the case of “Lucy Loves Star Trek” the bulk of those telling the story are, as the book’s description paints them, “Trek fandom’s top analysts.”

Oral history this is not.

So what do you call that?

That’s oral tradition.

Yes, there’s a difference.

Oral tradition passes collective memory from people who do not have direct experience of an event, generation to generation, putting such memories on the path to becoming myth and legend.

And this is just what “Trek fandom’s top analysts” give us in spades. Despite their heartfelt love of the material, most are largely repeating things they’ve read and heard, occasionally misremembering, frequently embellishing, and sometimes outright misrepresenting events…events for which there are, in many cases, documented sources. Many have no access to those documents or—in a few instances—had access, but either did not review their notes or even their own works before sitting for an interview.

To further complicate matters, those interviewed aren’t really permitted to speak for themselves, their every comment framed and shaped by scripted narration, cutesy episode clips, and rapid-fire editing, which reduces every contribution to a soundbite.

Finally, as enthusiasts, some are necessarily invested in and married to the mythology that’s grown up around Star Trek; a mythology some have made a business via books, podcasts, and fan magazines. The result: as Atari co-founder Nolan Bushnell said in 2016, “The stories get better the more I tell them.”

Can we reasonably expect the end result to resemble “fact”?

In a word: no.

With that caveat, let’s take a hard look at The Center Seat‘s debut segment, “Lucy Loves Star Trek,” and see how close its oral tradition conforms to historical documents, first-person accounts, and contemporaneous media coverage.

Format

We’ll present quotes from the show in the following format:

All program quotes will appear in shaded boxes of this color.

Quotes by the narrator will be presented without quotation marks.

“Quotes by on-screen interview subjects and archival clips will be presented inside quotation marks.”

For brevity and clarity we will largely be picking out key statements whilst omitting the cutesy episode sound bites, etc.

We’re also not going to I.D. the speakers in most instances because the program is terribly edited and we suspect at least some of the mistakes are our of context soundbites and it’s unfair to pillory the speakers for the mistakes of the filmmakers.

So without further ado, let’s rip through the upholstery of The Center Seat episode 1.

DesiLucy

“I Love Lucy became number one six months after it debuted in 1951.”

“And it was huge. It was like 67 million people were watching this. You know, at the time, not everyone owned a television set. Many people were watching in appliance stores.”

Ratings are…tricky.

While it appears to be true that I Love Lucy reached #1 in its first season[1] the “67 million” number is an error. Lucy achieved a 67.3 Nielsen rating during its second (1952–53) season[2] for the episode “Lucy Goes to the Hospital.” That was not the show’s average audience size.

A Nielsen rating does not indicate the number of viewers. Rather, it is the percentage of total TV sets (on or off) tuned to a given program. The number of total people watching that peak performance—not its season average— was closer to 44 million, ~41% fewer people than stated.

As to people watching in appliance stores in any significant numbers, that’s pure speculation as such things were not being tracked (how could they be?). This is only really happening in our modern age.[3][4]

“No one thought of reruns. There was no such thing. Something aired and then it was disposable, you never saw it again.”

In fact, reruns predate I Love Lucy. They were an established practice in radio and TV well before Lucy. The term is used in the trades at least as far back as 1949.[5] Lucy was a notable success in reruns, but it didn’t originate the practice.

"CBS doesn’t want to stop airing it during the summer. They say, ‘Can we have those reruns back?’ [...] And they had to pay Desi Arnaz a million dollars to get the rerun rights back for that summer.”

This anecdote isn’t specific as to when CBS supposedly asked for reruns. It didn’t rebroadcast any episodes of I Love Lucy the summer after its inaugural season (1951-52), where, for 14 weeks, it was replaced by My Little Margie.[6] We haven’t yet researched what CBS’s deal with Desilu was for reruns in the 50s.

We’ll address the “million dollars” in a moment…

And with that cool million, Desi and Lucy…

“She used that money to buy RKO.”

CBS actually paid Desilu a cooler 4.3 million…and that didn’t happen for years after Lucy’s first season ended in 1952. The deal was completed in 1956, and the final sale price for RKO was $6,150,000.[7]

“She said, ‘Bring me a show that can rerun as long as I Love Lucy.’”

Throughout the program the talking heads put words in people’s mouths. Lucy might have effectively said this, or her choices implied it, but is it a quote? Is it documented? No. Too often its interview subjects are imagining what people like Lucy were thinking or saying. Statements like this are of the “she’s like, 'bring me a show’” variety, and not in any way historical.

Keep that in mind going forward.

Enter the Bird

The program moves from Lucy and Desilu to the Great Bird of the Galaxy himself, Gene Roddenberry.

“He [Roddenberry] was on a Pan Am jetliner that crashed in the middle east.”

Jetliners weren’t in service at that time. Roddenberry was dead-heading aboard a Lockheed L-049 Constellation "Connie" propellor-driven “airliner”, not a “jetliner”. Pan Am wouldn’t commence commercial jet service until 11 years after the crash.[8] This is a small point but demonstrates of how details drift when repeated off the cuff.

“Gene Roddenberry, this budding writer/producer, wrote a script for Have Gun—Will Travel. [...] He wrote a ton of scripts.”

Roddenberry didn’t write just a script for Have Gun—Will Travel, he wrote 24 episodes of it and even won a Writers Guild Award for one (“Helen of Abajinan,” first aired December 28, 1957).

He did indeed “write a ton of scripts,” but a notable one early in his career is omitted: his first science fiction piece, The Secret Defence of 117 (aka The Secret Weapon of 117), starred Ricardo Montalban and aired in 1956.[9] (We’ll be reviewing that script soon.)

“And [Roddenberry] does land his own show called The Lieutenant. It’s about a Marine Corps officer who’s a lawyer.”

The titular character of The Lieutenant—William Tiberius Rice (Gary Lockwood)—was not a lawyer, though the show contrived to have him act as one in the episode “Fall from a White Horse,” much as Riker and Picard were in Star Trek: The Next Generation’s “The Measure of a Man”.

“Gene Roddenberry, he wants to do hard-hitting adult themes. One of his episodes is about racism. [...] It brings him head-to-head in battle with the network, with the studio.”

This hard hitting episode was ahead of its time. NBC wouldn’t give it the time of day, or even a time of day in its schedule.

“It winds up not even being shown.”

The episode in question, “To Set It Right,” was controversial with the Marine Corps, which pulled its official seal off the episode.[10] But our searches of the trades and newspapers indicate it was aired…and even rerun. Heck, Roddenberry himself said it aired![11]

Let’s briefly talk about how progressive or regressive American TV could be at the point The Lieutenant aired. The 1968 book The Making of Star Trek has this to say about the climate in the mid-60s:

For some reason television seems to run in cycles. At that time, programming was nearing the end of the "true-to-life Defenders" type of cycles. All trends indicated a cycle back to action-adventure. This cycle later spawned such shows as "I Spy" and "The Man From U.N.C.L.E." When Gene suggested he'd been playing with a science-fiction adventure script idea, MGM expressed a willingness to look at it.[12]

And this is a fair assessment. The Lieutenant was made—and Star Trek conceived—during the tail end of an era of hard-hitting “true-to-life Defenders” shows like East Side/West Side, Slattery’s People, and the Emmy juggernaut, The Defenders on CBS. The latter earned 22 Emmy nominations and won 14. It was a top 20 show[13] that tackled controversial subjects like the death penalty, police vigilantism, and even teen pregnancy and abortion as far back as the 1961-62 TV season.

This is not to say just any program could address controversial topics, but such shows were not entirely absent in the era of The Lieutenant.

Trek enthusiasts will constantly beat this drum, but the fact is that neither Roddenberry’s The Lieutenant nor Star Trek were pioneering such content.

Trekking to Desilu

"1965, he finally puts the ideas to paper. He’s going around to the networks."

Which didn’t take long, actually, because—

"In the early sixties, there were only three networks.“

And they all passed.

“He [Roddenberry] gets turned down everywhere.”

1964, not 1965. The first pilot was filmed at the end of 1964.

Fans, and programs like The Center Seat, routinely conflate studios with networks. Gene had to sell a studio on the idea, and only with a studio’s backing could it be pitched to a network.

And as to studios, how many were approached is unclear. It’s been written that both Warner Bros. and Columbia (Screen Gems) rejected Star Trek, but we’re unaware of any documentary evidence to support this.[14]

However, on April 24th, Gene registered the series prospectus at the Writers' Guild of America, West, Inc. to protect the concept of Star Trek from theft,[15] and just six working days later, on May 4th, Roddenberry was meeting with (Executive Vice President in Charge of Production) Katz and Solow at Desilu, Katz having previously seen the pitch. Unless Roddenberry was shopping Trek around unregistered, which seems unlikely, that’s not a lot of time to pitch to other studios…although he could have been investigating other avenues even while negotiating with Desilu.

However, David Alexander's authorized bio of Roddenberry indicates that after MGM expressed no interest, Roddenberry went to Desilu studios next. This is supported by what Roddenberry wrote to Alan Courtney (an MGM executive):

During the same time, although I have been gratified at the interest you have shown in my science fiction series presentation, Star Trek, and have received similar comments from others at MGM who have read it, my agency Ashley-Steiner has received no indication of MGM interest. In the meantime, interest has developed elsewhere and Ashley-Steiner, as they properly should do in such a case, has begun discussions there.

I thought it only proper to let you know that these discussions are moving so rapidly that I may very quickly have to give an answer to some firm offer.[16]

Further, his agent’s agency had a deal with Desilu, so where would he have most likely have been sent next?

As to networks, the documentary evidence makes it clear the only networks ever pitched to were CBS, which declined, and NBC, which bought it. ABC was never approached.[17][18]

What these commentators in the program are doing is, frankly, pandering. They’re selling the legend of Star Trek as this ugly duckling that mere mundanes couldn’t see was destined to be a beautiful swan.

“They [NBC] wanted to do business with Lucille Ball, because Lucille Ball was CBS’ golden girl.“

NBC’s reported desire to work with Lucille Ball on Star Trek appears to have been popularized by former Desilu executive Herb Solow, who wrote in Inside Star Trek that:

NBC wanted to have a Desilu show on their network. They had never had a series from this studio. As a matter of fact, they had never even had a development deal with Desilu.[19]

Solow’s claims about NBC having no relationship with Desilu is, strictly speaking, not true. Previous to Star Trek, Desilu had sold the game show You Don’t Say! to NBC, where it aired on the network’s daytime schedule from 1963 until 1969. NBC had also bought eight new episodes of Kraft Mystery Theatre from Desilu when it aired it as a summer replacement series in 1962.

NBC was absolutely interested in poaching top talent from CBS. The network did just that with Alfred Hitchcock, Danny Thomas, and Jack Benny, who all left CBS for more lucrative deals at NBC beginning with the 1964-65 season.[20] For a few weeks in early 1964, Lucy indicated in the press that “she will no longer submit to the rigors of a weekly television series, preferring to devote her time to production at Desilu studios”—in effect, putting CBS’ top-rated The Lucy Show on the potential chopping block.[21] However, by early March of 1964, Ball had reversed course, signing a new three-year contract with CBS to continue The Lucy Show. By the time Star Trek was being pitched to Desilu, any chance NBC had at CBS’ golden girl had been dashed.

So, given this, why would NBC want a Desilu show on their network given:

a) Lucy would not come with it, and…

b) At that time Desilu was not perceived as a “player” in original program development

Scrutiny, friends. Scrutiny is important when considering claims of this nature.

“This frumpy guy, very soft spoken, very mild-mannered, came in with this single piece of paper and his memo about what Star Trek is.”

We suspect this is a “telephoned” version of what Herb Solow wrote of his first meeting with Roddenberry: 

He smiled boyishly and mumbled, Hi, I’m ... ahh ... Gene Roddenberry. Ahh ... Alden sent me.” He handed me a piece of paper wrinkled in the corner by his nervous fingers. “This is a series idea I have. It’s ... ahh ... like Wagon Train to the ... ahh ... stars. It’s called ... ahh ... Star Trek.”[22]

But Solow’s account is dubious. A detailed letter from Roddenberry to his agent Alden Schwimmer the day of the meeting (and, according to the trades, Solow’s first day on the job) makes plain Schwimmer was in attendance, as was Oscar Katz.[23] Further, the Star Trek pitch was already pages long before Roddenberry left MGM.[24] So what was this one page? A summary?

In any case, this is oral history cum oral tradition cum (likely) faulty memory.

“A Wagon Train to the stars.”

“Wagon Train being a very popular Western anthology series.”

“Headed to the frontier, running into different obstacles.”

As it had continuing leads, but the setting and the guests were completely different each week, Wagon Train was no more a full blown “anthology” than Star Trek. Both shows were—like the series Route 66—a hybrid between episodic television drama and anthology.

One key thing everyone misses about Wagon Train as Roddenberry’s go-to was not its format per se or that it was a western, but that it was known as a prestige drama with a cast of regular characters who would meet and interact with members of the wagon train, often played by big name guest stars.

Wagon Train could be shorthand for “quality TV”.

Lucy liked what she heard, and Desilu decided to board this wagon train.

”So that put Desilu back in business as far as owning properties.”

“This wasn’t just for Gene Roddenberry, this [Star Trek] was something that could be the salvation of Desilu.”

This makes it sound like Desilu was putting all its eggs in Star Trek’s basket. While Trek was one of the—if not the—first pilots Desilu started developing under new Executive V.P. Oscar Katz, it was not the only one in the works. In fact, barely four weeks after Roddenberry and Schwimmer met with Oscar Katz and Herb Solow, Desilu was crowing him as one of three producers or producing partners signed to the studio.[25] And by August, Desilu had five pilots in development: three for NBC and one each for CBS and ABC. (The cave set for one sitcom, The Good Old Days, was suggested for possible use in Trek’s first pilot as the Hell Fire illusion setting.) Ultimately, none of them got series orders, but Star Trek got a second chance.

“Lucy had a development fund. She gave them money from the development fund to develop Star Trek.”

With Lucille’s own money, Gene began scripting his Wagon Train to the stars, starting with his lead character.

Bzzzt. Wrong.

Firstly, NBC put up story money for Star Trek, so they were funding part of the pilot script development.

Secondly, this myth about the development fund being used for Star Trek seems to have originated with Joel Engel’s unauthorized biography of Roddenberry,[26] and reinforced two years later by Herb Solow, who wrote:

CBS countered [...] establishing a major development fund for the studio’s use, and Lucy began to develop new series [...] CBS represented our best shot, because of Lucy and, more significantly, because it was their development money we were playing with.[27]

But Solow appears to be wrong about this fund financing Trek.

Yes, the fund was paid for by CBS, but an internal document comparing costs of Desilu’s shows after the Paramount merger makes it clear that while this CBS-paid fund was used to largely finance the Mission: Impossible and Mannix pilots for CBS, it was not used for Star Trek.[28]

Mickey Rudin told Daily Variety on August 17, 1966 about terms with CBS established for I Love Lucy’s fifth season:

He said that terms for the program’s fifth season gives Desilu a $600,000 war chest to be used exclusively for new program development, indicating this kind of network aid is not available to major or independent vidfilm production companies. Similar deals must be forthcoming from NBC and ABC, he said, before Desilu would undertake new projects for them. Rudin also said that a special option clause guaranteed Desilu at least $6,600,000 additional income on reruns of “Lucy.”[29]

Days later Broadcasting magazine reported on the previous week’s Desilu shareholder meeting:

Stockholders also were told that Mission: Impossible and Star Trek, the two shows Desilu sold to CBS -TV and NBC - TV, respectively, for the 1966 -67 season did not come out of the CBS pilot fund but at least two and maybe three pilots for the 1967 -68 season will be financed by the $600,000 that has been set aside.[29a]

These accounts differ on Mission, but both agree that the fund was not used for Trek.

This further suggests that the development fund was for CBS projects—not for pilots for NBC or ABC.

"NBC was saying, 'You’ve got to find a way to make Americans feel comfortable in space. Well, let’s build something around them that all America is familiar with.'"

Remember what we said about putting words in people’s mouths?

This is a prime example. This did not come down from on high. The document trail makes clear Gene walked into Desilu with this already planned. It’s all in the pitch he wrote at MGM. Herb Solow gives Gene complete credit for originating this concept, long before any network was pitched. Per Solow:

And he'd solved one of the problems of audience familiarity by using contemporary navy terms, ranks, names, and jargon. It was captain and yeoman and medical officer; it was 'starboard' and 'port,' and it was the U.S.S. Yorktown (later changed to the Enterprise), rather than 'Rocket Ship X-9.'"[30]

“He [Roddenberry] had his wish list of who he wanted to play the Captain of the Enterprise. And right at the top of that list is William Shatner."

We know of no reputable source that would support this claim.

Even if true, Shatner was signed to the series For the People in September 1964, and Star Trek’s pilot casting ramped up in October, so it makes sense that Shatner isn't listed on most of those docs.

Shatner’s name does appear right near the bottom of a single undated first pilot casting memo in the Roddenberry papers at UCLA. We suspect that one might’ve been an early “wish list”.[31]

Even Shatner’s own memoir does not portray him as the producer’s first choice, claiming that Roddenberry offered the first pilot to Lloyd Bridges before Jeffrey Hunter, and the second pilot to Jack Lord before Shatner finally got the part.[32]

Nimoy had just finished perfecting his contemplative demeanor on The Lieutenant.

While this narration is a bit tongue-in-cheek, and the clip shown has Nimoy silently contemplating, his character in The Lieutenant (episode “In the Highest Tradition”[33]) is a gregarious Hollywood producer. Decidedly not contemplative and utterly unlike Spock.

See for yourself…

“The [first] pilot had cost, I think almost $600,000, which would be like $6 million today. And NBC only put up half the money, Desilu put up the other half.”

A 1968 cost-revenue analysis puts the 1st pilot total cost at $615,751, of which NBC put up exactly $185,000.[34] Thus, the finished pilot cost $430,751 over NBC’s contribution, but that was Desilu’s decision.[35] (The total is fairly close to what Lost In Space’s pilot—shot not long after Trek’s—apparently cost.)

“Lucy reached into her pocket to refinance the pilot, do a new one.”

First of all, “refinance the pilot” makes no sense, Desilu agreed to co-finance the second pilot NBC had ordered, not “refinance” one.

Second, we love Lucy, but these kinds of statements about “her pocket” and “her money” somewhat misrepresents how businesses work. Desilu was a corporation with stockholders in which Ball held the majority stake. She got dividends, but the company’s money was only “hers” in a figurative sense. This is an important distinction.

According Desilu’s Bernie Weitzman, re the CBS development fund:

“She could either put half of it in her pocket and do nothing, or spend the whole fund doing programs for Desilu, with CBS having first crack at them. We had $600,000 spelled out.” [35a]

Lucy chose to put the studio first, so even in that case the money never went to into “her pocket.”

For more on Lucy and Desilu see our 2020 piece Lucy Loves Star Trek?

Meanwhile, Gene suddenly found himself in need of a doctor, because John Hoyt had gone off to do movies [...] Opening the door for Gene’s first choice, DeForest Kelley, who finally landed the role of Bones by giving the execs a look beneath his hat.”

According to Herb Solow, after the first pilot NBC wanted to wipe the slate clean with the cast, and was only willing to keep Hunter and Nimoy, so Hoyt (Doc Boyce) was airlocked along with everyone else, not merely because he had movies to do.[36]

As to Kelley, the program is discussing the second pilot here, not the series, and DeForest Kelley wasn’t the doctor in the second pilot, Paul Fix was (as Doc Piper).

This is one of several cases where the episode confuses the order of things. The Department of Temporal Investigations should be notified forthwith…

Furthermore, Kelley was not an unfamiliar face at NBC outside westerns. He’d previously appeared in two unsold Roddenberry pilots for the network: as the lead—a lawyer—in 333 Montgomery (1960)[37] and as a police lab chief in Police Story (filmed 1965, aired 1967)[38]. It was the latter which likely cinched him the role.

“Jeff Hunter was offered a movie.”

Unsubtantiated.

The Making of Star Trek claims Hunter “was making a motion picture and was unavailable”[39] for the second pilot—but there’s zero evidence to support this. Oscar Katz tells a different story (see Oscar, Where Are You? Part I). It’s possible Hunter didn’t want to be tied down to a weekly series again, after having been the star of Temple Houston. We’ll have more to say about this in a future piece.

Startup SNAFUs

The [second] pilot cost a whopping $450,000. NBC thought the budget should be more in the orbit of $185,000. [...] And even at that price, the network wouldn’t be footing the entire bill.

“It’s deficit financing. The networks do not pony up all the costs of a show.”

More confusing presentation, again conflating the network (NBC) with the studio (Desilu), this time over the total pricetag of the pilot. What they appear to be inarticulately relating is that the cost of the second pilot wasn’t what anyone thought the episodes should cost. This is a big “well duh.” Due to start-up costs, pilots are almost always more expensive than regular production episodes.

Anyway, to clear up this confusing mess, for the first pilot, NBC ponied up $185,000, and, for the second pilot, NBC increased their investment by 13% and ponied up $209,000.[40] The $185,000 figure is roughly what Desilu itself budgeted as the average cost per-episode when the budget was cut at the end of the 1st season (when it was dropped by ~$7,000 per segment to $185,349). 

NBC would only back Star Trek to the tune of $100,000 per episode.

"So Desilu is going in the hole $85,000 with every episode they’re making.”

Liar liar pants on fire.

NBC never paid a licensing fee of less than $140,000, 40% more than claimed, and that fee went up every year.

In the first season, when you add in foreign sales and the license fee for on-network reruns—and subtract Ashley Famous’ 5% commission, foreign distribution costs, and network repeat costs—against an average episode budget of (initially) $192,373 (that was lowered to $185,349 near the end of the season), the studio was actually deficit financing something closer to $26,308 per episode (dropping to $19,284 when the budget was cut).

That’s still a lot of money but more than three times lower than the figure claimed.

In fact, by the end of Star Trek’s run NBC was paying $160,812 out of the average episode budget (slashed by Paramount) of $178,362, which meant NBC was paying 90% of the average 3rd season budget, leaving the studio (now Paramount) only deficit financing $17,550 per segment. When we factor in all the other fees and revenues, during the third year, it appears the studio was bringing in more net revenue per episode ($185,004) than the average official budget per episode.[40]

Yes, we’ve looked at the actual paperwork. You’re welcome.

“She [Lucy] said, ‘Let’s go ahead and produce the whole thing.’ She’s like, ‘I’m putting the fate of the studio in your hands, guys.’”

Again, this oral tradition is making up words to put in the mouths of these figures. There’s no record of what Lucy might have said. And word choice carries weight. Of those words, “fate” is a loaded one; ”future” might be more accurate.

See our piece Oscar Where Are You? Part I for an actual oral history on the state of Desilu in 1964.

With all that pressure, Gene decided to recruit a Gene 2.0. Coincidentally, also called Gene.

“He was really in charge of the writing room. And he was very interested in making sure that the characters were the most important and central thing.”

Intentionally or not, The Center Seat’s narrative implies that Roddenberry hired Gene L. Coon as soon as Desilu committed to making Star Trek as a weekly series. But this ignores and erases the contribution of John D.F. Black, who worked on the series (credited as an Associate Producer, Black’s other role was as Story Editor, and his main responsibilities were handling rewrites, reading unsolicited material, and otherwise dealing with freelance writers) from April 18 through August 14 of 1966. Coon started on August 15, 1966, with Steve Carabatsos taking over Black’s rewrite duties.

There was no “writers room” on Star Trek. Dramas were typically not room-written in that period, as is commonplace today. The only writers on staff were the producers, maybe an associate producer, and the script consultant/story editor, who wrote and did rewrites. However, the majority of episodes were assigned to freelancers. This is borne out by the wealth of story memos generated in the first and second seasons.

“The very first episode, 'The Man Trap,' 47% of the TV’s in America were tuned in.”

Not accurate. We went into this years ago in the article The Truth About Star Trek and the Ratings, but we’ll sum up here.

For its first 15 minutes only, “The Man Trap” received a 46.7 share, but by its last 15 minutes, the show had shed nearly 10% of its audience, receiving a 39.8 share.

The show’s actual Nielsen rating started at a 25.2 and finished at a 23.0. Which means that, at its height, 25.2% of television households (sets on or off) were tuned in to Star Trek.

Also, Trek’s premiere was against extremely weak competition, mostly reruns and a single new program that was “one of television’s most famous flops” (link), broadcasting only four episodes before being yanked. By its fifth episode Trek had dropped to 51st position in the ratings, and hovered in that area throughout the remainder of the season, finishing the year at #52.

 Tall Tales of the City

The entire section of the program regarding “The City On the Edge of Forever” is out of order and confusing. So allow us to clear up the sequence of events.

Ellison received the assignment to write his episode very early, but was slow in delivering, so Bob Justman encouraged him to write it on the Desilu lot, eventually in his own office. Ellison did, delivering the first draft teleplay in June, then, after a protracted delay, submitted a “final draft” in August. There’s a lot more to it, but we have a whole piece planned on the episode’s genesis.

For now, let’s address some of the things The Center Seat gets wrong about this famous Trek segment.

“So Gene Coon made a bold, executive decision.” “[…]Coon locked him [Ellison] in a room.”

By most accounts, including Bob Justman’s,[41] it was Justman who did this. Coon wasn’t even on staff until August 15, 1966—two months after Ellison had turned in his first draft teleplay, and around the time he delivered his “final draft”.

“When she’s [Fontana] working on Star Trek, she’s actually the youngest story editor in the history of television.”

Fontana's screen credit wasn't "story editor" it was "script consultant." Which makes it even harder to verify this assertion.

Fontana herself wrote, “At twenty-seven, I was the youngest story editor in town and one of the few female writers on a series staff.”[42] Note she doesn’t claim to have been the youngest to have held such a position up to that time. It’s certainly possible Fontana was the youngest script consultant in town when she assumed the position on December 19, 1966. However, television was not new in 1966, so it is hard for us to say with certainty that no one her age or younger had ever held such a position since the dawn of television. We do know that Paul Playdon, named script consultant on Mission: Impossible on September 5, 1968, was only twenty-five when he landed the same job. Relatively few women were indeed working screenwriters in that era. Still, there were exceptions: notably Nina Laemmle was credited as a story editor as early as March 1958 on the series Richard Diamond, Private Detective, though she was almost 50 at the time.

“Dorothy Fontana came up with the part about McCoy accidentally injects himself. Goes strange.”

A longstanding myth but this bit of business appears to have been invented by Fontana’s predecessor, Steve Carabatsos, whose autumn ‘66 rewrite of “City” had McCoy accidentally shooting himself up with “Milekrin Adrenaline”. Fontana changed the name, but unless she suggested the idea to Carabatsos, she didn’t invent it. Sorry, Dorothy.

But Harlan Ellison’s “The City on the Edge of Forever” would come with a hell of a price tag, putting the whole series on the edge of forever.

”It was the most expensive episode of Star Trek, ever.”

While “City” was inarguably the single most expensive regular production episode of the series, going 28% over the average original first season budget (which was revised downward the day after lensing began on the episode[43]), it was not unique in being expensive.

Other budget-buster first season episodes included “Balance of Terror” and “The Galileo Seven,” over by 23% and 21% respectively.

“His [Ellison’s] script would have cost as much as a major motion picture.”

Hyperbole. We’ve read most of Ellison’s drafts (one is partial), and they’re not vastly larger in scope than the finished episode. Many scripts first came in too expensive and were cut back. Ellison himself cut several elements in the course of his rewrites.

As to “a major motion picture,” for perspective, 1956’s Forbidden Planet, an “A-picture”—adjusted for inflation—cost ~$2.34 million in 1966 dollars; 9.5x “City”’s final cost. The contemporary 1966 Batman movie had a budget of $1,377,800, and it was not a “major” motion picture. Even had Ellison’s version been twice the final episode price (it wouldn’t have been), it would have cost about what the 2nd pilot did; a third as expensive as Batman.

Ergo, to say Ellison’s script “would have cost as much as a “major motion picture” is an exaggeration bordering on an outright lie.

Seasonal Slipups

And that meant, season two of Star Trek really needed to turn those thrusters on. [...] Luckily, it was not only in color, but in a prime slot.

“NBC had promised Gene the 8:00 o’clock time slot on Monday and then they gave it to Laugh-In. [...] Because Laugh-In had gotten such strong ratings they didn’t want to lose the time slot.”

And so a comedy sketch show sent Star Trek to a distant galaxy.

“Ten o’clock on Friday nights.”

Of course Star Trek was in color. NBC’s entire primetime lineup was all-color by fall of 1966.[44] So what’s the point of mentioning that?

As to the rest…

Wrong wrong WRONG.

The program again completely botches the timeline.

Star Trek had been moved to Friday at 8:30 p.m. for its second season (1967-68). Laugh-In wasn’t a series then; its pilot was aired as a special on Sept. 9, 1967, and the series was ordered as a mid-season pickup, airing its first regular episode on Monday, Jan. 22, 1968, midway through Trek’s second season.

The reality is that the Laugh-In scheduling conflict was about when Trek’s was to be slotted for its third season. There are contemporary reports that NBC did indicate they planned to move Trek to an earlier slot, including Mondays at 8 p.m. and then 7:30 p.m., but in the end kept the show on Friday and bumped it to the 10 p.m. time slot. (We dug into the reasons for this for our piece “The Flying Fickle Finger of Fate” here (link).)

(Interestingly, Laugh-In replaced one-time hit The Man From U.N.C.L.E., which had plunged from the top 20 to the mid-60s, finally demolished by the second half hour of Gunsmoke and Lucille Ball’s own The Lucy Show on CBS—and, to a lesser extent, the last half hour of Cowboy in Africa and the Rat Patrol on ABC. Ironically had Trek gotten U.N.C.L.E.’s slot, it would have been competing against Lucy herself![45])

But the way The Center Seat is edited, even if the interviewees telling the story got it right, the way the comments are cut up it sounds as if NBC moved it to the so-called “Friday night death slot” in its 2nd season, which is off by a year.

A. Year.

“Ten o’clock on Friday nights.”

”That was a bad time slot for Star Trek.”

“Gene knew nobody stays home and watches television on Friday night, that’s movie night, that’s date night.”

Or so says 50+ years of Trek mythology, and yet in its 1965–66 season The Man from U.N.C.L.E. was rated #13 overall with an average 24.0 rating in that very 10–11 p.m. “death slot” on Friday nights…on NBC. No one ever discusses that. Why? Perhaps because asking such questions would be an inconvenient truth to the oral tradition that’s been handed down as gospel for 50+ years.

“The network wanted a young character to appeal to the younger audience.”

“Thanks to a classic Roddenberry twist.”

“Let’s make him a Russian [...] And this was huge...for 1967.”

Was it “the network”? Or was it Roddenberry cashing in on “Monkeemania”?

to: Joe D'Agosta                        date: September 22, 1966

from: Gene Roddenberry        subject: NEEDED CREW TYPE

Keeping our teen-age audience in mind, also keeping aware of current trends, let's watch for a young, irreverent, English-accent Beatle type to try on the show, possibly with an eye to him reoccurring. Like the smallish fellow* who looks to be a hit on "The Monkees." Personally I find this type spirited and refreshing, and I think our episodes could use that kind of lift. Let's discuss.

Gene Roddenberry[48]

* Davy Jones

Further, the book Inside Star Trek also suggests the idea came from Roddenberry, adding…

Roddenberry intended to go where only one other TV show had gone before. Like The Man from U.N.C.L.E., Star Trek would have a Russian as one of the good guys.[49]

NBC or not, it wasn’t “huge” since, as above, it had been done…and on NBC. The Man from U.N.C.L.E.—which bowed in 1964—featured secret agent Illya Kuryakin (David McCallum), who was the show’s breakout character (effectively their Spock), promoted to co-lead, and became a teen heartthrob. Kuryakin was always referred to as Russian (though the character was said to have spent part of his childhood in the Ukraine).

No one ever seems to consider if this character’s appeal influenced the decision to create Chekov.

This is a fine example of how easy it is to get TV history wrong by narrowly focusing only on the subject itself and missing the broader cultural milieu and media landscape it existed in, both of which inform the story.

Fan Service & Fan Fictions

With Star Trek seemingly on life support, thousands of fans picketed NBC demanding they not pull the plug.

“We got a million letters.”

There’s so much mythology around the various letter writing campaigns that it’s tough to sort out.

The first, during the first season, was spearheaded by Harlan Ellison and “The Committee” of SFWA (Science Fiction Writers of America) members (Poul Anderson, Isaac Asimov, Robert Bloch, Lester del Rey, Philip José Farmer, Frank Herbert, Richard Matheson, Theodore Sturgeon, and A.E. van Vogt). It capitalized on the SFWA mailing list to try to generate response. And in its aftermath, at least one fan was already speculating that it must have generated “close to a million” letters, a figure repeated in the 1975 book Star Trek Lives!

The second was the now-legendary ”Save Star Trek” campaign, which kicked off in Dec. 1967, initially by Bjo and John Trimble.

Oh, and there are newspaper items from early 1969 about some fans trying again.

The “million letters” claim is widely repeated but unsubstantiated…for any campaign. As above, the number gets mentioned for the first campaign, but where it appears most often is in news items published at the top of 1968, in response to the aforementioned “Save Star Trek” campaign.

Inside Star Trek pegs Trek’s total mail count to NBC for Jan-Feb 1968 at 12,000 pieces.[51] A March 17, 1968 news item pegs the number at 114,667.[52] Newsweek magazine reported 16,000 letters as of late January, 1968, including one petition which supposedly bore 1,764 signatures.[53] Various other news items give wildly divergent numbers.

It turns out that NBC did comment on the mail volume following the “Save Star Trek” campaign. The office of V.P. Mort Werner—the man reportedly responsible for giving Trek its second pilot shot—wrote to TV Guide magazine, saying:

[…]more than 100,000 viewers—one of the largest totals in our history—wrote or wired their support for Star Trek.[53a]

Note this letter didn’t specify individual letters or wires (presumably telegrams), so some of these signatures may have been from petitions. He also doesn’t indicate if this was the total received by NBC itself, or if that figure includes letters and wires reported by network affiliates. But in whatever case, that’s about as an official acknowledgment of the campaign as we’ve ever seen, even if the figure is 10x lower than the “million” claim.

Supporting Werner, in August of the same year, Roddenberry is quoted as saying:

The network got over 100,000 pieces of mail, over 1 million signatures—and many signatures NBC could not disregard.[54]

Note he mentions “signatures,” which also suggests petitions.

So it’s possible and perhaps even likely that people have conflated signatures with letters, leading to the unsupported “million” letters.

(For the record, a million letters at average weight would come in at 12.4 tons, or 11.25 metric tons.)

We’ll get into the campaigns themselves at a later date.

Now, on to those protests…

Regarding “thousands of fans” picketing NBC, this number seems to be exaggerated. The Los Angeles Times reported that “nearly 300” fans joined the protest at NBC Burbank in January of 1968.[56]

Roddenberry repeated this figure in a letter to Isaac Asimov shortly afterward (Roddenberry attended the protest), writing that:

[…]about 300 students from California Institute of Technology, supported by students from other local colleges, marched on NBC West Coast headquarters in Burbank.”[57] 

It’s been claimed that there were also protests by Berkeley students (marching on NBC’s San Francisco area affiliate, KRON) and by MIT students (marching on NBC in New York) but we have, to-date, been unable to locate any contemporaneous accounts— let alone any indication—of the attendance at these supposed protests.

UPDATE Jan 25, 2026: We located a few news items mentioning two—two—fans picketing Rockefeller Center. That’s it as of this date.

“It was much more expensive than the average show.”

“They were trying to shoot half a science fiction movie every week.”

The financial pain was unbearable for Desilu. They were now making the two most expensive shows on TV.

“It was actually a tie between Star Trek and Mission: Impossible.”

Again, with this date-challenged mess…when are they referring to? Because in the 1967–68 season—as the Paramount deal was being made—Desilu was also producing Mannix, a show equally as expensive as Mission: Impossible and sometimes moreso.

And Mission and Mannix were both significantly more expensive programs to produce than Star Trek, with average costs $10-20k above Trek’s. CBS paid more than NBC did, but they were all expensive shows and all deficit-financed. The big difference? They had better ratings and made more money than perennially low-rated Trek.

“Lucy’s big gamble, Lucy’s big risk, did break the studio. It did break Desilu."

The Big Lie.

In fact, from 1954-1967, Desilu was profitable every year but the one before Roddenberry arrived on Lucy’s doorstep (1963).

1. Desilu was in the black when Star Trek was in production.

2. Desilu was in the black when the deal to sell to Gulf & Western and merge with Paramount was closed, to the tune of $1,269,196 in 1967—the studio’s most profitable year in a decade.[58]

Let’s say it again for all the “experts” who can’t be arsed to do actual research:

DESILU WAS PROFITABLE WHEN SOLD.

STAR TREK DID NOT BREAK IT.

<AHEM>

No Laughing Matters

There was trouble, and it had something to do with tribbles.

“Roddenberry had been away for a few weeks, and he came back and he heard laughter coming from stage nine, which is the Enterprise stage.”

“The scene where Kirk gets the cargo open and the tribbles bury him up to his neck. Coon couldn’t help it. The take was so funny, and Shatner was so funny.”

Put your Spocking Caps on, FACT TREKkers, and let’s think logically here:

1. Soundstages are, as their name suggests, soundproofed.

2. So the only way Roddenberry was hearing laughter is if he left his office in E building, walked across the lot, and went into the soundstage.

…Also, the space station sets were erected on Stage 10, not 9. We checked…of course.[59]

But to Gene, this was no laughing matter.

“Gene never wanted Star Trek to become silly.”

If Roddenberry had concerns that Trek—which had previously been nominated for an Emmy for Outstanding Dramatic Series—might be damaged by going too far into comedy, he’d have had every right to be. The example of Batman loomed large: initially a gigantic hit and pop culture phenomenon a half season before Trek hit the airwaves, its Bat-ratings had Bat-fizzled on its Bat-channel of ABC by the start of Trek’s first season. Many shows had mimicked its over-the-top style to their detriment, including the aforementioned former-hit The Man From U.N.C.L.E., which went camp and down the tubes (a late-stage correction away from comedy proved too little too late and the show never rebounded). And Batman was on its last legs even as writer David Gerrold’s flat cat copies hit the airwaves. If anything, Batman and its imitators were a cautionary tale.

And speaking of Gerrold, let’s see how he recounted his first meeting with the Great Bird of the Galaxy, as written in the early 70s: 

We shook hands. (Mine shook without any help.) He said, “Hey, you wrote a good script there. Very nice.”[60]

Assuming Gerrold’s account is accurate, that’s a point against the Bird being anti-comedy: he liked the script.

If anyone is on the record as anti-Tribble it’s Associate Producer Robert H. “Bob” Justman, who wrote he had “never liked David’s original ‘Tribbles’ script for the first series.”[61] Furthermore, there are plenty of memos demonstrating that Justman set the airdate schedule with NBC,[62] and “Tribbles” was scheduled to air during the low-viewer period between Christmas and New Years.

Star Trek was exploring new directions, and Gene wasn’t happy to find his writers dancing to a different tune. [...] So he called in his showrunner to course correct, but Gene Coon wasn’t exactly receptive.

“Gene Coon said, 'If I can’t run the show, I’m walking.'”

Complete hogwash.

There’s zero evidence to support the contention that Coon left the show over the issue of writing "funny" shows and ample evidence to the contrary:

1. After Coon left Trek—and before his official start at Universal—he did a rewrite of "A Piece of The Action" taking the previously “straight” material in a comedic direction. If Roddenberry was so anti-comedy, he'd have squashed it or had its comedic elements toned down.

2. The following March (March 6, 1968), long after he left the show, Coon (aka Lee Cronin) was assigned to write "Japan Triumphant" (although he never delivered it), which—as conceived in the first season by Roddenberry and Coon—was described as “a sort of comedy show”.[62a]

3. In “The Letter,” Roddenberry’s August 17, 1967, come-to-Jesus letter to Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley, he dressed down the leads with the statement, “Gene Coon is ill and leaving, due to emotional fatigue for which you bear some of the blame.”[63][64]

4. Bob Justman wrote that Coon “had come close to a complete nervous breakdown” through personal stress and overwork.[65]

5. And most importantly, we asked Andreea “Ande” Kindryd (née Richardson), Coon's former secretary at both Desilu & Universal, if this story is correct. Her answer, in so many words, "No," and she bristled at people putting words in Coon’s mouth, adding:

It’s not believable to me. I just don’t think the Genes talked to each other like that. Gene R. was a friend and equal[...][66]

She covers Coon’s departure in some detail in her memoir (available here) and there’s nothing about conflict with Roddenberry, but we won’t spoil it.

However, Gene wasn’t going to let one of Star Trek’s most creative voices just walk out the door.

"The original series wouldn't have been what it was without Gene Coon. Everything from Klingons to General Order Number One."

Coon is simultaneously overlooked by many and overcredited by some as regards Star Trek. While he did invent the Klingons, he did not invent “General Order One” aka “The Prime Directive.” That was invented at least fifteen months before Coon joined the staff, in the Roddenberry script “The Omega Glory”—originally one of three scripts written from which NBC selected the second pilot—where it was “Regulation One.” Below are script excerpts illustrating this.

Such misconceptions occur because audiences only see the finished episodes, and from the names on the writing credits may assume that the people credited created all the things in that segment. But TV writing credits aren’t always so straightforward, and lots of ideas are batted around internally. Without access to the production documents, it’s difficult to tell which idea originated with whom.

The Kiss Off

Having survived the kiss of death from the network, Gene pulled out all the stops for season three with a kiss of his own.

“This is the first interracial kiss on television.”

Let’s cut to the chase about whether or not Roddenberry was behind this. He once said:

"I was very annoyed by the way it was handled. The fact that anybody had taken out an advertisement — they should have done it and not advertised in Variety — 'see how brave we are.' […] I didn't feel it was worthy of an ad. I felt it was something that should have gone on all the time, and I felt out of camera range on the vessel, it of course did."[67]

Roddenberry was effectively off the lot by this point (he’d yielded his E-Building office and taken a small office across the lot which he reportedly rarely used) and not as actively involved as he had been in previous seasons. This kiss was almost certainly third-season producer Fred Freiberger’s baby.

This is a much bigger topic for another time, but the historicity of this “first” claim is and remains dubious.

However, there was still no meeting of the minds between Gene Roddenberry and the network. And when NBC decided to move Star Trek to Friday night, Gene drew a line in the sand.

“If you put it at this time slot, I am gonna step back. I’m not gonna be as involved as I was.”

“He drew a line in the sand like Picard would do later on.”

“But they still did it.”

“And said, well, okay, they called my bluff. I’m out of here.”

And, again, we’re back at this confused timeline. The Center Seat makes it seem like the move to Friday and the move to the 10 p.m. time slot were one and the same, but, as per the Laugh-In story above, it was not.

As to Roddenberry drawing “a line in the sand,” consider this: by Nov. 21, 1967, months before production of the second season had ended, Roddenberry had already renegotiated his previously exclusive contract with the studio to become non-exclusive, so he already had a toe out the door months before the 10 p.m. time slot was stet.[68]

When NBC shifted Trek to 10 p.m. NBC’s Mort Werner reportedly met with Roddenberry to discuss.[69] Perhaps this is when Roddenberry proposed coming back to produce the show himself if NBC would relent on the new time slot.

Again, as presented in The Center Seat, it’s tall tales to tell Trekkies how hard he had to fight the mundanes who didn’t understand their show…said mundanes being big bad NBC.

“Gene used to tell a story of how the ratings people come running into the suits at Paramount TV and say, ‘My God, you’ve got the perfect show! And look at this, it’s hitting all the demos. Everything we wanna hit, it’s getting to the right audience.’

And the name of the show was…

“Star Trek. Oh, we canceled it last year.”

Ah, this old chestnut. Just ‘cause Roddenberry claimed it doesn’t “make it so.” Demographics weren’t some new thing that “missed it by that much” for Trek. The press was discussing Gunsmoke’s poor youth demographics late in Trek’s first season.[70] Our friends over at Television Obscurities dismantled this myth years ago. We’ll direct you to them to ‘splain it. (link)[71]

45 in 42

So there you go. 45 dubious items in a ~42 minute program…and we didn’t bother to hit every single factual error, just the notable ones.

We hope this little game of Whack-A-Myth has given you a better sense of how oft-told tales fall short, and that the even “Trek fandom’s top analysts” aren’t necessarily accurate…especially when filtered through an editorial thresher.

The danger with the approach taken by The Center Seat is that oral tradition about pop culture easily teeters into comforting fan fiction. And that’s just where the show lands.

So, let’s all be more discriminating consumers, because mythology isn’t history, and bullshit is fertilizer that smells and tastes bad.

—30—

In upcoming FACT TREKs we’ll be taking a look at some of the whoppers we only touched on, here, including the credibility of many innovations laid at Desilu’s door and on Desi Arnaz’s head.

Revision History

• 2022-01-04 Original post.

• 2022-01-05 Typos and other errors corrected.

• 2022-01-06 Additional information and an image added to the section on the letter writing campaigns and the confusion as to which yielded the unlikely “million letters” that is so firmly entrenched in Trek mythos.

• 2022-01-07 Section on the “million letters” revised to include information supplied by Star Trek Lost Scenes co-author David Tilotta regarding NBC’s published comment in TV Guide regarding the “Save Star Trek Campaign”.

• 2022-01-09 Added quote from Bernie Weitzman regarding the terms of the CBS development fund.

• 2022-01-18 Added comment by Bob Justman as to why Coon left Star Trek. Added information and photo about Laugh-In opposite Lucille Ball’s shows. Corrected some footnote numbering.

• 2022-03-02 Minor corrections made. Citation 69 inserted and text revised to clarify the situation concerning Roddenberry’s so-called “line in the sand”.

• 2023-12-04 Minor tweaks for clarity and an added citation about a story memo re “Japan Triumphant”.

• 2025-01-25 Minor tweaks to clarify some language to be more specific.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to David Tilotta for his input and corrections.

Thanks to FACT TREK Associate Ryan Thomas Riddle for his invaluable input and edits. Follow his adventures through time and space on Twitter (link) and see his work on his homepage (link).

Thanks also to FACT TREK Associate Angela Edington-Molyneux for her input on the introduction.

Television Obscurities for their great articles, one of which we cited. Read their stuff.

End Notes & Sources

[1]  ‘I Love Lucy’ Tops Nat’l Nielsen Poll, Daily Variety, April 18, 1952, p.8.

[2] CBS’ TOP SKEINS BY DECADE, Daily Variety, October 30, 2003, p.A2.

[3] Nielsen to Get Off Sofa, Into Bars and Gyms, Louise Story for The New York Times, April 13, 2007 (link).

[4] Nielsen will soon include out-of-home viewers in its ratings, Market Watch, September 11, 2019 (link).

[5] Hollywood Inside, Daily Variety, June 3, 1949, p.2.

[6] ‘My Little Margie’ Replaces ‘Lucy’ for Summer—’Celebrity Time’ Alters Its Format, New York Times, June 20, 1952, p.33.

[7] Desilu Closes Buy Of RKO Lots; Must Alter Studios' Tag, Daily Variety, December 12, 1957, p.3.

[8] This Day in Aviation, 26 October 1958 (link).

[9] The Secret Weapon of 117 (aka The Secret Defence of 117) on IMDb. (1956) (link) FACT TREK NOTE: We have a copy of this script and plan to cover it in a future article.

[10] DEFENSE DEPT. REFUSES TO OK 'LIEUT.' SEG, Daily Variety, February 19, 1964, p.1.

[11] James Van Hise, The Man Who Created Star Trek: Gene Roddenberry (1992), p.16. Roddenberry is quoted as saying:

I had only one thing I could do...I went out to [the] NAACP, and an organization named CORE, and they lowered the boom on NBC. They said, 'Prejudice is prejudice, whatever the color.' And so we were able to show the show.

[12] Stephen E. Whitfield & Gene Roddenberry, The Making of Star Trek, (1968) p.34.

[13] In its 1962–63 season The Defenders ranked #18, making it a top-20 show. Tim Brooks and Earle Marsh, The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows 1946-Present (Seventh Edition, 1999), p.1247.

[14] James Van Hise, The Unauthorized History of Trek, Pioneer Edition, 1995, p.20.

[15] David Alexander, Star Trek Creator: The Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry, (1994) p.188. (1995 paperback p.204).

[16] David Alexander, p.189. (1995 paperback p.205).

By March 11, 1964, he had the concept down in sixteen pages, enough to show to industry buyers. He called it Star Trek.

On April 24, Gene sent a check for two dollars and the required three copies of the series prospectus to Blanche Baker at the Writers' Guild of America, West, Inc. to protect the concept of Star Trek from theft.

[17] Stephen E. Whitfield & Gene Roddenberry, The Making of Star Trek, (1968) p.38, 41.

[18] Solow & Justman, Inside Star Trek: The Real Story, ISBN 9780671896287, p.16, 19.

[19] Solow & Justman, p.XVIII.

[20] Hitchcock’s Show Is Moving To N.B.C., Val Adams for New York Times, March 3, 1964, p.71.

[21] Is CBS Losing Comedy Stars?, Paul Jones for The Atlanta Constitution, February 10, 1964, p.3A.

[22] Solow & Justman, p.15.

[23] Letter to Alden Schwimmer from Gene Roddenberry, May 4, 1964, Icons of Hollywood Auction.

[24] David Alexander, p.189 (1995 paperback p.205).

[25] Ad: “Desilu welcomes Goodman & Klein, Jurow, and Roddenberry, Daily Variety, June 2, 1964, p.12.

[26] Joel Engel, Gene Roddenberry The Myth and the Man Behind Star Trek, 1995 (mass market printing). p.40.

[27] Solow & Justman, p.5, 13.

[28] Cost-Revenue Analysis. 1968 (approximate, document undated) Paramount Television Division Cost-Revenue Analysis for Mission: Impossible, Star Trek, and Mannix, UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[29] Desilu Year Net Rises To 830G; Eye Diversification, Daily Variety, August 17, 1966, p.1, 10.

[29a] Broadcasting. Stockholders get on the Ball, p.66.

[30] Solow & Justman, p.16.

[31] 1964 (undated) Possible Casting Suggestions for First Pilot, UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[32] William Shatner with Chris Kreski, Star Trek Memories (1993), p.41, 85.

[33] “To Set It Right,” The Lieutenant, on IMDb. (link)

[34] Cost-Revenue Analysis. ibid.

[35] Desilu's Final Revised Production Budget, dated November 25, 1964, anticipated the first pilot would cost $451,508. Cost overruns sent it well over that figure, but even if the company had delivered the pilot exactly as planned, Desilu would have deficit financed it to the tune of $266,508. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[35a] Coyne Steven Sanders and Tom Gilbert, Desilu: The Story Of Lucille Ball And Desi Arnaz (1993), p.279 (new and expanded edition, 2001).

[36] Solow & Justman, p.60, 61.

[37] 333 Montgomery, on IMDb. (link) The program was shot as a pilot for NBC but “burned off” by being aired as a segment of Alcoa Theater (1957–60).

[38] Police Story, on IMDb. (link) The program was a 1965 pilot for NBC but “burned off” as part of a “sneak preview” week in 1967.

[39] Stephen E. Whitfield & Gene Roddenberry, p.135-136.

[40] Cost-Revenue Analysis. ibid.

[41] Solow & Justman, p.277–278.

[42] Paula M. Block with Terry J. Erdmann, Star Trek: The Original Series 365, 2010. From the Introduction by D.C. Fontana.

[43] The weekly cost summaries for the weeks ending January 14, 1967 and February 4, 1967 show the first season series episode budget being dropped from $192,863 to $185,349. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[44] THE COLOR REVOLUTION: TELEVISION IN THE SIXTIES, TV Obscurities (link)

[45] Those Men From U.N.C.L.E.—Going, Going, Really Gone, By George Gent 1968, New York Times, December 17, 1967, Section A, p.119.

[46] “U.N.C.L.E. Cartoons,” The U.N.C.L.E. Archives, For Your Eyes Only, p.1. (link) Source of images of MAD Artist Jack Davis’ Illustrations of NBC’s 1965-66 Season for TV Guide.

[47] “See MAD Artist Jack Davis’ Illustrations of NBC’s 1965-66 Season for TV Guide,” TV Series Finale, April 19, 2010. (link)

NOTE: The full spread for the week on the website is for USA Central Time zone, which will put most of the programs an hour earlier or later than they appeared in the Eastern and Pacific time zones.

[48] Stephen E. Whitfield & Gene Roddenberry, p.249-250.

[49] Solow & Justman, p.343.

[50] Channel Chuckles for Nov. 19, 1965, by Bob Keane. Image source “U.N.C.L.E. Cartoons,” The U.N.C.L.E. Archives, For Your Eyes Only, p.2. (link)

[51] Solow & Justman, p.380. Specifically:

[A]ccording to Alan Baker, who was Director of Program Publicity for NBC during those years, all reports of the Star Trek mail “counts” were greatly inflated. Baker was responsible for seeing that each and every letter received a reply. “During those days, NBC was very meticulous about responding to our viewers,” states Baker. “I’m sure the other networks were also, but at NBC it was a very strong point.” […] “During the months of January and February, 1968, NBC’s Star Trek mail count totaled 12,000 pieces,” Baker states. […] If we had received the amount of mail the Star Trek people said we received, believe me, I would have known about it.”

[52] Star Trekkers Are Restored.” Hartford Courant. 17 Mar. 1968: 12H.

Star Trekkers Are Restored - In response to viewer reaction In support of the continuation of the NBC's "Star Trek" series, plans for continuing the space adventure series in the fall have been announced by the network. Earlier the series had faced cancellation. Since early December, NBC has received 114,667 pieces of mail in support of "Star Trek", 52,151 in the month of February alone. NBC said that "Star Trek" would be colorcast on a different day and in a new time period Mondays, 7:30-8:30 p.m. the fall. This season the series Is being presented Fridays, 8:30-9:30 p.m.

[53] TV-Radio: “End of Trek,” Newsweek, January 29, 1968, p.54.

[53a] Letters, TV Guide for March 6–13, 1968, p.A-2.

[54] Roddenberry’s ‘Folly’, Enterprising Star Trek Taps TV's Potential, Don Page for Los Angeles Times, Aug 13, 1968, p.F1

[55] From the Archives: 1968 protest against possible Star Trek cancellation, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 6, 1968: Caltech students protest the rumored cancellation of the “Star Trek” TV series outside NBC Studios in Burbank.(link). The article mentions “over 200” protesters.

[56] COSMIC ISSUE---TV SERIES: Caltech Joins Protest Trend, Jerry Ruhlow for Los Angeles Times, January 8, 1968, p.3.

[57] Letter from Gene Roddenberry to Isaac Asimov, January 9, 1967 (Roddenberry 366 Project).

[58] Edwin Holly collection of Desilu and First Artists reports, AMPAS library

[59] Shooting Schedule for “The Trouble With Tribbles,” August 21, 1967, UCLA, Robert H. Justman Collection of Star Trek Television Series Scripts, 1966-1968.

[60] The Trouble With Tribbles the birth, sale, and final production of one episode, by David Gerrold, 1973, Ballantine Books edition, p. 248; BenBella Books edition, 2004, p.268.

[61] Solow & Justman, p.334.

[62] UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[62a] Memo from Roddenberry to Coon, subject “STAR TREK STORIES Discussed” dated 12/1/66. The memo summarizes a meeting the two men had discussing potential story springboards, including “Japan Triumphant.” UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[63] Letter from Gene Roddenberry to William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley (aka “THE Letter), August 17, 1967, UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[64] Roddenberry Joins Ranks of Disenchanted TV Creators, Daily Variety, January 1, 1968. Refers to Roddenberry, Coon, and another person being hospitalized due to overwork.

[65] Solow & Justman, p.349.

[66] Andreea Kindryd, via personal correspondence with FACT TREK.

[67] William Shatner with Sandra Marshak and Myrna Culbreath, Shatner: Where No Man...: The Authorized Biography of William Shatner (1979), p.154.

[68] RODDENBERRY GIVEN NEW PAR TELEVISION DEAL, Daily Variety, November 21, 1967, p.1, 14.

[69] ‘Trek’ May Be Off NBC’S Track In Fall, Daily Variety, March 18, 1968, p.1 & 26.

[70] Why Gunsmoke Almost Fell--Young People Don't Watch It, Press and Sun Bulletin, Sun, March 17, 1967, p.40.

[71] “A LOOK AT STAR TREK,” section “What About Demographics? TV Obscurities. (link)

Over the years, many assumptions have been made about the various Starfleet insignia worn on the original Star Trek and through Lower Decks and the upcoming Strange New Worlds. Join us as we take a deep dive into the show’s most distinctive emblems, their origins, inspirations and the intentions behind them. 

Trademarking the Future

There’s no way to know how early Gene Roddenberry decided he wanted a device or symbols to associate with Star Trek and the U.S.S. Yorktown Enterprise. His desire for such a thing first appears in the historical record some four months before photography would begin on the first pilot. On August 10th, 1964 Roddenberry sent a memo to art director Pato Guzman on the subject of a “distinctive emblem,” something immediately identifiable and also with merchandising potential.[1]

This thinking ultimately resulted in three distinct emblems for the first Star Trek pilot: what we’ll call the United Earth (and its related Caduceus in the second), the Boomerang, and the Flying A, all of which have descendants in various sequels and spin-offs. We’ll also touch on the Outpost insignia, the Starfleet Sunflower, and the rule breakers that are Commodore Decker and the crew of the U.S.S. Exeter.

NOTE: We will not be covering Starfleet seen in alternate timelines and alternate realities, etc., except those in the so-called Kelvin timeline. Non-Starfleet insigia and emblems are likewise a topic for another time.

Let’s begin with the more obscure, barely seen emblems and work our way to the big ones.

The United Earth

First up is what we’re calling the United Earth emblem, which features a laurel wreath surrounding a drawing of the planet Earth, below which is the text U.S.S. ENTERPRISE. It’s a western-centric emblem depicting the Americas. So far as we know, it only appears in the two pilot episodes (by all means, please let us know if it’s shown elsewhere).

In Star Trek’s first pilot, “The Cage” (actually titled “The Menagerie”, and later referred to as “The Cage” to differentiate it from the two-part “The Menagerie” episode), it is best glimpsed in the scene in Captain Pike’s quarters, most notably on Dr. Boyce’s light blue lab coat, and also on the tan coats of the Transporter Chief and his Transporter Tech (as identified in the call sheets), where it appears to have been screen printed with hand-applied gold detail on the laurels.

It can be glimpsed on the cover of Pike’s metal clipboard, too. And, finally, and nearly impossible to see, one is on a small round patch on Pike’s unworn hat seen sitting on his TV console (minus the text).

Additionally, it’s possible to catch glimpses of the emblem on the covers of the metal clipboards seen on the bridge.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

Incidentally, in a 1967 memo (covered further down) Roddenberry asked Theiss for a “Design for a Star Trek imprint (laurel wreaths and World or Space, etc.) which will be stamped on fatigues, ouveralls, [sic] and so on.” He was likely thinking of some iteration of the United Earth symbol.

That same United Earth emblem can be glimpsed—barely—in the second pilot, “Where No Man Has Gone Before” again on clipboard covers (as seen in the briefing room) and on the cup Gary Mitchell levitates. At least two such decals survive.[3]

What the Caduceus?

Speaking of Gary Mitchell, both his & Doc Piper’s sickbay duds feature a another emblem: a variation on a caduceus—the medical symbol featuring a snake or two snakes around a staff—featuring two snakes entwined about an elongated arrowhead shape (now doesn’t that look familiar?) set in the middle of a laurel wreath.

View fullsize

View fullsize

The same symbol appears on the sickbay duds worn by Khan in “Space Seed” (probably the same costume) and perhaps elsewhere, but we haven’t scoured every sickbay scene to check.

The laurels on both it and the United Earth logo prefigure the United Federation of Planets seals in Franz Joseph’s 70s works and subsequent Star Trek productions.

Both the “United Earth” and caduceus emblems are clearly inspired by the UN Logo, first proposed in 1945 and a revised version approved in 1946. While these obvious swipes would not make the transition to series production, they would eventually re-enter the Star Trek universe by way of the United Federation of Planets logo. The first variation of this appeared on the 1975 book the Star Fleet Technical Manual, with the silhouettes of male and female profiles in place of the laurels and stars in place of the Earth continents. In 1979 The Motion Picture followed that lead but reinstated the laurel wreath, variations of which appeared in subsequent films in the series. Yet another variation appeared (we think) on a screen in Star Trek: The Next Generation’s early 1988 episode “Datalore”. Other riffs on it have appeared numerous times since. 

Sunflower Power

This device is worn only by Starbase personnel and on all flag officers but one (Commodore Decker).

At a glance this golden emblem looks perhaps like a sunburst, but on closer inspection it’s a (still) commercially available stylized filigree or filigree-look flower. So we’ll just call it the Starfleet “Sunflower” to keep things clear.

View fullsize

View fullsize

This Sunflower symbol is never seen aboard ship except for visitors (Lt. Areel Shaw, Commodores Stone, Wesley, Stocker and illusory Mendez) or when a silver haired flag officer appears on a Skype Zoom call to tell Kirk “nope” (Commodore Barstow, Admirals Fitzpatrick, Komack & Westervliet).

This stock filigree flower design might look familiar to anyone whose been to Disneyland, as giant ones appear on the It’s A Small World ride building.

View fullsize

View fullsize

🎶 It’s a Star Fleet after all. It’s a Star Fleet after all.

It’s a Star Fleet after all. It’s a Star Star Fleet. 🎶

A slight variation on the Sunflower, smaller and in a silvery or pewter color, appears on the sparkly Cadet’s Uniform shirt (as specified in the script) of simulated cadet Finnegan in “Shore Leave” and then on guys seen in the background where Starfleet types hang out: i.e. the lounge where Scotty wallops Korax the Klingon in “The Trouble With Tribbles” and the lounge from whence Scotty is accused of being Jack the Ripper in “Wolf In the Fold”.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

All but one starbase personnel seen wear the Sunflower—that one exception (that we know of) is in “The Menagerie” Part I, where Commodore Mendez has a briefly glimpsed aide or secretary who wears the same insignia as the Enterprise crew. Likely a production oversight given she’s barely glimpsed.

Outpost

We’d be remiss not to mention the Outpost insignia briefly seen on the uniforms of Lieutenant Harold in “Arena” and Commander Hansen “Balance of Terror” (serving on an Earth/Federation Outposts appear not to be choice assignments if the fate of these poor schlemozzles is anything to go on). Nothing tells us these personnel are Starfleet per se, so we’re not going to assume anything.

The found object used to make the Outpost insignia was also employed on the mirror universe uniforms of Spock and Bones in ”Mirror Mirror”, there a different color (gold not white), rotated 90º and without the black backing.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

Thanks to Karl Tate we have closeup photos of the Outpost insignia and the “Mirror, Mirror” decoration which demonstrates they were made from some sort of appliqué trimmed in different ways.[6]

The Boomerang

The very first Starfleet symbol to appear on screen was the Boomerang, even if audiences didn’t notice it. As it appears at the front of all the red pennants on the starship Enterprise it’s therefore in the very first shot of the series aired: “The Man Trap.” (It’s also in the first shot “The Cage” as screened for NBC in winter 1965.) It’s a simple rounded yellow shape, easy to miss on the Enterprise, especially on 1960s TV sets. But if anyone missed it there it appears plain as day on the pennants on the hull of the shuttlecraft in “The Galileo Seven”. Afterwards a metallic version of the same shape appears frequently as a piece of set decoration—most commonly behind flag officers whenever they get Kirk on a Zoom call.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

But that shape was no Star Trek invention as rounded boomerangs, kidney and bean shapes were well-established space-age design elements by the time Matt Jefferies first employed the former on the Enterprise pennants in late 1964. Heck, such shapes appeared all over The Jetsons (1962–63) over two years before the Enterprise was designed.

But that Starfleet Boomerang is likely based on common symbols—often called “darts”—of military air groups, as seen on the Western Transport Air Force shield, adopted c1958 (and used through its re-designation as the 22nd Air Force in 1966 and beyond). Such symbols would likely be familiar to former Army Air Corps man and aviation enthusiast Jefferies.

View fullsize

View fullsize

Some fans of British sci-fi might note that 22nd Air Force shield looks a lot like the emblem of the totalitarian “Terran Federation” from the BBC series Blake’s 7, which was likely inspired by those aerospace emblems. The B7 symbol also resembles an on-its-side version of the Starfleet insignia introduced in Star Trek—The Motion Picture. But before you cry “rip’off!” it’s worth noting that Blake’s 7 began filming in 1977 and debuted January 1978, thus its emblem was on film and on the air many months before The Motion Picture was announced in March 1978. TMP was the Trek project to first slap a circle behind the arrowhead, but Blake’s 7 got there first.

Which Came First? Dart or Delta?

Before diving into the history of what became Trek’s literal Registered visual mark (®), let’s clarify which came first—the Boomerang or the arrowhead. Star Trek art staffer and all around mensch Michael Okuda wrote to us about his conversations with both Thiess and Jefferies on the subject of emblems.

I asked Theiss if he had designed the arrowhead. He said ‘yes'. I didn't ask Jefferies the same question, but he never seemed particularly interested in the symbol. I note that it was never used on the sets, which might be interpreted to suggest that it wasn't his.[7]

So, while not a first-hand account from 1964, it agrees with the few documents we have seen related to the two emblems, and, as Mike notes, Jefferies designed the original series sets and the only Starfleet emblem which ever appears on them is the Boomerang.

We do know that the badge design was shaping up in mid-November 1964 when Cindy Robbins screen tested (see below),[8] whereas our earliest known glimpse of the Boomerang is when the 33” Enterprise model was presented to Gene Roddenberry and Jeffrey Hunter at the “Arab Village” set on the Desilu 40 Acres backlot, or on about December 14, 1964.[9]

But which came first? We’ve to date found no conclusive evidence either way.

The “Flying A”

Star Trek’s most distinctive emblem—and its registered visual Trademark—is the A-shaped Starfleet device first seen worn by the Enterprise crew. As above, Okuda told us that costumer Bill Theiss claimed credit for it. Theiss called it simply the “arrowhead”, but over the years others have called it a “delta” or just “badge” (and, from TNG forward, a “combadge” when the shape is used as a communicator).

But since it has no official designation, and the terms “arrowhead” and “delta” are adjectives we touch on repeatedly in this piece, for clarity we’ll to take our cue from an April 24th, 1967 memo from Gene Roddenberry wherein he referred to the emblem as “the Flying A.”

So why did Roddenberry use the term "Flying A"? Well, one likely origin for the term is the iconography of Flying A service stations,[11] which would have been long-familiar in the U.S. in the 1960s.

Like its closely related cousin, the “dart,” the Flying A is a variation on a common aerospace symbol, often called a “delta” (for the Greek letter Δ), and oft employed to indicate a directional vector. An arrowhead version of such a symbol appeared in U.S. Army Air Force emblems as far back as 1935: 29 years before the Flying A was conceived. But a delta as an aeronautical symbol goes back even further, as seen in Delta Airlines logos from the 1920s and 30s. It even starts looking like an Air Force delta/dart by 1959.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

Interestingly, and probably coincidentally, the console seen in the first pilot briefing room, identified as an Amplicall Business Communication System by our Star Trek Lost Scenes pals,[12] featured a very familiar looking stylized “A” in its name/logo. (It’s unlikely Theiss saw this, but, again, not impossible.)

View fullsize

View fullsize

Whatever its inspiration, the earliest record we have for the Flying A design is an undated sketch of the first pilot landing jackets by Theiss.[13] Note that the emblem has a curved, not pointed, top, which matches the emblem worn in the Cindy Robbins screen test with Leonard Nimoy (see this article for more about that test), which documentary evidence indicates to have been filmed around November 18th, 1964. Theiss himself said he was hired for Star Trek on the basis of Roddenberry seeing costumes he’d done for the play The World of Ray Bradbury, which opened at the Coronet Theatre on October 14, 1964, and there are memos for Nimoy makeup tests as early as October 30th, so this suggests the emblem in the sketch and in the screen test photos was designed between late October and mid-November, 1964.[14]

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

So, just why is the Flying A asymmetrical, with a thicker stem to the left? It could just be a stylistic choice, or it too could be inspired by some of those air group deltas. For instance, the shield of the 163d Reconnaissance Wing (discussed earlier) renders two such deltas in perspective. Rotate one of those to point up and it looks pretty familiar, doesn’t it?

Closer to Star Trek’s airing we find the NASA 1959 “meatball” device, with its red chevron symbolizing an airfoil/wing representing aeronautics, which also evokes “darts”. (Check out the meatball’s history at this link). There’s also NASA’s astronaut device, which first appeared on aviation badges of the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force. A 1964 article in Space News Roundup, the newspaper of NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center, read:

NASA's twenty-nine astronauts are wearing a new emblem, unofficially signifying the unity of the Mercury-Gemini-Apollo flight teams.
The design shows a trio of trajectories merging in infinite space, capped by a bright shining star and encircled by an elliptical wreath denoting orbital flight." [15]

Remember that ellipse for later. The meatball was in use years before Roddenberry wrote his Star Trek pitch, and the astronaut pin was announced around the time NBC agreed to order the first Star Trek pilot.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

But don’t just take our word for it. See Jill Burrows’ detailed article about the origins of the U.S. Space Force emblem and its many antecedents (link).[16] The influence of these on the Starfleet starship emblem is indisputable. Trek borrowed...didn’t invent.

Delta Darts: Evolution of The Flying A

As the longest-lasting Star Trek emblem, The Flying A has seen numerous iterations. Let’s briefly go through them.

In the first pilot the backing was a woven metallic fabric with a gold border. In the second pilot the border was black. Series insignia were larger and made with a more reflective gold backing material. All featured a symbol relating to a department or division. The three main ones, an elongated star, two overlapped ovals, and a spiral, were present from first pilot through the series. The use of the ovals and spiral were swapped for the second pilot, but swapped back for series production.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

There were two additional division emblems.

One—looking rather like a letter C—appeared only in the first pilot and then vanished. An early version of it appears on the Theiss jacket sketch above. We’ve encountered no primary source documentation to confirm what it meant but it’s only seen on the blue shirts of two nonspeaking young men on the Enterprise bridge, neither of whom sports any braid on their uniform cuffs.

The other was a red cross for Nurse Chapel, hastily added atop a regular sciences badge’s ovals. Later red crosses were added to blank badges for Chapel and other nurses (e.g. “Obsession” and “The Immunity Syndrome”) but only ever appeared on female nurses and never on doctors McCoy and Dr. M’Benga.

Whose Badge Is It, Anyway?

The Flying A’s status as a service symbol got confusing for fans beginning very early on when, in the series’ second aired episode. “Charlie X”, the Captain and First Officer of the spaceship Antares both wear patches of the same material as those worn by the Enterprise crew, but of a completely different design. The Antares was clearly not a “Starship” in league with the Enterprise (exactly what the Antares was is unclear, because in the episode it is confusingly referred to first as the “cargo vessel Antares” then as a “transport ship,” then as a “science probe vessel” and finally as a “survey ship with twenty men aboard”), so it was possible and logical to assume the different emblems were because the ships were not of the same branch of service or the same fleet. (One of the Antares shirts and emblem appear on a background player in the bar fight scene in “The Trouble With Tribbles”.)

When the two part “The Menagerie” first aired two and half months later, a Flying A insignia appeared not only on the Enterprise crew uniforms, but also on a non-Enterprise “space officer” seen in footage from the first pilot “The Cage”. In Pike’s Orion illusion, this script-described “uniformed Space Officer (not from the Enterprise)”[17] wears a pullover sporting a Flying A with a star; a detail presumably plucked from Pike’s memories. So the idea that the Flying A wasn’t an Enterprise-specific emblem was there right from the start.

View fullsize

View fullsize

And this idea was reinforced two months later in “Court Martial” when Captain Kirk addresses men in the Starbase 11 bar whom are clearly seen wearing Flying A’s:

        KIRK
Timothy, I haven't seen you since the Vulcanian expedition.
    (no reply)
Well, I see our graduating class from the Academy is well represented.  Corrigan. Teller. How you doing, Mike?

This dialog indicates these men are not from the Enterprise, as they’d certainly not get as lippy as they are with Kirk had they been in his chain of command. Earlier dialog establishes that the Enterprise repairs are being prioritized over the Intrepid, so there’s at least one other ship in orbit—maybe as many as nine, based on the 10-entry “Star Ship Status” chart seen in the episode, so presumably these men are from one or more of them. That too strongly suggests the Flying A is not Enterprise-specific.

But that—pardon the pun—uniformity got undermined twice in the following season when in “The Doomsday Machine” Commodore Decker of the wrecked starship U.S.S. Constellation (clearly a sister ship of the Enterprise) was seen wearing an entirely different emblem. This was compounded four months later when Captain Ronald Tracey and his CMO (Chief Medical Officer) of the starship U.S.S. Exeter appeared, both wearing a rectangular insignia which differed from those worn by the Enterprise crew.

View fullsize

View fullsize

This led many fans to assume that each ship in the fleet had its own, unique insignia. They imagined adventures for other ships in the fleet and began devising all sorts of badges for these never-seen crews. So common is the notion that each starship had a unique insignia that it was addressed in licensed Star Trek books, notably Mr. Scott’s Guide to the Enterprise (1987)[18] and subsequently in Rick Sternbach Michael Okuda’s book The Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual (1991). Both offered effectively the same explanation why the insignia got standardized, beginning in Star Trek—The Motion Picture (1979).

View fullsize

But in fact, these assumptions were a mistake caused by a simple production error, as called out in a typically jokey Bob Justman missive regarding “The Omega Glory” (which began filming on December 15, 1967).[20]

As per Justman’s memo, the Antares was not a “Starship” in the same sense the Enterprise was, hence the crew’s different insignia.

So why did Justman call out Captain Tracey and not the earlier Decker? There’s no clear answer, but possibly because Decker is a commodore, and no officer of higher rank than captain seen in the series ever wears the Flying A. As we never saw another member of the Constellation crew, there’s zero evidence they wore anything like what Decker did. In fact, like the Starfleet Sunflower, Decker’s emblem doesn’t feature the departmental symbols seen on all the Flying A’s and the Exeter badges, which is another strike against it being a ship’s emblem.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

Did Theiss heed Justman’s screed? Well, in season three’s “The Tholian Web”, the deceased crew of the starship Defiant wear the Flying A. Some fans have speculated that the emblem was deliberately obscured by director Ralph Senensky, but they are perfectly clear in several shots (albeit possibly difficult to see on a 1960s TV). Roddenberry’s dictum that all starship personnel bear the same symbol as the Enterprise crew wear was clearly in force.

Of starship crew seen, only Tracey and his Chief Medical Officer of the Exeter break the Roddenberry edict.

That’s it for Starfleet-related insignia see on the original Star Trek. As we’ve demonstrated there’s really only a single mistake regarding the Flying A (the Exeter crew). But Star Trek didn't end with its 1969 cancellation. What about sequels & spin-offs?

Filmation Flying A

The Flying A reappeared in simplified form in Star Trek Animated (what some call Star Trek the Animated Series); less curved and looking even more like the aerospace deltas that clearly inspired it. These also preserved the various departmental insignia centered on each badge...the last to do so for 25 years, but dropped the medical cross from Chapel’s badge in favor of the sciences ovals.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

The show was a bit inconsistent re Justman’s dictum. The first time we see non-Enterprise Starfleet ship personnel, in the episode “The Eye of the Beholder”, they sport Flying A’s, but the episode is vague about their ship—the Ariel—which is described as both a “survey ship” and “science ship” that had a crew of six; not enough for a “Starship” crew. And while the two crew whose badges we see both sport the sciences division symbol, they wear different color uniforms, whereas science division usually goes on a blue shirt/skirt.

The next time we see Starfleet personnel in “The Pirates of Orion” they are members of the crew of the freighter SS Huron, and none wear the Flying A. As a freighter the Huron could be in a similar “merchant marine” category as Justman had described the Antares of “Charlie X,” but he might’ve forgotten that ship was described as four different things, including both a “transport” and a “science probe vessel”. So it’s all a bit muddy.

In “The Time Trap” a woman appears wearing what looks a lot like first and second pilot women’s Starfleet shirt in white, featuring an oddball blue badge, but as we have no idea who she, is and where/when she’s from of it’s impossible to say anything factual on the subject.

Flying A’s On the Silver Screen

Star Trek—The Motion Picture changed up the Flying A, driving back towards its aerospace roots (by design or by accident) by setting the arrowhead against a circle—suggesting the “orbit” ellipse on astronaut pins. Another change was reducing the different departmental symbols to just one: the elongated star.

This revised emblem appeared both as a pin on dress uniforms like the one worn by Admiral Kirk at the top of the film, and as patches seen on the left breast of most of the crew’s uniforms and on the sleeves of the engineering suits.

Security guards wearing their armor display no visible insignia (one might assume a badge is on the shirt under the vest) other than a simplified Flying A shape in cream color with no star and no backing circle on their helmets.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

Other variations of this device appear throughout the film, though often in blink-and-you-miss-it circumstances. The Flying A with no star on a circle is embossed or printed on various props. It also replaced the Boomerang on the starship’s pennants, but tipped to point forward, just like the Boomerang (minus the star symbol). The Boomerang had been cast away, but Boomerangs come back...albeit not for 26 years.

Thus the notion of ship-specific insignia was put to bed in The Motion Picture, where—other than Epsilon 9’s badges and Bones’ caduceus—all Starfleet personnel seen, even deskbound Admiral Kirk, wear the Flying A on their collective breast...a tradition which persists 40 years later.

Whilst The Motion Picture uniform patches replaced the three division symbols with just the star at the center of the Flying A, department / division was still indicated by the fill color of the circle around the patches (and epaulettes), but going from three divisions to six. Those colors on the Flying A emblem circles and epaulettes were as follows:

White = Command (Kirk, Decker) Orange = Sciences (Spock) Green = Medical (McCoy, Chapel) Red Engineering = (Scotty, Cleary) Gold = Operations (Ilia, Uhura, Sulu) Grey = Security (Chekov)

Detouring from the Flying A for a moment, let’s talk about the two other uniform emblems we see clearly. Bones has a green caduceus, sadly seen only in this film (it was replaced with an ugly pin for The Wrath of Khan).

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

Another seen-only-once emblem appears on the crew uniforms of comm station Epsilon Nine. While these people aren’t specifically called out in the film as Starfleet, they are routing communications between Starfleet ships. Anyway, their “stinking badges”—which appear to represent communications antenna dishes with signals—feature almost the identical background colors as on the Starfleet ones (except that black replaces grey). Signage designed of that emblem printed in the Star Trek—The Motion Picture Peel Off Graphics Book gives it more detail.

From The Motion Picture onwards the Flying A became the de facto Starfleet emblem. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan repurposed TMP’s Admiral Kirk Class A insignia pin as the standard device, just in a dark brass instead of gold; and on officers it was laid over a bar device. The TMP patches remained on the engineering suit sleeves, but vanished otherwise. Thus the division colors were eliminated from the badges but indicated on other parts of the uniforms (turtleneck shirt, epaulettes, shoulder straps, and armbands) and slightly changed.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

Another variation of the metallic Flying A appears on devices on the field jackets worn by Kirk’s landing party. A similar but larger Flying A on a circle became the belt buckle with a broken one hung as a pendant hanging from Khan’s necklace.

The remainder of the feature films featuring the original series characters stuck with these pins and buckles for Starfleet personnel.

Back to TV

In 1987 Star Trek: The Next Generation stepped back to the basic design of The Motion Picture Flying A sans departmental symbols as seen on the refit Enterprise’s pennants, but altered the circle to a more NASA-like ellipse, and made a pin/device of it with a silver arrowhead on a gold ellipse. This handsome design only lasted for the duration of The Next Generation’s run and Deep Space Nine’s first two seasons.

View fullsize

View fullsize

A slight variation on this design appeared for Wesley Crusher’s “acting-ensign” combadge during Next Gen’s 2nd & 3rd seasons, with the entire badge being rendered entirely in silver; no gold.

That same new-to-Next Gen version of the emblem also appeared on the pennants seen on Starfleet vessels, as seen atop the nacelles of the NCC-1701-D. There the ellipse was red.

New Flying A combadges were designed for the film Star Trek: Generations, and adopted for Deep Space Nine’s third season, thus appearing there first. The backing shape was squared off on the sides and made partly hollow. This design carried through Voyager and appears in flashbacks on the show Picard.

View fullsize

View fullsize

(Star Trek) Enterprise is known for breaking with tradition and giving early Starfleet no Flying A’s whatsoever… or did they? See those tiny patches on the “enlisted” uniforms? There’s a U.S. Space Force-esque delta and one to three stripes designating Crewman, Crewman 2nd Class and Crewman 1st Class.

View fullsize

View fullsize

The Boomrang Boomerangs Back

After being MIA for 26 years—from 1975 when Star Trek Animated ended until 2001 when Enterprise premiered—a Boomerang Starfleet symbol returned for (Star Trek) Enterprise, where it became almost a hybrid of the Boomerang and the Flying A.

Interestingly, When Enterprise did a call-forward episode to the original series segment “The Tholian Web,” in “In A Mirror Darkly—Part 2,” they stuck with the “separate insignia for each starship” idea for the Defiant uniforms despite “The Tholian Web” on-screen evidence to the contrary. But they did make the new Defiant badge effectively a Boomerang, tying it back to those on the original series and their own Boomerang-Flying A.

Back to Basics

With the “Kelvin” timeline films beginning in 2009 the Flying A went back to the aircraft delta basics and stripped off any backing shapes.

The crew of the Kelvin wear simple outlined versions of the shape.

Many many variations are worn by the cadets, Kelvin crew and Starfleet personnel, including the Enterprise crew, ranging from simple silhouettes printed on shirts, gold collar pins and shirt badges, etc., but those on the starship—notably those worn on the original series-esque duty uniforms—restored the all three main departmental symbols not seen since Star Trek Animated.

And Flying A’s abound in both Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness where the starship duty uniform tunics have a pattern of tiny little deltas all through them. This patterning vanished with Star Trek Beyond, but the Flying A badges there are at best slight variations of those seen in the previous Kelvin timeline films.

The medical cross division symbols made a return in Into Darkness, now finally seen on McCoy.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

The Flying A’s worn by the crew of the U.S.S. Franklin in Star Trek Beyond were simple brushed metal deltas with no details. The one shoulder patch we see clearly (Spock wearing a Franklin jacket with red/support division shoulder patches) features a small four-pointed star. What this signifies is unclear.

Streaming Symbols

Star Trek Discovery changed the badges up, again, sectioning off the right quarter of the emblem, keeping the main three departmental symbols, plus a cross for medical, and placing the rank “pips” directly on the emblem’s lower left (making them rather difficult to see). Variations included:

• Admirals wore this Flying A on a laurel-wreathed disk, sans pips

• Cadets wore this Flying A on a toaster oven grill with a black backing and zip pips

• Section 31 wore this Flying A but pipless, division symbol-free, in black and silver

• Prisoners wore a featureless dark gray Flying A

When the show brought Captain Pike and his Enterprise crew into the mix, they reverted to smaller metal badges much more in line with the original first pilot, albeit in silver instead of gold, coming almost full circle to those first emblems in 1964. As of this writing it appears these will be used in the upcoming Strange New Worlds.

When Discovery was thrown into the 32nd century in season three the far future Starfleet they encountered bore badges with a Flying A within an encompassing ellipse with the rank pips moved to the upper right edge. Frankly it’s a terrible design that looks like not much of anything except in close angles.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

2020 brought two new Star Trek shows and with it two new variations to the The Flying A. Those worn by Starfleet personnel in Picard harken back to a design employed in an alternate future seen in “All Good Things,” the final episode of The Next Generation: an outlined delta with a pair of angled shapes at the back. Signifying…? Your guess is as good as ours.

On Star Trek Lower Decks the Flying A’s are super simplified shapes with very subtle curves and no departmental symbols. They look just about like those NX-01 Enterprise Crewman deltas...or the U.S. Space Force’s. We’ve come full circle…or is that orbit?

View fullsize

View fullsize

Finally, in 2021 there’s the 3D animated Star Trek Prodigy, the trailers for which at first depicted a holographic Janeway wearing her old Voyager era combadge, but a more recent video clip reveals her wearing a simpler Flying A with no backing shape which appears to be split by the left half of a command division star. Whether any other characters take to wearing a Flying A, combadge or otherwise, remains to be seen.

So that’s the story so far. Arrowhead, Delta, Flying A . . . whatever you call it, it’s been around for almost 56 years and shows no sign of going anywhere...except maybe straight up.

— 30 —

Revision History

• 2021-10-06 Original post.

• 2021-10-10 Section Filmation Flying A updated to include crew from the Star Trek Animated episode “The Eye of the Beholder” we had previously missed.

• 2021-10-11 Added the Flying A Service logo image and mentioned it in the text. Revised the text about holographic Janeway’s combadge and added a new as-of-this-date image.

• 2021-10-13 Added the U.S.S. Franklin insignia from Star Trek Beyond and two additional badges from Discovery.

• 2002-04-14 Added information that the medical caduceus appeared on Khan’s sickbay duds as well as being seen in the second pilot.

Acknowledgments

GREAT THANKS to our friends David Tilotta & Curt McAloney for providing us with the image of the Amplicall Business Communication System and its Starship emblem-esque logotype’s “A’. Check out their amazing book STAR TREK LOST SCENES and then buy it! (link).

SPECIAL THANKS to Michael Okuda for his input as regards who invented the chicken or the egg…we mean, the Boomerang or the Flying A. Follow him on Twitter (link).

FACT TREK Associate Ryan Thomas Riddle for his invaluable input and edits. Follow his adventures through time and space on Twitter (link) and see his work on his homepage (link).

Mark Farinas for reviewing the piece and finding boo-boos. Read his Star Trek The Webcomic (link), an entry for which features a cap just like Captain Pike’s but with that “Merchant Marine” Antares emblem (link to specific strip).

Gratitude to Karl Tate who allowed us to share his photos of various badges and insignia. Visit his Flickr feed (link).

CorporalCaptain, J.T.B. and Daddy Todd on the TrekBBS for pointing out items we’d missed in the original post.

And, as ever, Trekcore.com for their vast library of screenshots used to illustrate this article.

Notes & Sources

[1] August 10, 1964 memo from Gene Roddenberry to Pato Guzman, Subject: Star Trek Emblem. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[2] Photo of "United Earth" emblem on lab coat. Photo © Karl Tate, used with permission. (link)

[3] UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[4] The It's A Small World ride at Disneyland. Photo by Loren Javier/Flickr Creative Commons. Reproduced here with added attribution. (link)

[5] The It's A Small World ride at Disneyland. Photo by Fact Trek Associate Ryan Thomas Riddle. Used with permission. (link)

[6] Photos of "Outpost" badge, and example of the source found item which was trimmed and rotated different ways to represent it as well as decorations worn by mirror universe Spock and Bones. Photo © Karl Tate, used with permission. (link)

[7] Private correspondence with Michael Okuda, 2020.

[8] Nov. 18, 1968 unexecuted contract for “Cindy Robins” [sic] aka Cynthia Chenault. The word "tests" is handwritten on the cover letter. Perhaps this was pending the results of the tests? The contract is the same date at the contract offered to Laurel Goodwin. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[9] “The Menaagerie” (aka “The Cage”) call sheets. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[10] April 24, 1967 memo from Gene Roddenberry to Bill Theiss, Subject: Star Trek Ensignia [sic] UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[11] Associated Oil Company and Tidewater Petroleum a WIkipedia.

[12] Amplicall logo. Also reported in “Behind the Scenes of ‘The Cage’”, David Tilotta and Curt McAloney, StarTrek.com, 15 Aug 2016. (link) Images used with permission of the authors.

[13] Undated costume sketch for landing party field jackets and insignia, by William Ware Theiss. [Approximate date: Oct.–Nov. 1964.] UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[14] [Interview] Behind the Camera—William Ware Theiss by D. C. Fontana, Inside Star Trek [newsletter] No. 6, December, 1968, p.5.

[15] Astronaut's New Emblem Symbolizes Unity of Mercury-Gemini-Apollo Teams, NASA Space News Roundup, vol. 3, no. 15, May 13, 1964. (link)

[16] May 19, 2020, “Star Trek or US Space Force? Let us settle this debate once and for all,” by Jillian Ada Burrows, for Medium. (link)

[17] “The Menagerie” (aka “The Cage”) script Revised: Nov. 20, 1964, scene 85.

[18] Lora Johnson (as Shane Johnson), Mr. Scott’s Guide to the Enterprise, Pocket Books (July 1, 1987), p.24. ISBN-10: 067163576X; ISBN-13:‎ 978-0671635763

[19] Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda, Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, Pocket Books; 1st edition (November 1, 1991), p. 4. ISBN-10:‎ 0671704273; ISBN-13: 978-0671704278

[20] December 18, 1967 memo from Bob Justman to Bill Theiss, Subject: Starship Emblems. UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

Originally Marla McGivers (Madlyn Rhue), the ship’s historian seduced by Khan in the original episode, was supposed to return as Khan’s wife. Sadly, Bennett discovered the actress was confined to a wheelchair due to multiple sclerosis. Instead of re-casting her, he had her character written out of the story.[1]

But here’s the problem, Fact Trekkers...

We can’t find a reputable source for this claim … let alone a quote.

Yes, it’s all over the internet, but it’s not properly sourced, vetted, or even given cursory scrutiny.

As some of you are doubtless doing right now, a cursory web search will reveal that Rhue did suffer from multiple sclerosis [henceforth MS] and was, in fact, eventually confined to a wheelchair.

But that’s a cursory web search. If you dig deeper, the story is somewhat more complicated.

So, stay tuned as we address the truth of the ill-fated Marla McGivers, “beloved wife” of Khan, being offed off-camera in Star Trek II, and the actress whose health is blamed.

On Her Feet on TV

Let’s not be coy. This myth is just that: a myth easily disproved just by looking up Rhue’s acting credits on IMDb, and then spending a couple of minutes Googling and finding video of TV shows she appeared in at the time of Star Trek II’s production, where Rhue stands and walks . 

In fact, she appeared on an episode of the NBC comedy Diff'rent Strokes (3x23, “The Model”) that originally aired on November 12, 1981—just 3 days after principal photography started on The Wrath of Khan (November 9, 1981). Rhue first shows up around the ten minute mark and in all her scenes is always on her feet.[2]

Two years before that, in a fall 1979 CHiPs episode titled “Roller Disco: Part II”, she appears, not roller skating, but strutting to the music. She’s not the only one not on wheels.

Madelyn Rhue struts to the disco beat at 2:15–2:25. Barbra Luna ("Mirror Mirror") can also be seen at 1:15. Rhue appears in the background of many shots.

Furthermore—if IMDb is correct—she made 66 appearances in the role of Daphne DiMera on the soap opera Days of Our Lives from 1982-84. In video from 1983, you can see her on her feet. (Her character was offed in a plane crash in late 1984.) She did at some point appear on the soap using a cane, not a wheelchair, but this was well after Star Trek II filmed.[3]

During that same period she made eight appearances on the TV version of Fame as Angela Schwartz, mother of series regular Doris Schwartz (played by Valerie Landsburg). Seasons one and two of Fame are on DVD, and we've seen her on her feet in that role.

Coincidentally, the *Fame* episode "To Soar and Never Falter" (S01, E05) features a dancer with a prior diagnosis of multiple sclerosis whose minor injury causes the insurance company to decide to remove her from the school. Rhue’s first appearance on *Fame* was just three episodes later in “Street Kid” (S01, E08).

In fact, in her final appearance on Fame, in the episode “Who's Afraid of The Big Bad Wolf” (S4E21), aired Apr 6, 1985, in two of her three scenes she’s on her feet. This episode was likely filmed four years after TWOK commenced principal photography.[4]

If you pay attention to the latter scene you can see Rhue walks a little oddly as she crosses the set. Whether this is due to her MS is not something we can answer.

For the record…here are the 79 shows/episodes she’s listed as having appeared in from Diff’rent Strokes through Fame in 1985.[5]

Fame (TV Series) 1982-1985
Angela Schwartz / Mrs. Schwartz

• Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf? (1985) ... Angela Schwartz
• Dreams (1985) ... Angela Schwartz
• Blizzard (1984) ... Angela Schwartz
• Heritage (1984) ... Mrs. Schwartz
• Hail to the Chief (1983) ... Mrs. Schwartz
• Sunshine Again (1983) ... Angela Schwartz
• Homecoming (1982) ... Mrs. Schwartz
• Street Kid (1982) ... Mrs. Schwartz

Days of Our Lives (TV Series) 1982-1984
Daphne DiMera

• Episode #1.4838 (1984) ... Daphne DiMera
• Episode #1.4837 (1984) ... Daphne DiMera
• Episode #1.4835 (1984) ... Daphne DiMera
• Episode #1.4833 (1984) ... Daphne DiMera
• Episode #1.4832 (1984) ... Daphne DiMera

(66 episodes)

CHiPs (TV Series) 1979-1983
Mildred Sloane

• Brat Patrol (1983) ... Mildred Sloane

Games Mother Never Taught You (TV Movie) 1982

Fantasy Island (TV Series) 1982
Lillie Langtry

• The Perfect Gentleman/Legend (1982) ... Lillie Langtry

Fantasies (TV Movie) 1982 Rebecca

Diff'rent Strokes (TV Series) 1978-1986
Tina Claremont

• The Model (1981) ... Tina Claremont

So, she wasn’t “confined to a wheelchair” during the time in question. That’s absolutely certain. As we’ll see, she did use one starting in the 80s, but not as soon as the stories would lead you to believe.

Lady McGiver(s)

The one thing verifiably true is that Marla McGivers did appear in early scripts for what would become Star Trek II and was eliminated during rewrites. The 1981 treatments and screenplays for STAR TREK: The Omega System and STAR TREK: The Genesis Project each feature the character.

NOTE: One other screenplay, Samuel A. Peeples’ The New Star Trek, reportedly dropped Khan, McGivers and their group, so we will disregard it.

So let’s talk about the documentary evidence regarding her role in those scripts and why the role might’ve been cut. As ever, we’re looking at the actual scripts and treatments, not repeating received wisdom and trivia repeated all over the web.

In both stories, the McGivers role is a supporting part, effectively replaced by Joachim (Judson Scott) in the final film. Following are excerpts that cover the entirety of the role as written in the April 10, 1981 “Final Draft” script for The Genesis Project written by Jack B. Sowards and Harve Bennett.[6] The earlier February 20, 1981 First Draft of The Omega System, written by Jack B. Sowards,[7] is called out where it differs in any substantial or interesting way.

NOTE: All these drafts get her name incorrectly as McGiver instead of McGivers, but in our notes between excerpts we’ll keep the spelling correct. All script excerpts are sic.

    Excerpts from The Omega System will look like this.
    Excerpts from The Genesis Project will look like this.

In The Omega System McGivers is introduced to us this way:

At his side is MARLA McGIVER, a solid woman, as firmly convinced as Khan that what he thinks or does is right, simply because he thinks or does it. In another place, another age, with a weaker man, she might have been Lady MacBeth.

...but in the later The Genesis Project that gets cut down to a throwaway Lady MacBeth reference...

12 INT. CAVE OF LAVA ROCK - CLOSE ON MARLA McGIVER

She is in her forties now, watching intently as we
PULL BACK.

                KHAN’S VOICE
        Yes, Mr. Chekov, Khan.  Khan
        Noonian Singh, your old friend.

The ANGLE WIDENS to reveal a large cavern central room of Khan's underground life space. Khan sits beside Marla in a large chair. [...] Marla, disgruntled by hardship has become his Lady MacBeth.[...]

                KHAN
        And of course you remember my 
        wife, Marla McGiver.

Chekov and Marla exchange stiff nods.[...]

Khan then discusses Kirk, questions Terrell as to why they are there, and then rants a bit about being abandoned on such a desolate rock, prompting this…

                TERRELL
        Then how have you survived?

                McGIVER 
        With his mind, Commander. Only 
        through the power of that 
        magnificent mind.  He willed 
        himself to live, and he kept 
        a few of us alive with the 
        promise that someday someone 
        would come to free us from 
        this place... And here you are.

After this Khan’s group puts the eels on the unlucky Starfleet men. As in the final film, we next see Khan and his followers aboard Reliant.

23 INT. BRIDGE - RELIANT

The place is the same, but the faces are different. Khan is in the Captain's chair, McGiver at the helm. The crew are Khan's people, now in Starfleet uniforms. Khan's mood is high.

                    McGIVER 
        We are approaching Gamma Regula 
        Four. Ready for orbital descent.

And Khan then calls Terrell & Chekov to the bridge. As he waits…

                KHAN
        How are the control systems 
        working?

                MCGIVER
        Very well. Command and remote 
        functions are all tied through 
        computer stations. How could you 
        have designed it so quickly?

                KHAN 
        This is a sister ship of Enterprise. 
        The Enterprise manuals I absorbed 
        fourteen years ago are still fresh 
        in my mind.
            (he laughs now)

                MCGIVER
        What's funny?

                KHAN
        I was just wondering how Captain 
        Beach and the crew of this ship are 
        enjoying our old home on Ceti Alpha... 
        What a fine irony.

At this point Terrell and Chekov arrive, whereupon Khan tests his control of them. Then…

                McGIVER
        We are entering orbit for Gamma 
        Regula Four.

Khan's eyes are bright. He reaches almost unmindfully over her chair back and begins gently massaging her neck.  She reacts.

                McGIVER
            (continuing) 
        You haven’t done that in years.

                KHAN
        I haven't been so happy in years.

The next time McGivers appears is when Khan remotely manipulates Terrell in an attempt to capture the Genesis Project materials.

56 INT. BRIDGE - RELIANT

Khan watching an O.S. monitor.  McGiver close by.

                KHAN
        Fools... The man’s being 
        outwitted by children.

                McGIVER
        Khan.  You’d better block
        his communicator.

                KHAN
        He’s in panic.  He needs to
        talk to me.

                McGIVER
        His last transmission was on 
        an open channel.

The mistake hits Khan.

We next see them when they sneak attack the Enterprise. McGivers dialog is merely “They’re still running with shields down,” and “Phaser locked on target.” Then, after their first attack...

72 INT. BRIDGE - RELIANT - FAVORING KHAN

He stares at the image of the Enterprise, angry, as McGiver punches buttons on the console.

                KHAN
        How much longer?

                McGIVER
            (two last entries)
        We’re ready with new attack course.

Then, as Reliant closes in, and just before “Kirk’s Explosive reply”, the script says…

McGivers stands beside Khan, angrily staring at the screen.

The earlier The Omega System script gave McGivers a stronger moment here:

INT. RELIANT - THE BRIDGE

Khan sits watching the Enterprise on the Forward Screen.  McGiver stands beside Khan, angrily staring at the Screen.

                OFFICER
        She's almost dead in space, Sir.  Barely 
        maintaining headway.

                McGIVER
        She should be little pieces of tinfoil.
            (moves across to the
             Gunnery Console)
        Get up, you fool.

The Gunnery Officer gives McGiver an ugly look.

                GUNNERY OFFICER
        Don't talk to me like that, Woman.

Khan leans forward.

                KHAN
        Where are your manners, Jahmal?  
        Get up and give the lady your seat.

The Gunnery Officer rises slowly, and McGiver slides quickly into the chair, and starts punching in information.

                McGIVER
            (checking her readout)
        There seems to be heavy damage in the 
        area of the Engine Room and Machine
        Shops... Their Shields are less than
        half of capacity.... Phasers locked on
        target.

She leans forward, hand poised over the Firing Button, watching the Screen.

                McGIVER
            (to the Helm Officer,
             intensely)
        Take us closer... Slowly.  Slow.
        Warp One....

A bit later in The Omega System, there’s this awkward Shatner-flattering dialog between Khan and McGivers as they spy Kirk on a video feed…

                KHAN
            (pleased)
        He looks good, doesn’t he, Marla?

She looks up from the instrument panel where she is punching buttons, and switching switches.

                KHAN
        Kirk... He’s in good shape.
            (thoughtfully)
        I never understood why people felt
        that just getting older was an excuse
        to let themselves get fat and soft.

                McGIVER
        Yes, he looks like he’s in good shape.

                KHAN
        I like that.  I like that very much.
        There wouldn’t be any satisfaction in
        killing a fat, sloppy old man.
            (looking at the instruments)
        Do you have the coordinates of the
        caves?

                McGIVER
        I can Beam you down right next to those
        bombs... and they have thoughtfully
        provided the Freight Transporters to Beam
        them up to the ship.

…which is followed by the best exchange between the characters, which gets repeated in a much more apt place at the climax of The Genesis Project, but we’ll get to that.

In both scripts there is a scene where McGivers and Khan are in the Reliant torpedo room, studying the Omega/Genesis Torpedoes. The scenes are similar, with McGivers asking, “Tell me what you see, Khan,” whereupon he monologues about his ambition. In The Genesis Project, that’s really it for Marla’s involvement in the scene, but in The Omega System there’s a tiny bit more to it…

                McGIVER
        There’s also the power to kill and destroy.

                KHAN
        That part of it does not please me, my dear,
        but the ends justify the means.

…And after Khan finishes his speech about how he’ll stop all the waste by uniting the Klingons, Romulans and Federation under his rule…

                McGIVER
        It's a beautiful dream, Khan.

And that’s McGivers’ final appearance in The Omega System, vanishing from the story after page 83 of 112. Khan goes on to confront Kirk and David on the planet, then beams out of the story as well on page 97. The final space battle is played entirely from the POV of the Enterprise crew.

The Genesis Project features both Khan and McGivers in the final battle, beginning with the following as the Enterprise pursues the Reliant.

183 INT. BRIDGE - RELIANT

They are watching screen of Enterprise, and various scanning devices.

                McGIVER
        Enterprise now on intercept
        course.

                KHAN
        The man’s suicidal.

                McGIVER
        Shall we increase speed?  We
        can outrun him.

                KHAN
        No.
            (presses button)
        Load Genesis Torpedo and stand
        by for Molecular Encoding. 

                McGIVER
        You’re wasting a valuable resource.

                KHAN
        We have six.  One will do.

Which presages Joachim (Judson Scott) attempting to sway Khan to act sensibly in the final film. The rest of McGivers role during the final battle is to say “Target lock,” twice before Genesis Torpedoes are fired at the Enterprise, which evades them because, knowing the shields are useless against the Genesis effect, Kirk has lowered them in order to use that power for maneuvering. McGivers sees this as an opportunity.

203 RELIANT BRIDGE

                KHAN
        You can’t miss at this distance.

                McGIVER
        Their shields are down -- let me 
        use the phasers --

                KHAN
        No!  Energize torpedoes!

When Khan finally decides to heed McGivers advice and calls for phasers it’s too late and the Reliant is done for. Then, at their story’s climax, there’s this very in-character moment for both:

211 INT. RELIANT BRIDGE

Khan and McGiver, coughing through the smoke, seem to be the only ones left alive. He helps her up with some tenderness, for she is clearly injured, guides her to her seat at the console.  And we hear:

                KIRK'S VOICE 
            (filtered) 
        Star Ship Reliant, this is 
        Enterprise. Mr. Khan, your ship 
        is crippled. I have a boarding
        party standing by. I call upon
        you to surrender.

Khan thinks about it bitterly for a moment, then looks to Marla. She shakes her head firmly.

                McGIVER
        No.

                KHAN
            (nods, then:)
        Marla... Have I ever told you 
        that I loved you?

                McGIVER
        Never once.

                KHAN 
            (kisses her 
             forehead) 
        And I probably never will.

He reaches out toward the console now and firmly depresses a button. Immediately, the lights in the bridge begin to dim for one second, then raise.

That’s what we referenced as the best bit between the characters in The Omega System, where this dialog happens much earlier and it’s slightly different, Khan saying, “And I probably never will... It is a Sin of Omission.”

Finally, the Enterprise warps off as a Genesis Torpedo takes out the Reliant and Khan and McGivers with it.

That’s it.

That all there was to the McGivers part. A paltry 22 lines in The Genesis Project.

As is apparent, McGivers doesn’t do much in either story. She sits next to Khan, stands next to him a couple of times, sits at stations on the Reliant and stands with Khan in the torpedo room. It’s a part that Rhue probably could have played in 1984, let alone 1981.

Given how undeveloped the part, is it any wonder they would consider cutting it?

Which is just what happened when Nicholas Meyer did his uncredited rewrites. There’s no sign of McGivers as a living, breathing character by his Sept 16, 1981 “Revised Final Draft”, (we sadly don’t at this time have his earlier drafts).[8]

According to Meyer’s 2009 memoir:[9]

I had seen the television episode once and been struck by the fact that Khan had seduced one of the Enterprise’s crew, who devotedly shared his exile. The idea that she might now be dead, in addition to explaining her absence in the movie, struck me as a plausible springboard for Khan’s rage. Working backward from this premise, I built up in my mind an offstage love story that had come to tragic grief and over time shaped Khan’s monomania where Kirk was concerned.

We reached out to Mr. Meyer to ask about this, and he graciously replied to our inquiries.[10]

Everything to do with the drafts I wrote were entirely my choices, including, as I recollect, all the dialogue, with two exceptions. “Would you like a tranquilizer?” And “Captain, this is the Garden spot of Ceti Alpha [VI]” were both written by Harve Bennett. [...] Nor did anyone ask for any revisions or alterations in those choices. [...] Bennett had no hand in writing my draft til after it was complete and all my decisions were in. He made some suggestions and later added, as I recollect, two lines of dialogue.

All that remained of McGivers in Meyer’s script was Khan name-checking her in dialog deleted from the finished film.

Deleted dialog from Khan’s first scene mentions his “beloved wife,” Lt. McGivers, by name. # [11]

Rhue’s Persuasive Performance

So, what to make of the claim that the McGivers role was dropped because of Rhue’s MS, wheelchair or not?

Frankly, it doesn’t wash. It doesn’t comport with the readily available facts.

First, Harve Bennett has said in interviews that the movie almost ran into trouble because no one had thought to contact Ricardo Montalbán to check on his availability or interest in reprising the part of Khan until shortly before the movie was given a green light by Paramount. If Montalbán wasn’t high enough on the list to be contacted, it’s unlikely Rhue had been approached, given the comparative size of her part before being written out of the movie.

We got in a very precarious situation. We started writing the script, we’re going to get Ricardo. But nobody had ever bothered to say, “Ricardo, would you like to do this movie with us?” And we were getting pretty close to a greenlight when I remember we said, “We better check and see if Fantasy Island…other things will permit him to do this.[12]

Second, as has been established, Rhue was working and seen on her feet at the time Star Trek II was filming and for several years after. She even appeared on the Ricardo Montalban-starred Fantasy Island in an episode (“The Perfect Gentleman/Legend”)[13] that aired just months after Khan hit the silver screen and would have been filmed after Star Trek II wrapped, given how network TV series production worked. In her first scene, Rhue struts into a saloon. Note that she does use a prop parasol, but it’s impossible to say if she’s using it like a cane or not. If so, she’s doing a good job of not making it obvious.

Third, Star Trek II writer/director Nicholas Meyer tells us it wasn’t so.

Fourth, and to the point, is while we can’t speak to Rhue about the situation—she passed in 2003—she is on record discussing her MS, how it ultimately impacted her career, and how she’d kept it a closely guarded secret for years.

It wasn’t until around the time Star Trek: The Next Generation hit the airwaves in 1987 that she “came out” about her condition, notably in the People magazine item “After Years of Lying, Actress Madlyn Rhue Reveals the Truth About Her Multiple Sclerosis.”[14] Here are some edited relevant excerpts.

Just before my 40th birthday, in October of 1977, I was finally diagnosed as having MS. [...] I was afraid that if anyone knew I had the disease, I might never work again. To get an acting job you have to pass an insurance company physical. If you don’t, and you’re not a big star, you don’t get hired. So I lied.

“What was best for me was to pretend to be something I wasn’t, which was well,” she explains. So she kept the diagnosis from best friends, including Suzanne Pleshette and Loretta Swit, as well as from a sister to whom she had always been close.

For a time Rhue’s performance was persuasive. In the early stages of her MS, which usually strikes people between the ages of 20 and 40, she made convincing excuses—an arthritic hip, a car accident—for her debilitating fatigue and weakness. Despite her eventual need for one cane, then two, she managed to keep her condition to herself. [...] But the charade could not be sustained indefinitely. [...]

[...]Two years ago [~1985] my legs became so weakened that I had to go into a wheelchair. For a period of 11 months after that I had no work.

​​Until early last year [1986] I had been paying almost all my medical expenses myself. I had coverage through my union, the Screen Actors Guild, but I hadn’t filed all the claims for fear I’d be found out. Over the years I have spent more than $80,000. I just made it, but I used up all my savings.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

Click/tap articles to enlarge. [15] [16] [17]

Another 1987 article about Rhue states “In the first few years, the symptoms came and went, enabling Rhue to conceal the disease”.[18]

Her alibis worked, and she managed to get recurring roles on the syndicated "Fame" series and the soap opera "Days of Our Lives," using furniture or other items for support.[19]

But, Rhue was ultimately correct about her condition affecting her ability to get work. Years after Star Trek II wrapped...

Word got out that she had MS, and one of her fears was realized. "I got one job in 1985. I got one job in 1986. I've had three in 1987."[20]

Rhue’s account of her condition varied a bit from interview to interview, but that’s not unusual given that people often approximate dates. For instance, in a 1989 AP piece[21] she said…

"I first knew I had MS in 1973 or '74. I didn't tell anyone because all I had was a little dropped foot. Then I had to walk with a cane. Then I had to walk with two canes. I've been in the wheelchair since 1981, but I wasn't wheelchair-bound at first. I could get up, drive, dress myself. I've been confined to the wheelchair for two years."

...which suggests she knew of her condition earlier than 1977 and started using—but was not confined to—a wheelchair the year Star Trek II was in preproduction and began production. Here she also suggested she’d been confined to the wheelchair for two years, which means back to 1987, which is the the year she was in People saying she’d been so for two years prior. So while her accounts are not entirely consistent dates-wise, the real evidence is in her TV appearances as documented above. It’s clear she was not entirely wheelchair-bound as late as her final Fame role (probably filmed in 1984) and certainly not back in 1981.

That her MS was largely unknown in the biz and that she was telling tales to hide her condition is made crystal clear in an item which appeared in Daily Variety on Nov 26, 1986.[22]

Many people suffering from MS may have symptoms increase and decrease in severity. So it’s entirely possible that Rhue could have been in a bad spot and had to pass on a role like McGivers. But given she was so diligent about hiding it, there’s no way she’d have admitted the actual reason to a potential employer.

Given all of this there's basically no way that producer Bennett—let alone director Nicholas Meyer—knew of Rhue’s MS or believed she was “confined to a wheelchair” in mid 1981 when Star Trek II was in development. Almost no one knew. And when she “came out” in 1987 there were a number of articles about the news...because it was news, not something publicly known years earlier.

Rhue speaks for herself in a 1988 segment on Entertainment Tonight that detailed her struggles with MS. ‡‡ [23]

So, even if Harve Bennett ever said he’d dropped Marla McGivers due to Rhue’s MS and wheelchair—and that’s a big if given we can’t find a source—it’s not impossible that once Rhue’s condition became public knowledge he misremembered it as the reason McGivers got offed.

But we’re still not buying he said it until there’s a reputable, citable source.

And speaking of sources… there’s one more thing to talk about...which is why we are even talking about this. 

A Snake Eating Its Tail

It’s clear this myth is just that. Sure, it’s rooted in some reality—Rhue did have MS and was eventually wheelchair-bound—but it reeks of conflation: as if someone heard of Rhue’s condition once she went public and retroactively concluded that it must be why Marla McGivers was not in the film.

That stories like it pop up so often makes it worth asking just where these come from and how they propagate.

Finding the origin of this particular myth has been challenging. We started with the basics. First, we checked the validity of the “confined to a wheelchair” assertion, and finding it lacking, we moved on to finding the root of the story, looking at every interview with Harve Bennett we could find, but came up empty handed. This included ProQuest searches that turned up no confirmation, but clarified when Rhue went public about it.

Next we did numerous boolean operator web searches for “harve bennett”+”rhue” and a bunch of variations, but that mostly turned up sites and items repeating the same basic story again and again with no reliable sources cited, or—mostly—no sources at all. 

So then we narrowed down the searches by date, limiting the results by year. The earliest relevant result was from the Star Trek wiki Memory Alpha, pointing to the Marla McGivers article in 2004.[24]

Case closed? Nope. Turns out that’s a search engine error, because while the article was created on May 20, 2004‎, if you go back through the revision history—which we did—you discover that neither Bennett nor Rhue and her MS were mentioned in the original version (nor the article about Madlyn Rhue on the same site) until four years later, when an April 24, 2008 update added this unsourced statement:

According to Harve Bennett, McGivers was to appear in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, but after he discovered Rhue to have been confined to a wheelchair due to multiple sclerosis, he wrote her out, feeling it would be unfair to recast the role.”[25]

And there it sat with zip citation for 3½ years until a November 3, 2011 update added a long overdue “citation needed” flag,[26] which remained there for another 5½ years until a July 8, 2016 update[27] when a citation was finally added, one that referenced the book Set Phasers To Stun: 50 Years of Star Trek (2016) by Marcus Berkmann,[28] which contains a footnote about Rhue and McGivers…

But that book was published in 2016, eight years after the unsourced Bennett-Rhue story was first added to Memory Alpha. So it could not be the original source for any of the above even though it’s now listed as a citation. Furthermore, the book itself cites no source for its footnote about Rhue, but its text is very close to the Memory Alpha article text...so for all we know the author got the story from Memory Alpha. If that’s the case it would be a snake eating its own tail: an unsourced claim gets repeated in a book that is then cited as a source for the unsourced claim.

The earliest confirmed reference we can find to this story goes back to 2007–2008, beginning with a few posts on the TrekBBS website.[29]

Also, before the draft script itself was being written, it was assumed that Khan would have scenes with Marla McGivers, but then Harve Bennett heard that Madlyn Rhue had MS, and was confined to a wheelchair, so that character was dropped before her scenes were written. —4 Sept 2007 

The main reason Marla is dead in the movie was because they found out, fairly early on, that Madlyn Rhue had MS and, although she was still acting at the time (eg. Daphne diMera in "Days of Our Lives", and she even did a "Fantasy Island" with Ricardo Montalban!), she was usually confined to a wheelchair. —30 June 2008

We contacted the author of those posts and he tells us he believes he read it in a Starlog Magazine interview with Harve Bennett, but we’ve scoured Starlog archives and not been able to locate such a thing (if anyone can find it, let us know). So it’s possible he’s misremembered where he first read/heard this.

We all do it.

But that innocent lack of a source, Fact Trekkers, illustrates a larger problem with how we receive and share history. 

The internet is a giant “telephone game”; people repeat what they’ve heard, the stories gradually morph with those retellings, and the origin gets lost or forgotten. What we end up with is a circle of questionable sources that end up citing themselves in a daisy chain...effectively that snake eating its own tail. There’s no beginning and no end, and the myth machine just keeps on churning without scrutiny or the slightest concern for our perennial question:

“IS IT TRUE?”

In the case of Marla McGivers and Madlyn Rhue’s MS, the answer appears to be “no.”

Caveat emptor, friends…especially where pop culture “history” is concerned.

—30—

Special Thanks

To Nicholas Meyer for graciously answering our questions and doing so with all due haste. Sir, you are a mensch. Follow him on Twitter at @NicholasMQ.

To FACT TREK Associate Ryan Thomas Riddle for his invaluable input and edits. Follow his adventures through time and space on Twitter (link) and see his work on his homepage (link).

To Mark Farinas for locating several video clips referenced and linked herein. Read his Star Trek The Webcomic (link).

As ever, much thanks to David Eversole for sharing information with us. Find his work at The Unseen Elements of the Original Series Episodes.

This week’s Jr. FACT TREKKER award goes to JSJ (find him on Twitter) for helping us verify the Set Phasers To Stun reference.

Finally Neil S. Bulk for catching a credits error and otherwise keeping us honest.

Appendix: McGivers Gets the Axe—The Many Different Versions

Here are other examples of this tale being “telephone”d around the internet.

• Re-Watching Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Eugene Myers & Torie Atkinson, The Viewscreen, 13 October 2011. Per the authors of this piece, “Actress Madlyn Rhue was unable to reprise her role as Marla McGivers because she was confined to a wheelchair with multiple sclerosis.” We’ve established she was not confined to a wheelchair until years after her character was written out.

• 30 Surprising Facts About Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan You Didn't Know, by Maurice Mitchell, 17 March 2014 (and copied verbatim from The Geektwins.com to another site by blogger "travelingwithjim“ (link)) stated “An early draft of the script included Marla McGivers, but Madlyn Rhue was wheelchair-bound thanks to multiple sclerosis (which eventually killed her) and unable to play the role, and Meyer didn’t wish to re-cast.” Here the story has “telephone”d from Bennett to director Meyer. See how this happens?

• Re-Viewing Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: Part 1, Mark’s Super Blog, 7 August 2016. Per blogger Mark Alfred: “In the original ‘Space Seed,’ the backstory of this film, Khan’s ‘wife’ was Marla McGivers, a mutinous Starfleet member who defected from Kirk’s ship because she’d never been swyved like that before (check your Chaucer if you don’t know that word). This character was also intended to be part of the film, until producer Harve Bennett discovered that actress Madlyn Rhue was suffering from MS and was wheelchair-bound. So her character was merely addressed and then dismissed through a couple of clumsy references.” Again, not yet “wheelchair-bound” and her MS was not publicly known.

• Star Trek The Original Series Rewatch: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, by Keith R.A. DeCandido, Tor, Tue 23 May, 2017. “An early draft of the script included Marla McGivers, but Madlyn Rhue was wheelchair-bound thanks to multiple sclerosis (which eventually killed her) and unable to play the role, and Meyer didn’t wish to re-cast.” Again, she was not “wheelchair-bound” until years after the film was made. And it’s a stretch to say the MS “eventually killed her”, as obituaries state she died at age 68 of pneumonia and heart failure.[31]

• 12 Things You May Not Have Known About Star Trek Ii: The Wrath Of Khan, by Don Kaye, SyFy Wire, 4 June 2017. “Originally, the character of Lieutenant Marla McGivers -- the Enterprise historian seduced by Khan in ‘Space Seed,’ who ultimately joins him in exile on Ceti Alpha V -- was supposed to appear in The Wrath of Khan, and the actress who played her, Madlyn Rhue, approached to reprise the role. Sadly, however, Rhue suffered from multiple sclerosis and was confined to a wheelchair, so McGivers was written out of the movie. Khan references the death of ‘my beloved wife’ when he is first encountered by Chekov (Walter Koenig) and Captain Terrell (Paul Winfield) on the surface of the planet -- almost certainly meaning McGivers.” Again, the wheelchair story; again, not confined in 1981–82.

• Madlyn Rhue was born on October 3, 1935 and passed away on December 16, 2003, The Real Nerd Herd, 3 October 2017. Blogger travelingwithjim writes, “Sadly, Rhue was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1977 and was soon confined to using a cane, then crutches, and finally a wheelchair. This is, according to Harve Bennett, what kept McGivers from appearing in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. When Bennett discovered Rhue’s condition, he wrote McGivers out of the film, feeling it would be unfair to recast the role. Coincidentally, Rhue’s ‘Space Seed’ co-star, Ricardo Montalban (who played Khan in the episode) was also confined to a wheelchair due to health issues. Like Rhue, Montalban continued to work despite his predicament.” Again, this account suggests her health issues were know to Bennett, but we’ve established she was hiding them. And, again, she was not yet restricted by canes or a wheelchair, as demonstrated by her appearance on other shows.

• STILL OLD FRIEND: MUSIC FROM THE MUTARA NEBULA w/ NEIL BULK, Inglorious Treksperts Podcast, 3 September 2021, 35:23-36:12. Podcast co-host Mark A. Altman states: “You know, it’s funny, I just found out something I never knew about Marla McGivers. That actually early in—I think it was before Nick [Meyer] got involved—that Bob and Harve were interested in getting Madlyn Rhue to be in the film. And when they approached her, she was too sick to do it, so she had to turn them down. But they had actually wanted her for the film… It was interesting, because all the interviews I’ve ever read they always say, ‘No, because we want him to be so dead set on revenge, we never considered having Marla McGivers in it. We wanted her to be dead, which helps fuel his antipathy towards Kirk.’ But it was interesting to hear that, because they had tried to get Madlyn Rhue, which would have been interesting.” This account doesn’t go so far as to say she was confined to a wheelchair, but implies that “Bob [Salin] and Harve [Bennett]” found out she was “too sick to do it.” Had Rhue actually been approached for the role (again, to date there’s zero evidence to support that, and Altman cites no source) she could conceivably have turned it down, but her character was written out many months before production started, and as “the symptoms came and went” she’d have been unable to predict how she’d feel that far into the future. So this doesn’t wash, either.

As ever, should extra data points become available we will revisit this article and post a applicable #FactTrekCorrection.

Revision History

• Originally posted 15 September 2021.

• September 19, 2021. Correction made to the IMDb credits block to excise two CHiPs episode which were aired prior to 1981 and to clarify the language about total number of shows Rhue appeared in from 1981 through 1985.

• April 6, 2024. Added xkcd comic about citations, and a paragraph about MS symptoms.

• July 16, 2024. Added the CHiPs “Roller Disco” video clip.

Image & Video Sources

* Photo by Harry Langdon, © 1988.

† Screengrabs from Diff’rent Strokes, episode “The Model”. Source video viewable on Dailymotion as of the date this is posted. (link)

‡ Screengrabs from Days of Our Lives, episode number and exact date unlisted, though indications are Sept, 1983. Source video viewable on YouTube as of the date this is posted. (link)

§ Screengrab from Fame, “Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?” Source video viewable on Dailymotion as of the date this is posted. (link)

¶ Screengrab from Star Trek, “Space Seed.” Copyright Paramount.

# Screengrab from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, via Trekcore.com. Copyright Paramount.

** Screengrab from Fantasy Island, episode “The Perfect Gentleman/Legend”. Source video viewable on YouTube as of the date this is posted. (link)

†† Screengrab of Days of Our Lives from “Madlyn Rhue's struggle with multiple sclerosis”. See ‡‡

‡‡ “Madlyn Rhue's struggle with multiple sclerosis”, Entertainment Tonight, November 9, 1988, Copyright 1988 Paramount Pictures Corp. Via the Internet Archive. (link)

§§ 1986 photo by Ron Galella.

End Notes & Sources

[1] 30 Surprising Facts About Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan You Didn't Know, by Maurice Mitchell, 17 March 2014. (link)

[2] Diff’rent Strokes, “The Model” on IMDb. (link) Her casting for the role was announced in the Telecastings column of Daily Variety, Friday, May 8, 1981, p.28.

[3] Days of Our Lives on IMDb. (link)

[4] Fame, “Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?” on IMDb. (link)

[5] Madlyn Rhue credits on IMDb. (link)

[6] April 10, 1981 “Final Draft” Screenplay The Genesis Project written by Jack B. Sowards and Harve Bennett. From a private collection.

[7] February 20, 1981 “First Draft” Screenplay of The Omega System, written by Jack B. Sowards. From a private collection.

[8] September 16, 1981 “Revised Final Draft” of Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country [the working title for the film released as The Wrath of Khan, not to be confused with the latter film of that title], uncredited screenplay written by Nicholas Meyer although the cover page credits read as Written by Harve Bennett, Participating Writers Jack B, Sowards [and] Samuel A. Peeples. From a private collection.

[9] Nicholas Meyer, The View From The Bridge: Memories of Star Trek And A Life In Hollywood (2009), Page 107.

[10] Nicholas Meyer, via private correspondence with FACT TREK, August 29–Sept. 12, 2021.

[11] Star Trek II Workprint ("Pisces Project"), UCLA Film & Television Archive, Inventory No. DVD4324 M. Per the UCLA catalog: "A videotape of a b&w work print of work in progress, sent to the outside vendor who was cutting the theatrical trailer and TV spots; sent under the code name Pisces Project for the purpose of maintaining secrecy prior to the film's release."

[12] “The Captain's Log,” Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan [documentary extra, DVD] Prod. Mark Rance, Jennifer Peterson, Paramount Home Video, United States, 2002, 27 mins (12:15-12:35).

[13] Fantasy Island, “The Perfect Gentleman/Legend” on IMDb. (link)

[14] After Years of Lying, Actress Madlyn Rhue Reveals the Truth About Her Multiple Sclerosis, Updated Nov. 16, 1987. (link)

[15] Stricken With MS, Madyln Rhue Still A Working Actress, Howard Rosenberg for The LA Times, Aug. 14, 1987, p.G1, 36

[16] She fights for roles while fighting MS, Edited by Al Cohn for Newsday, Aug. 20, 1987, p.9.

[17] Obituary: Madlyn Rhue, 68; TV Actress Kept Working With Multiple Sclerosis, by Dennis Mclellan, Dec. 18, 2003. (link)

[18] Madlyn Rhue Finds Acting Career Can Include Wheelchair, by Diane Duston, Associated Press, Oct. 11, 1987. (link)

[19] [20] Newsday, ibid.

[21] Actress Madlyn Rhue doesn't let MS slow her, by Jerry Buck, The Associated Press. The Springfield News-Leader, Springfield, Missouri, September 28, 1989, Thu, p18.

[22] Army Archerd, Just for Variety, Daily Variety, Weds., Nov. 26, 1986

[23] Madlyn Rhue's struggle with multiple sclerosis, Entertainment Tonight, November 9, 1988, Copyright 1988 Paramount Pictures Corp. Video located on the Internet Archive. (link) 

[24] Marla McGivers on Memory Alpha, Revision as of 04:33, 20 May 2004. (link)

[25] Marla McGivers on Memory Alpha, Revision as of 22:24, 24 April 2008. (link)

[26] Marla McGivers on Memory Alpha, Revision as of 22:57, 3 November 2011. (link)

[27] Marla McGivers on Memory Alpha, Revision as of 15:22, 8 July 2016. (link)

[28] Marcus Berkmann, Set Phasers To Stun: 50 Years of Star Trek, 2016 Little Brown, p159. No sources are cited in the work for the claim about Rhue. It reads:

† Marla McGivers, the Starfleet officer who had accompanied Khan into exile, was originally supposed to have been there too, until Harve Bennett discovered that the actress who had played her, Madlyn Rhue, had multiple sclerosis and was now confined to a wheelchair. (She eventually died of complications from the disease.) Bennett thought it would be unfair to recast, so the character was written out.

[29] STII Original Version?, reply #5, Sept. 4, 2007 and The Wrath Of Khan Questions??, reply #39, 2008

[30] xkcd #978: Citogenesis (link). A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.

[31] Madlyn Rhue obituary, Variety, Dec 19, 2003, (link)

Other References

• Photoplay, Sept, 1961, Vol. 60, No. 3, p86. Dick Beymer (mentions Rhue). (link)

• “Disabled Handicapped In Showbiz Job Search,” Daily Variety, Monday, November 30, 1992

• Army Archerd “Just for Variety,” Daily Variety, Weds., July 9, 1997 (mentions Rhue having an accident with her wheelchair lift).

• Obituaries

  • Madlyn Rhue, 68, Television Actress, By The Associated Press, Dec. 20, 2003. (link)

  • Obituaries in the Performing Arts, 2003, Film, Television, Radio, Theatre, Dance, Music, Cartoons and Pop Culture by Harris M. Lentz, III, p325–326. (link)

  • The Last Farewells: Madlyn Rhue, Starlog Magazine #320, March 2004 (December), p6 (link)

• [#TVTropes]Their page on The Wrath of Khan mirrors our line of questioning. (link)

But recently (Spring 2021) an April 1963 news clipping started making the rounds on social media that featured a “pocket” telephone.

First things first. Is it authentic?

Yes. We independently tracked down the newspaper that printed it and can confirm it’s the real deal.[2] Snopes also previously weighed in on the issue and confirmed the article’s authenticity.[3]

What immediately struck us about this contraption (we suspect it may have been a mockup, not an actual working device, despite the claim) is that it’s:

1. hinged to flip open

2. slightly trapezoidal

3. about the same size as…

4. …and looks a lot like this...

Look a little…familiar?

Note that the news item is dated April 18, 1963, almost eleven months before Gene Roddenberry pitched Star Trek to Oscar Katz at Desilu, and some nineteen months before the first pilot of that show was filmed and the first communicator props were used.

Now, there’s very little extant documentation about the design of Star Trek’s props—especially for the first pilot (albeit there is a memo which indicates the “small communicator” was provided by Project Unlimited)—so it’s impossible to know for certain, but this is a case where the similarities are just too striking to simply dismiss outright. Almost any piece of design is not just about what it is but when it is made. A “pocket” telephone was not a commonplace idea in 1964, so it would be unsurprising if someone working on Trek at Desilu or Projects Unlimited didn’t remember seeing an item on this device somewhere, or a researcher turned it up when asked to provide reference material (the Gene Roddenberry files at UCLA included numerous press clippings that were provided as reference material, although this newspaper article is not among the surviving material).

If so, it seems the popular story may be backwards: Star Trek’s communicators didn’t inspire the cell/mobile phone, but, rather, this “pocket” phone perhaps inspired the first pilot communicators, and by extension, the series version that followed.

Calling Dick Tracy

But, wait, we hear some of you cry, didn’t the fellow credited with leading the development of the first handheld mobile phone—Motorola’s Martin Cooper—flat out say that he was inspired by Trek’s communicators?

Well...not exactly…

We can blame Captain Kirk…okay, William Shatner, for popularizing this notion in his 2005 program How William Shatner Changed the World.[5]

Jump to 0:54 to get to the relevant portion.

And here’s what was said in that program:

SHATNER: One day, during a break from his heavy schedule of pondering, Marty happened on an episode of Star Trek, and a piece of 23rd century technology that would change his life and take the whole world with him.

MARTIN COOPER: And suddenly, there's Captain Kirk talking on his communicator. Talking. With no dialing. That was not a fantasy to us, though to the rest of the world it was. But to me, that was an objective.[6]

It’s vital to note that Cooper does not say Star Trek was his inspiration, merely that he saw Kirk on TV doing something that “was not a fantasy to us." It’s the juxtaposition of Shatner’s narration with Cooper’s statement that creates this impression.

And, in fact, Cooper later went on record to refute that myth.

Jump to 1:20 to get to the heart of the matter.

MARTIN COOPER: They came over to my house, and I got so wrapped up in the glamour of making a movie that I let them get away with starting that rumor. But the reality is that I was working for Motorola for many years, for 29 years, and there we had always the dream that real communications, personal communications, had to be with a handheld device. So, if I really got that idea from somebody else, maybe it was from Dick Tracy, who many many years before that, had a wrist radio [...] a wrist two-way radio.[7]

So, that’s a heaping pile of “NO” on Trek being his inspiration for the cell phone.

Future Fones

But the idea of a portable, wireless telephone wasn’t new even in 1963... even outside of Dick Tracy (which introduced his wrist radio in 1946). An item from 1952 speaks “facetiously” of the idea of a pocket phone, but then suggests such a thing with video features.[9]

A 1953 wire service item covered predictions of wrist telephones and even video phones.[10][11]

“In its final development, the telephone will be carried about by the individual, perhaps as we carry a watch today. It probably will require no dial or equivalent, and I think the users will be able to see each other, if they want, as they talk.

"Who knows but what it may actually translate from one language to another?”  

In the late 50s, there were claims that a “Russian engineer” had developed a “Dick Tracy” pocket radio phone. And a 1960 UPI item quotes a member of Sylvania Electric Products Inc. as predicting…

A wireless telephone mechanism which will automatically translate conversations, so that people from different continents will understand each other, was forcast [sic] yesterday. [...] Wireless telephone calls by pedestrians through two-way pocket radios the size of a pack of cigarettes. [...] Transmission of still photographs through the telephone systems at moderate cost.[12] 

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

Vintage articles on Future Fones (Click/Tap to see larger)

[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

So, not only did these pieces predict mobile phones, but FaceTime/Zoom calls, and the Universal Translator…or at least Google Translate. A pager service was even set to start in 1962. So it’s safe to say Star Trek didn’t inspire any of these ideas, as they were already in the ether before the show was even conceived.

A look back to the future of 1962.

Flip-It Good

But, circling back to the communicator itself, did Kirk’s flip-top inspire the flip-phone form factor? (And honestly, those ubiquitous flip-phones looked more like a ST:TNG tricorder than Kirk’s mobile.)

Well, that seems logical…except that a pocket device with easy-to press-buttons is asking for butt dialing, and thus seems like an ideal candidate for some sort of cover, so why not just hinge the device like a wallet or a cigarette case or a compact to hide the buttons until you unfold it? In fact, that’s just what we see in that 1963 pocket telephone image.

The reality is that design—and industrial design—does not occur in a vacuum. People borrow from what they know or what is trendy. Take that pebbled “leatherette” or "tolex" texture on the series communicators and tricorders, which can be found all over consumer items of the era, as on cameras and amplifiers, etc.

Even Spock’s venerable flip-hood tricorder bears more than a passing resemblance to a 1959 flip-hood Philco Safari battery powered transistor TV. Perhaps not direct inspiration, but definitely the look of the time.

But can Spock watch the Niners game on his tricorder?[15][16]

And there’s an even more obvious and direct bit of “inspiration” in that 1st pilot itself. Compare the faceplate of the AT&T Picturephone Mod 1, which debuted in April 1964,[17][18] to those little gooseneck-mounted “television communicators” (as described in production memos) seen all over the Enterprise in the first pilot.

None of which is an absolute clincher that some later mobile phone designer couldn’t possibly have been inspired by Kirk’s communicator, but if they were, and if that first pilot flip-top communicator was in fact inspired by a 1963 flip-top “pocket” telephone concept, then that’s a pretty neat little loop.

A game of Telephone, if you will.

—30—

Special Thanks

To David Tilotta, Mark Farinas, and Ryan Thomas Riddle for their input on this piece.

End Notes & Sources

[1] You'll Be Able To Carry Phone In Pocket In Future, 18 April 1963, Thursday, News-Journal Mansfield, Ohio, p20 (link)

For clarity, here’s the full text from the article:

You'll Be Able To Carry Phone In Pocket In Future

Some day, Mansfielders will carry their telephones in their pockets.

Don't expect It to be available tomorrow, though.

Frederick Huntsman, telephone company commercial manager, says, "This telephone is far in the future — commercially."

★

Right now, it's a laboratory development and it's workable, allowing the carrier to make and answer calls wherever he may be.

Other telephones of the future includes a kitchen loud speaking telephone, and a visual linkage telephone. The kitchen instrument can be used as a regular telephone, a loudspeaking phone if the housewife happens to be busy preparing a meal, or as an intercom station for the home. The visual image telephone allows the parties to converse by way of a microphone and loud speaker while a miniature television camera transmits the image.

The "TV phone" also will have a writer signature transmission system and a conversation tape recorder. The new phones are being displayed at the Home and Flower Show at the Coliseum.

PHOTO CAPTION: HOW ABOUT THIS? — Mrs. Jean Conrad, commercial representative of Mansfield Telephone Co. holds up the pocket - sized, wireless telephone which Mansfielders will some day carry with them. The phone is still in the development stage and "far in the future."

[2] News-Journal Mansfield, Ohio, 18 April 1963, Thursday, p20 (link).

[3] Did 1963 Newspaper Anticipate Phones That Fit in a Pocket? The concept of a cellphone existed long before you held one in your hand, Dan Evon, Snopes, 18 May 2021 (link).

[4] Images from Star Trek’s “The Cage” via TrekCore (link).

[5] That program Itself based on his book I’m Working On That, which mentions Cooper not at all, cites no sources, yet opines, “Millions of us stay in touch using small, wireless gadgets that we call cell phones that bear a suspicious resemblance to Star Trek communicators”, p.3–4, and “So I found my way to an empty departure area and pulled out my little cell phone, an obvious Star Trek communicator rip-off” p.96. I'm Working on That: A Trek From Science Fiction to Science Fact (Star Trek), by William Shatner and Chip Walter, 2002. ISBN 9780671047375.

[6] VIDEO CLIP: Marty Cooper interview for William Shatner , Feb 12, 2015 (link).

[7] VIDEO: Marty Cooper interview for Scene World Magazine, Feb 12, 2015 (link).

[8] ComicArtFans, Dick Tracy Sunday (feat. 2-way Wrist Radio!) — Chester Gould (1947) (link).

[9] “Scientist Foresees Midget Pocket Phones With Both Speakers Able to See Each Other”, The Washington Post, 7 July 1952, p37

[10] Source: 1953 AP wire service piece printed (sometimes with edits) in multiple papers under different titles, including: “There’ll Be No Escape in Future From Telephones” Spokane Chronicle, Spokane, Washington 10 Apr 1953, Fri. p15 (link); ”Pocket Phones For Future Seen” The Christian Science Monitor Page, 10 April 1953, p18.

This and related news items are also covered by “Is This Cellphone Prediction from 1953 Real? The rotary telephone was still being used in 1953, Dan Evon, Snopes, 6 Nov. 2019 (link).

[11] ‘Dick Tracy’ Phone Claimed by Russians, L.A. Times, 23, Mar. 1959, p16.

[12] Vest Pocket Telephones Not Too Far In Future, New Journal And Guide, 9 Jan. 1960, p8.

[13] “Chinese To English—Quite Simple Someday With Telephone Device”, 9 Sept. 1960, The Arizona Republic, p33.

[14] “Phones Rings In Pocket”, The Globe and Mail, 16 Nov. 1961, p36. Seen the following year at the 1962 Seattle World’s Fair Bell Telephone Systems debuted “Bellboy”, the first commercial paging electronic system.

[15] Image: Philco Safari H2010, MZTV Museum of Television (link)

[16] Image: 1959 Philco Safari H-2010 Posted on June 17, 2014 by Hepcats Haven (link).

[17] Developing Picturephone Service, Bell Telephone Magazine, Spring 1964, p14–21 (link).

[18] PICTUREPHONE / VISTAPHONE and others; The Evolution of Picturephone Service, Southwest Museum of Engineering, Communications and Computation (link).

[19] [20] Images: Western Electric Picturephone® (Video Phone) Ahead of it's time - Another Bell Labs innovation!, The Porticus Center (link).

[21] Image: TrekCore, ibid. (link).

[22] Images: “MARCH OF PROGRESS, How the Future Looked in 1964: The Picturephone, By Damon Darlin, New York Times, June 26, 2014 (link)

Caption: In New York on Dec. 21, 1965, Keum Ja Kim, 15, a soloist with the World Vision Orphan Choir, used the Picturephone to audition for Robert Merrill, a star with the Metropolitan Opera, who was in Washington to sing at the White House.Credit...Bettmann/Corbis

But was the part written for Nimoy or not?

Over the years, a number of names have been floated as the “first choice” to play the character of Mr. Spock. But were Goober Pyle, Rollin Hand, Miguelito Quixote Loveless, Nyota Uhura, or McCoy, Leonard H. ever actually considered for the part? Let’s explore the truth behind these stories.

Goober Pyle, UESPA*

One recent-ish rumor has it that George Lindsey (best known as “Goober Pyle” on The Andy Griffith Show and subsequent spin-offs) was Gene Roddenberry’s first choice to play the ship’s satanic-looking “first lieutenant.” MeTV covered the origins of this tale in a blog post published on May 3, 2019:

In a broadcast celebration of Star Trek's 40th Anniversary back in 2006, Leonard Nimoy mentioned in an interview that George Lindsey had been Gene Roddenberry’s first choice to portray Spock. Yes, the George Lindsey that played Goober Pyle.[1]

TV Land strikes a blow for silliness.

This purported “interview” turns out to be one of a series of “bumpers” Leonard Nimoy recorded for the TVLand channel to celebrate Star Trek’s fortieth anniversary. Says Nimoy in the bumper in question:

Believe it or not, I was not Gene Roddenberry’s first choice to play Spock. So, who was the first choice, the actor who turned down the role? George “Goober” Lindsey. True.

Taken in isolation, Nimoy’s anecdote about Lindsey seems plausible, but remember that context is king, and when viewed alongside the other TVLand bumpers from the same series, it becomes clear they were firmly tongue-in-cheek. In one bumper, for example, Nimoy says that “live long and prosper” was originally scripted as “take it easy” (suffice it to say, it wasn’t).

In another, William Shatner describes his favorite Star Trek episode, where “Greg and Marcia [Brady] compete to see who is the best driver.” And finally, there’s one where Nimoy uses a tricorder to scan for cheese (no, really). It would be preposterous to treat this material as a serious source.

Confusing the matter is that in one of the bumpers we’ve seen Nimoy presents an actual—if obvious—fact (that the small creature in “The Enemy Within” is a dog in a costume...duh). So one of the five we’ve seen is factual, three are total bullshit, and then there’s the Lindsey one, which is accompanied by a very silly image (see below).

By the time the first Star Trek pilot was being cast, Lindsey was already a recurring character on The Andy Griffith Show, where he played Goober thirteen times in the 1964–65 season. Furthermore Lindsey’s 1995 memoir, Goober in a Nutshell, doesn’t mention turning down a role on Star Trek at all, which would seem an incredible omission had he actually been offered the part.[2] However, Ernest Borgnine, a close friend of Lindsey’s, wrote in his 2008 memoir, Ernie, that Lindsey had told him he “turned down the part of Mr. Spock on TV's Star Trek, the role that made Leonard Nimoy famous.”[3] But keep in mind that Borgnine’s book wasn’t published until well after the TV Land bumpers aired, and it’s a secondary source.

View fullsize

View fullsize

Today, Lindsey is best remembered for his broad, comedic performance on The Andy Griffith Show, but pre-Mayberry, he played serious roles on The Rifleman, Gunsmoke, The Twilight Zone, and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. Star Trek was in the same dramatic wheelhouse as those shows. But was he actually considered for the part?

We turned to Star Trek’s casting memos to see if George Lindsey’s name ever came up—and who else might have been suggested for the role of Mr. Spock. On October 14, 1964, Gene Roddenberry sent a memo to first pilot casting director Kerwin Coughlin with his suggestions for the part...no Lindsey there.[4]

Coughlin followed up with his own list of suggestions for the character of “Mr. Spook” [sic] (yikes!) on October 15, 1964.[5] Again, no George Lindsey to be found.

A third list of potential names in the Star Trek files at UCLA is undated, possibly predating both of these lists, which only lists two actors for the role of Spock. Once again, George Lindsey’s name is not to be found. (Alex Brewis, who died in 2020, was Leonard Nimoy’s agent; Brewis also represented Grace Lee Whitney, Dorothy Fontana, and many others.)[6]

Space: 1964

Another name that’s not on any of these three casting lists? Martin Landau; best known to genre fans as Commander Koenig on Space: 1999. Starting in the 1980s, Landau would begin telling anybody who asked that he turned down the role of Spock. But could that be true?

It’s easy to buy into Leonard Nimoy being an alternative to Martin Landau. After all, when Star Trek ended, Nimoy replaced Landau on Mission: Impossible as the show’s resident master-of-disguise. But is there any truth to the Landau-as-Spock rumor?

View fullsize

View fullsize

Though it appears he was never actually considered for the role of Spock, Martin Landau was not unfamiliar with science fiction, having previously appeared in The Outer Limits episodes “The Man Who Was Never Born” (pictured) and “The Bellero Shield” (with Sally Kellerman) .

In a 1986 Starlog magazine interview, Landau said he turned down the Spock role because, “I did not want to be saddled with the role of a character without feeling. I would have become a newscaster.”[7] Except—Spock’s emotionally-repressed demeanor wasn’t introduced until the second pilot. 

In the first Star Trek pilot, Spock yells, “the women!”, cracks wise during a mission briefing, and smiles when he encounters a singing plant on Talos IV. If Landau was offered the part in 1964, Spock’s repressed emotions couldn’t have been a factor in turning it down.

In an interview published posthumously in 1994, Gene Roddenberry was quoted as saying if Nimoy didn’t work out, “I probably would’ve gotten Marty Landau. I’d worked with him. I had him in mind as a possibility.”[8] This is roughly similar to what Roddenberry told Allan Asherman for The Star Trek Interview Book, published in 1988:

AA: TV Guide once ran a short blurb about Martin Landau’s being considered for the role of Mr. Spock  

GR: Yes, but he was unavailable for it; he was a fairly well-known actor who was getting plenty of jobs. Leonard Nimoy was my first choice. Landau, I know, was my second choice, but Leonard agreed and we stayed with him.[9]

One claim here doesn’t check out—as far as we’ve been able to determine, Landau and Roddenberry never worked together, as stated in the 1994 interview. Still, they certainly would have seen each other when Mission: Impossible and Star Trek were in production at adjacent Desilu sound stages.

Speaking of Roddenberry, it’s worth bearing in mind he was known for telling people what they wanted to hear, so it would have been in character for him to chat up Lindsey or Landau or or whoever and flatter each with the idea they were Roddenberry’s first choice for a role.[10]

Loveless Spock

Earlier in The Star Trek Interview Book, Roddenberry mentions some other possibilities when it comes to early casting ideas for Mr. Spock:

AA: You once told me that you had an early thought about casting a black man as “Mr. Spock.” Was your aim at creating Spock to make someone who was different to some extent, looking at the rest of the series’ personnel as an outsider?

GR: Yes, very definitely. I was also considering Michael Dunn, a dwarf...I wanted Spock to look different and be different, and yes, to make a statement about being an outsider looking in. I did finally pick the way we went because I was dealing in weekly mass-audience television, and I needed Spock to be attractive even though he was different. I’m afraid Michael Dunn might not have been and 22 years ago a black man might not have been. It was the right choice for the time.[11]

Michael Dunn—most famous for 10 appearances as the villainous Dr. Miguelito Quixote Loveless on CBS’s The Wild WIld West—played Alexander in the infamous third season Star Trek segment “Plato’s Stepchildren.” Roddenberry’s interest in Dunn for the part is supported by the earliest dated casting memo in the files at UCLA.[4] However, if Roddenberry ever considered casting an African-American actor as Mr. Spock, that line of thinking was not expressed in any of the documented casting suggestions for the part. We suspect this is either revisionist history on the part of Mr. Roddenberry—or an idea that was only briefly considered before being dropped.

Miss Spock

Speaking of black actors said to be considered for the role, about ten years ago, rumors began to circulate online that Nichelle Nichols had auditioned for the part of Spock. These appear to originate from an interview Nichols filmed for the 2011 documentary Trek Nation:

“They gave me a three-page script to read from that had three characters named Bones, Kirk and somebody called Spock, and they asked me if I would read for the role of Spock. When I looked at this great text, I said to myself, ‘I'll take any one of these roles,' but I found the Spock character to be very interesting, and I asked them to tell me what she [Spock] was like.”

Fan-oriented outlets like io9 and Syfy Wire ran with this, with one article concluding, “When Number One was cut, Roddenberry bumped the role of Spock up to first officer. So yes, it's quite possible that Nichols auditioned for what was to become Spock.”[12]

The idea that Nichols (or any woman, for that matter) was seriously considered for the part of Spock is not supported by any of production documents or later recollections from key creative contributors to the show. What, then, is the explanation for Nichols’ memory of reading for the role of Mr. Spock? Nichols’ memoir, Beyond Uhura (1994), provides some key context for why she read for the part of Spock rather than the role of Uhura during her audition:

I composed myself as best I could and turned my attention to the men across the room. They included Joe Sargent, who directed the first and several subsequent episodes, Bob Justman, the show’s associate producer, Eddie Milkis, and Jeff Peters. We chatted for a bit, and someone asked me about the book I was reading. In discussing the book later, Gene and I hit upon the idea that the character he would formulate for me would hail from Africa. But at that time Uhura had not been conceived. In fact, when it was time to read, I was told, “We haven’t quite decided how the character is going to be, so would you read this other character so we can get a feel.”

They gave me the script and told me two of them would be reading the parts of Captain Kirk and Bones, and I’d be reading the lines of a character named Spock. Glancing through the script, I was impressed; it looked like a good, rich part, but a lot of the language struck me as highly technical and stilted.

“Before I read, tell me about this character Spock. What is she like?”

“Oh, you’re not reading for that part. Spock has already been cast.”[13]

Nichols remembered Joseph (Joe) Sargent as having directed multiple episodes of Star Trek, but in fact he only directed one—”The Corbomite Maneuver.” His presence places this meeting in mid-May of 1966, well after the filming of both pilots and the casting of Leonard Nimoy. Additionally, casting documents for the episode confirm that Nichols auditioned for Sargent for “The Corbomite Maneuver.”[14]

Nichols’ recollection that “Uhura had not been conceived” when she read for the part is largely right. In the first pilot the communications officer was played by caucasian actor Adam Roarke. In the second he was replaced by black actor Lloyd Haynes—soon to be famous for his role on the series Room 222. And as late as Jerry Sohl’s “FINAL DRAFT” teleplay of “The Corbomite Maneuver” from May 3, 1966—just three weeks before filming—the communications role was filled by Dave Bailey, who was at the last minute assigned to navigation.[15]

Very late in the process it appears that the producers had decided to fill the role of communications with a black actress, but determined little else about the character. In fact, the part was called “Black” in the May 12, 1966 shooting schedule[16]—potentially a placeholder, although we have not seen the corresponding script revision from this date, so this is speculation on our part—and simply listed as “Communications” on the casting schedule from around the same time. The role was certainly still being conceived. Even in the final episode as aired, now-navigator Bailey retains most of his lines...including one where he picks up a message...quite improbably:

            KIRK
This is the United Earth ship Enterprise. We convey greetings and await your reply. What is it, Mister Bailey?

            BAILEY
A message coming over my navigation beam.

            KIRK
Pick it up.

            UHURA
Switching, sir.

Only those lines specifically about communications are given to newly-created Uhura, and seven out of her eleven lines are some variation of “hailing frequencies open.”

Dr. Spock

One last rumor to address. In From Sawdust To Stardust: The Biography of DeForest Kelley, Star Trek’s Dr. McCoy (2005), an interview with Kelley is quoted where he recalls being offered the part by Roddenberry early on:

Gene called me and asked me to have lunch with him. He wanted to talk to me about something. So we had lunch, and he started to explain to me about this project he was embarking on. He described this character, this alien with the ears, and he asked me how I felt about playing it, and I said, ‘You mean this green eared . . . ?’ He said yes. I said, ‘No, Gene, really, I don’t want to do it.’ He had two properties at that time. . . . I said I would much rather wait—if he would consider me for High Noon. He said okay.”[17]

Kelley’s recollection is somewhat apocryphal—Roddenberry briefly developed High Noon as a pilot for ABC from July until August of 1964, at which time Spock’s hue would have been decidedly “reddish,” not green—but his name is on two of the three casting memos referenced here for the role of Mr. Spock.

The Last Word

In the summer of 2019, we asked Dorothy Fontana if anyone other than Nimoy was ever seriously considered for the part. She told us, “It was always Nimoy.” Fontana’s memory and the trail of casting memos pretty definitively nails that neither Lindsey, Landau, or Nichols were considered as Spock. Kelley and Dunn, in contrast, do seem to have been considered, but Nimoy was always the first choice and was the only actor Desilu offered the part. Call this myth just that, a myth. 

—30—

Special Thanks

To rabittooth of DeviantArt for permission to use their “Spock-ed” Uhura.

End Notes & Sources

* NOTE: Our play on the series title Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. Goober was Gomer’s cousin, and UESPA (United Earth Space Probe Agency) was briefly used on Star Trek before the term “Starfleet” was coined.

[1] "George "Goober" Lindsey was the first choice to play Spock and our mind is still blown," MeTV, May 3, 2019 (online, link)

[2] George Lindsey, Ken Beck, and Jime Clark, Goober In A Nutshell (1995). In his memoir, Lindsey writes about several failed auditions and his financial struggles early in his career as an actor, noting that he was almost broke when he booked a guest part on The Rifleman (“Requiem at Mission Springs,” first aired March 4, 1963).

[3] Ernest Borgnine, Ernie (2008), p.235

[4] 1964-10-14 Memo from Gene Roddenberry to Kerwin Coughlin re Star Trek Casting Ideas (multiple roles). UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[5] 1964-10-15 1964-10-15 Memo from Kerwin Coughlin to Gene Roddenberry re List of Suggestions for Pilot #1 (multiple roles). UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[6] 1964 (undated) Possible Casting Suggestions for First Pilot (multiple roles). UCLA, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection, 1966–1969.

[7] Lee Goldberg, “Martin Landau, Space-Age Hero,” Starlog #108, July 1986, p.46

[8] J.M Dillard, Star Trek: Where No One Has Gone Before (1994), p.10

[9] Allan Asherman, The Star Trek Interview Book (1988), p.8

[10] Joel Engel, Gene Roddenberry: The Myth And The Man Behind Star Trek (1994), p.155

Any number of Roddenberry's former colleagues agree that he preferred crawling through verbal minefields to facing confrontations. "It made him uncomfortable," Robert Justman says. "He'd rather have said yes to somebody than tell them what they didn't want to hear."

For that reason, Roddenberry often hid behind his attorney, Leonard Maizlish, whose job was to execute the orders and absorb the punishment. "Gene excelled at telling people what they wanted to hear," David Gerrold says. "That was his genius."

[11] Asherman, The Star Trek Interview Book (1988), p.8

[12] Meredith Woerner, "Nichelle Nichols reveals that the original Spock was a woman," io9, December 6, 2011 (online, link), & Nathalie Caron, "Was Star Trek's Nichelle Nichols Almost Cast As Spock?" December 16, 2012, SyFy (online, link)

[13] Nichelle Nichols, Beyond Uhura (1994), Page 142

[14] 1966-5 (undated) casting schedule for The Corbomite Maneuver.

[15] “The Corbomite Maneuver” FINAL DRAFT written by Jerry Sohl, May 3, 1966, from a private collection

[16] “‘The Corbomite Maneuver” Shooting Schedule, May 12, 1966, UCLA, Bob Justman Papers

[17] Terry Lee Rioux, From Sawdust to Stardust : The Biography of DeForest Kelley, Star Trek's Dr. McCoy (2005) Page 133

We contacted Mark and asked if he’d mind if we shared the scans, and gave us his blessing.

So below you’ll find each of the four pages, along with a transcript of what appears on each.

TV GUIDE March 25, 1972

PHOTO CAPTION: Star Trek Lives'—on T-shirts and bumper stickers—was the convention's defiant theme.

Grokking* Mr. Spock

Or, may you never find a tribble in your chicken soup

By William Marsano

*Grok—to dig without letup.[2]

All over the country today, people are wearing "Star Trek Lives" T-shirts, pasting Star Trek bumper stickers on their cars and maybe, for all I know, falling on their knees before graven images of Mr. Spock.

Why? Well, it's because, back at the end of January, Star Trek's fanatic band of fans held their first national convention-nearly three years after the series was shot out of orbit by NBC.

Star Trek's fans, loyal as always and more numerous than ever, easily filled and overfilled an entire floor of New York's Statler-Hilton hotel.

The convention started early Friday 

PHOTO CAPTION: Star Trek fans express their adulation in a variety of art forms.

PHOTO CAPTION: Youthful Mr. Spock and an Andorian, another space creature.

morning, Jan. 21, when a mob of Star Trek fans (known as Trekkies) showed up several hours early, just to be sure they didn't miss anything. Good thing they did, too: the NASA display, described as packed in "several cartons," arrived in several crates totaling more than two tons. Early Trekkies willingly fell to work assembling the one-third-scale models of the Apollo spacecraft and lunar module, and propping up the real, full-size space suit. By afternoon, when the convention was to have just begun, it was already in full cacophonous swing, a condition that prevailed without letup all weekend.

By early Saturday, the crowd had swollen to 2000—500 more than had been expected. Trekkies had trekked in from as far away as Canada and California. They listened reverently to speeches by members of Star Trek's production team and wandered ceaselessly through the displays of nostalgia and handicrafts: oil portraits of Star Trek heroes, handmade space creature dolls, home-stitched Star Trek uniforms and models of outer-space hardware, including the Star Trek phaser, a kind of ray gun that one Trekkie told us, could do anything from stun a victim to "disassemble its molecules" so they will rattle around like a bunch of loose nickels.

The main action was in the Trading Post, which was bursting with nostalgia dealers and small knots of Trekkies surging about with eyes glazed and elbows flailing. There we met Joan Winston,[3] a CBS business coordinator and one of the convention's, or "con's," organizers. Joan told us that the whole project "started, very slowly, back in April of last year. Then the next thing I knew, I was drafted to take charge of the Trading Post and the NASA exhibit —and now we have this."

"This” was the polite bedlam that surrounded us, a crowd now estimated at 2400 and doing feverish business in the Trading Post. Most of the items offered related to Star Trek, and many of them focused on Mr. Spock, Star Trek's most popular hero. The selection ranged from Spock wooden nickels and lapel buttons proclaiming "I Grok Mr. Spock" to Spock prints, Spock calendars ($1 each) and handmade Spock plaster busts for $11.99. There were also Star Trek publicity photographs and tape recordings, scripts to be auctioned, individual frames of Star Trek scenes rescued from the cutting-room floor and snapshots of the series taken off TV sets.

More general items included old science-fiction magazines (fetching up to $30). movie posters, books, comics, cartoon panels, ray guns (one mint-condition 1934 Buck Rogers model was 

PHOTO CAPTION: Poster favorites ranged from Star Trek heroes to Wonder Warthog.

continued 

tagged at $85), a 4-inch tarantula embedded in plastic ($25) and a Knights of Columbus sword.

Also: large numbers of "fanzines" or "zines"-magazines and newsletters published and written by fans. These serve as an underground communications network for fans, who are a tightly knit group, and as a vanity press for hopeful science-fiction writers and artists. (Wave-of-the-Future note: most of the zines we saw were produced by women.)

Most Trekkies are in the junior high school-to-college age group, but there is one, weaned on Star Trek reruns (seen on 120 stations in the U.S.), who is only 3, and another who is 92. And there are several levels of Trekism. Some are simply blindly devoted to the series; mere Trekkieboppers as it were. But others have absorbed the series into their very beings; they are able to recite long stretches of Star Trek episodes verbatim, often mix Star Trek words into their speech and presumably did well on the Star Trek Trivia Questionnaire given to each conventioneer. (Sample question: "What was the name of the Andorian in Journey to Babel'? A: Gav, B: Thelev, C: Garth." Give up? The answer is Thelev, you big dummy.)

Michael Spence, a quiet, nattily dressed Princeton student, explained some favorite Trekkie phrases. "Most common," he said, "are insults and compliments. A Denebian slime devil is a terrible thing to be called, and there's always tribble, a nice but pesky creature that multiplies every few hours. You might say. May you find a tribble in your chicken soup, for example. Vulcans--Spock's people--have a traditional benediction, 'Peace and long life,' and the response is 'Live long and prosper.' The only Vulcan compliment I know is one I've never learned how to pronounce; it's a cross between clearing your throat and strangling. Like this: glabegk enkov. If a Vulcan compliments you, that stands for quite a lot.

We ran into Shirley Gerstel of Paramount Television, which had provided 13 Star Trek episodes to be screened at the convention. "The calls and letters that come into my office are tremendous," she told us. I keep passing them on to the West Coast. I never thought that Star Trek would come back, but now there's a rumor that Paramount might start making it again."

That, indeed, was the convention's principal rumor; it passed from one Trekkie to another, electrifying them. We asked Gene Roddenberry, Star Trek's executive producer and creator, and the convention's guest of honor, about the rumor of Star Trek's return.

"I didn't think it was possible six months ago," he said a little dazedly,

PHOTO CAPTION: Star Trek's creator-guru Gene Roddenberry drew a huge crowd of fans.

PHOTO CAPTION: Judges ponder the merits of a contestant in the costume competition.

"but after seeing the enthusiasm here I'm beginning to change my mind. It is possible to do it from my standpoint. We had such a family group on the show that it's totally different for us. We still meet and drink together, and we're all still friends, so for this show it is possible." (Someone else added darkly that the Green Acres crew did not still meet and drink together.)

Roddenberry explained Star Trek's special appeal, which is, according to him and all of the Trekkies we spoke to. entirely unrelated to the shallow glamour of rockets, ray guns and such.

"The world is violent and unhappy. Roddenberry said, "and it's ridiculous to have it as it is. That's what youth has been saying for the past dozen years, and that's what Star Trek stood for. Youth is looking today at things like the violence in Northern Ireland and saying. 'My God! How is such a thing possible in the 20th century?' So they dig a show that says we're not only going to have to love each other as Catholics and Jews, blacks and whites, but that if we go into space we're going to have to learn to relate to things that may look like giant slugs.

The sentiments may seem unlikely, but ring true: the conventioneers were an ecumenical group. a thoroughly mixed bag of blacks, whites, Puerto Ricans and Orientals, old and young, men and women, in suits and in rags. And it is fondly remembered that when the Russians, who put the first man in space, scolded Star Trek for having no Russian characters, Roddenberry promptly acknowledged the omission and installed Ensign Chekov in the series.

Saturday evening produced the convention's unusual costume ball, which featured no music and no dancing—just a simple stage for the viewing and judging of the costumed contestants, Notable creatures and characters from Star Trek (and elsewhere) were represented. Shouts and applause greeted the Klingon ambassador; a hybrid tribble; the Vulcan warrior queen; Bele from the planet Cheron; Pi, the Inter galactic Piper; an Empath (a creature able to rid one of pain); a Starfleet Academy cadet modeling a Terran (earthling, to you) formal gown: AL Capone (from a Star Trek episode set in the 1930s): the ambassador from Horombus IV: Count Dracula, from nowhere in particular; and a handful of little girls about 7 years old, some of whom were Mr. Spock and one of whom said she was "a Mudd woman. That's like a robot, but I forget where from." Her mother didn't remember either.

After the ball, there was a blooper film of fluffs, pratfalls, practical jokes and hilariously unprintable incidents on the Star Trek set. Then Star Trek episodes were shown until 1 or 2 A.M., nobody remembers exactly.

By Sunday, the final day, the pace still had not slowed. A large crowd gathered to hear Isaac Asimov, science-fiction guru and the author of more than 100 books on a multitude of subjects, speak about Mr. Spock. Asimov, by the way, is also a Dinosaur—an esteemed member of First Fandom, the elite group of early science fiction fans. And a richly entertaining speaker.

At lunch time, the convention registered its 3000th Trekkie. Then the organizers gave up: they stopped counting and let everyone else in free. More Star Trek episodes were shown until late afternoon, when the convention finally ended.

The crowd, exhausted but happy, filtered out of the hotel, lingering here and there like guests reluctant to leave a successful party. "Star Trek lives!" one Trekkie called out to us in passing "May the great bird of the galaxy come to roost on your planet!" we yelled back. [END]

TV GUIDE March 25, 1972 19

—30—

Extra Special Thanks!

To Mark Alfred for allowing us to share scans of these pages. See them on his MARK’S SUPER BLOG here.

Revision History

2021-05-01

• Original version

End Notes & Sources

[1] Image sources: Mark’s Super Blog, Monday, May 04, 2009 — TV Guide, March 1972 - Grokking Mr. Spock (link). Used with permission.

[2] Grok. A. word invented by author Robert A. Heinlein for his 1961 novel Stranger In A Strange Land. While it had come to mean “to intuitively understand” (as defined by Merriam-Webster (link)), in the original book it had a more complex and nuanced meaning (see Etymology here (link)).

[3] Joan Winston was a key figure in Star Trek fandom, and one of the organizers (aka "The Committee") of the original Star Trek conventions during the 1970s. She authored the 1977 book The Making of the Trek Conventions. and co-wrote 1975’s Star Trek Lives! (link) Read about Winston on Fanlore.org (link).

[4] Details about the con. Star Trek Lives! at Fanlore.org.

• Overview of the cons from 1972–76 (link), and…

• Specifics about the 1972 con (link).

On January 22nd, 1972 the doors were thrown open to direct interaction between thousands of Star Trek’s fans and some of its makers at the first Star Trek Lives! convention—the first major Trek con—held in New York City on January 21, 22, and 23, 1972, only two and a half years after the show’s final curtain on NBC.

The interaction was mostly one-way at first, with Oscar Katz and Gene Roddenberry each giving prepared talks but these were followed by a Q&A session with Star Trek writer and Story Editor Dorothy “D.C.” Fontana, who was joined at the last minute by Majel “Number One/Christine Chapel” Barrett (aka Majel Roddenberry).

As with our articles Oscar Where Are You? and 1972 Gives Us the Bird, thanks to FACT TREK fast friend Bill Kobylak we have a 40 minute recoding of arguably that first Q&A  at the Star Trek Lives! con, only two and a half years after the show’s final curtain on NBC.

Introduced by Issac Asimov, here are Fontana and Barrett answering fan questions about everything from unintentional plagiarism to the show’s even-then apparent chauvinism.

FACT TREK : The poor quality of the source audio and excessive background noise has made this a tough recording to transcribe, and there are omissions where we were unsure what was being said. Therefore this transcript has been more heavily edited than previously for clarity.

STAR TREK LIVES! Convention

Statler-Hilton Hotel, New York City, Saturday, January 22, 1972, 4 p.m.

DOROTHY C. FONTANA QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

Unknown Speaker: For those of you who did not hear the first announcement, there’s well over 2,000, I believe this is the largest science fiction convention ever held. 

[Audience applause.]

FACT TREK : Because this is an off-the cuff session and not a prepared speech, for this transcript we’ll be taking a different approach, including in-line notes, clarifications and corrections.

Such notes will appear in this format to differentiate it from the transcript proper.

Isaac Asimov: Our next two guests have had the unique opportunity to experience Star Trek from two unique points of view. On your left is Ms. Dorothy Fontana, who for two years held a position as script consultant. In this capacity, it was her job to coordinate character personalities, standardize the Star Trek storyline to make Star Trek as real to the viewer as reading pages from the Captain’s Log. Romulan history, Enterprise technology, even Mr. Spock’s parents were part of her responsibility to have them conform to the Star Trek format. In addition, she wrote the episode[s] “This Side of Paradise” and “Journey To Babel.”

[Audience applause.]

FACT TREK : Dorothy Fontana's first day as script consultant was December 19, 1966 (her first credit was for "This Side of Paradise") and her last day was sometime in December of 1967 or January of 1968 (her last credit was for "Assignment: Earth"). Although she had been with the series from the beginning and contributed stories and scripts before and after her tenure on staff, she was in the role of Script Consultant for about a year, not two.

Isaac Asimov: On your right is Majel Barrett, who for three years played Dr. McCoy’s assistant, Nurse Christian—Christine Chapel.

[Interrupted by audience laughter.]

Isaac Asimov: Majel stars in the pilot in the role of the stoic Number One, a character similar in personality to Mr. Spock. She has also appeared in numerous movies and television shows. Here now to answer all your questions about everything you always wanted to know about Star Trek...

FACT TREK : Majel Barrett’s resume at the time of production on Star Trek's first pilot (late 1964) listed eight movie roles and eighteen television appearances. Most of these are now listed on IMDb, but as of this writing, there are five television credits that are missing. These include parts on The Texan (1958–60), The Asphalt Jungle (1961), Outlaws (1960–62), and Eleventh Hour (1962–64). A fifth credit on her resume is for a television series called Bringing Up Baby, but we believe this is a typo for Bringing Up Buddy (1960–61). We'd love to track down these missing credits if one of our reader knows more about them.

Majel Barrett: I can’t even anticipate this.

Isaac Asimov: People will come up and speak into this microphone as they’re chosen.

Majel Barrett: No! (Laughs)

Isaac Asimov: No?

Majel Barrett: Of course, of course.

Audience Member #1: Members of the cast were quite prone towards practical jokes on the set, especially Shatner, I’m told. Can you tell us some of the more known episodes?

Majel Barrett: Most of them are untellable. I mean—

[Interrupted by audience laughter.]

Majel Barrett: As Gene would say, they’re all X-rated. I’m trying to give it to you. Outside of the bicycle thing with Leonard, we did that. I think one thing that was left out of that story was after they put it up, because he was so irritated that his bicycle kept on disappearing. The more he fought it, the worse it got. Eventually, after it was up on top of the ceiling, then he put it in the back of his car, in his trunk, and locked the car. What the crew did was go out and lift it up on a dolly and take the whole car off. So, he finally decided there was no sense in that and he just left it there and of course nobody bothered him from there on in. I don’t—Dorothy, do you know of any others that were—

Dorothy Fontana: Not on the set, no.

Majel Barrett: I’m sorry, that’s about the best I can do off-hand. If we think of something later on, we’ll tell you, okay?

Isaac Asimov: Back there, just come up. If you have a question, just come up, stand in line, [and] talk into the microphone.

Majel Barrett: Will you take this thing please? (Laughs) It makes me nervous.

Audience Member #2: Ms. Fontana, I’d like to wish you luck on The Sixth Sense.

Dorothy Fontana: Don’t. I’m already off The Sixth Sense and so is Harlan Ellison.

Audience Member #2: On Les Crane’s show about four years ago, Harlan Ellison said it was a vile occurrence that so many kids were wasting their time on Star Trek, who should have been out ending the Vietnam War and obtaining peace on earth and goodwill towards men. Do you think that, uh... [2]

Dorothy Fontana: Sounds like Harlan.

Audience Member #2: Do you think that this whole convention is, as one of my friends described it, 3,500 kids flogging a dead horse?

Dorothy Fontana: No, I don’t think so. I think the interest that has been generated over the past three years, actually, the letter response, the calls and letters to the network have kept them aware that Star Trek really never died. The tremendous response to the syndicated versions of the show, overseas syndication, has made them remember that Star Trek never left, really. And now, with so many of you here, NBC refused to send representatives, I understand, but the other networks did. I have a hunch that if NBC would really like to get rid of this dirty, old show that CBS or ABC would grab it.

Isaac Asimov: If you have a question, don’t raise your hand, just come up to the microphone and stand in line if there’s somebody ahead of you.

Audience Member #3: This is for D.C. Fontana. In “Balance of Terror,” one of the main points was a phaser room, but the ship was firing photon torpedoes. I’ve always wondered, why? Was it just a technical error, or...?

Majel Barrett: (Whispering) What’s a photon torpedo?

Dorothy Fontana: At that time, that was approximately the fifth show we did, or sixth, and we were still feeling our way. You’ll find a number of incongruities and contradictions in those early shows because we were still finding our way. We didn’t use the photon torpedoes too much afterward. We came to use the phasers a lot. The only way I can explain it is that this is one of those things that happened when we still didn’t really know who we were yet, and it hadn’t solidified into the rules that were later laid down.

FACT TREK : In fact, the script for "Balance of Terror" (the 9th produced, 14th aired episode) calls for phaser "blips", and that's what the effects portray. Photon torpedoes came later with "Arena" (the 19th produced, 18th aired episode).[3]

Audience Member #4: I’d like to know which episodes you liked doing the best?

Dorothy Fontana: Majel?

Majel Barrett: Gee, I would say “The Cage,” it would have to be, because it was the original pilot, and it was the thing that really gave us the incentive to go ahead. It was what sold the idea of Star Trek.

Audience Member #4: Ms. Fontana, would you care to answer the last question, too?

Dorothy Fontana: My two favorites of my own shows are “This Side of Paradise” and “Journey To Babel.” Mainly because they told me I couldn’t do either one of those.

Audience Member 5: Ms. Fontana, it’s written a lot about in the fanzines. What’s the name of Dr. McCoy’s ex-wife?

Dorothy Fontana: We never named her. She never existed in print. We hadn’t gotten around to her yet.

Audience Member 6: I don’t know how many people remember this, but in the episode “The Conscience of The King,” and also in “The Changeling,” Lt. Uhura sang a song called “Beyond Antares.” Now, I’ve been trying every way to get the words to that song. In fact, I have a tape at home of her singing that song, but I can’t possibly decipher it, really. I basically have them, but do you think maybe...do you know them off hand or can you tell me where to get them?

Dorothy Fontana: Ruth Berman has put out The Star Trek Songbook. It has all the music, all the lyrics, even traditional songs like “Goodnight, [Sweetheart]” and so on that were used in Harlan’s script. Every scrap of music that was used on the show that could be identified and written down is in the Songbook and you can get it for a measly fifty cents if you write to Ruth. If you don’t have it, somebody around here must have her address. It’s in Minneapolis.[4]

Majel Barrett: Milwaukee.

Dorothy Fontana: No, it’s Minneapolis.

Majel Barrett: Oh, Minneapolis. I thought it was Milwaukee. Oh, Edgewater Drive.

Dorothy Fontana: Yeah, right.

Audience Member #7: What does “NCC” on the ship mean?

Dorothy Fontana: I believe that’s a pilot, plane designation. Gene would know this because he came up with the number. It’s not a military number, as you well know. I believe the NCC designation is, actually, for private planes.

FACT TREK : Matt Jefferies addressed this several times. See End Notes [5]

Audience Member #7: Then who owns the Enterprise?

Majel Barrett: Gene.

Audience Member 8: As script consultant, I heard that you were notorious for editing some scripts. And I was just wondering [unintelligible] editing scripts or rewriting them?

Dorothy Fontana: A contradiction. I did the job that I was asked to do, I often did not like doing the rewrites I had to do, but under my contract, I must.

Audience Member 8: I heard that in some cases what was originally written and what got on the air was completely different. I was wondering, for the episodes you wrote, [were] they edited as much?

Dorothy Fontana: On occasion, yes. “Charlie X,” “Friday’s Child,” [and] “The Enterprise Incident” all were rewritten and were not, if you looked at my first drafts, the same.

Audience Member #9: Ms. Fontana, I’d like to ask you, seeing some of the scripts that you wrote on the television, I saw elements of favorite stories of mine written by Zenna Henderson about “The People.” I was wondering, had you read them?

Dorothy Fontana: I hadn’t read “The People” until this year. I read one story once long ago, but the entire collection I had not read until earlier this year.[6]

Audience Member #10: I have two questions. Number one, why [do] most of the female guest stars' names end in “A?” Names like Rayna, Deela, Shahna, Mara, Kara, [unintelligible], cottontail people.

Dorothy Fontana: I worry about cottontail deer. That’s just one of those things that happens, I guess. At one point, [the] research department discovered that Captain Kirk’s old girlfriends were all blonde, about the same age, built the same, and had the same way of speaking, and that was because of Gene Coon, who happened to like that type of gal.

Audience Member #10: My next question is why does Bill Shatner get all the girls?

Dorothy Fontana: Why not? Let’s face it, he was the star and also it was a little easier to write things for him.

Audience Member #10: [Unintelligible] that’s his character, right]?

Dorothy Fontana: Yeah, but for Mr. Spock it was very hard to come up with a legitimate love interest for him. You had to create special circumstances. For Dr. McCoy you had to go, generally, with a different kind of woman. And the writers weren’t too interested in writing love stories for Dr. McCoy.

Audience Member #10: In one story, I have him getting married to Christine.

Dorothy Fontana: Sorry. Couldn’t do that [unintelligible].

Audience Member #11: This is for Ms. Fontana. On all planets that the crew members go down to, everybody seems to speak English. I realize, even on Earth, where everybody’s human there are hundreds of different languages. I realize you can’t have one person on the Enterprise knowing all these kind of foreign languages, which it would speak, but wouldn’t it be more realistic to have some sort kind of extension of the ship’s computer, which would beam radio messages up there to translate it for them.

Dorothy Fontana: We had what was called the universal translator. Also, at one time there was an indication that the communicator also worked as a translator. And the other added drawback to this is the very practical one, which Majel can tell you, is actors’ sound very foolish trying to speak languages that do not exist. I mean that. It’s gobbledygook, it’s nonsense, and then you always have to have somebody say, “Well, what he said was...” and you do the line again. To avoid all this, we just did it straight and let you fill it in with your imagination.

Audience Member #12: Ms. Fontana, Whose idea was it to adapt Fredric Brown’s previously published story “Arena” to Star Trek. Or was this the case of unconscious plagiarism, to which Harlan Ellison made veiled reference to in Dangerous Visions?

FACT TREK : The Harlan Ellison passage in question can be read in End Notes of this article. [7]

Dorothy Fontana: What happened was—and this is the truth—Gene Coon wrote the story. When it was brought to his attention that it was very much like “Arena,” he really died because in thinking that he had written the story, he had unconsciously pulled it up. Gene is an honorable and decent man and has no scores against his name ever in a long career in writing. We immediately notified Mr. Brown, asked him if we could use it, and we would give him credit and the $700 pay. He had no objections at all. He was properly credited, properly paid, and everybody was happy. As soon as we found out that there was a similarity in any area, we do notify the original writer. In fact, Mr. Heinlein was notified of his “tribbles” and he never decided to answer or enter a plea, so we went ahead with it. But Gerrold’s tribbles are very much like flat cats.

FACT TREK : This account does not quite align with the historical record. See End Notes. [8]

Majel Barrett: No, Gene brought it to...[comment is whispered and trails off]

Audience Member #13: I was wondering, who developed Spock’s parents? Who was responsible for getting them into believable characters? Was it you?

Dorothy Fontana: Me.

Audience Member #13: And how did you get them? How did you work backwards to develop [them]?

Dorothy Fontana: I think the first reference to their existence came in—

Audience Member #13: In “Where No Man Has Gone Before.”

Dorothy Fontana: No, not “Where No Man Has Gone Before,” really, but “This Side of Paradise.” At that time, we really hadn’t thought about their being alive, but the more I thought about it, the more I liked it, and [I] came up with the story for “Journey To Babel.” It began, really, with the teaser — “Captain Kirk, these are my parents” — and went on from there.

FACT TREK : She's right. An "ancestor” of Spock's is mentioned in "Where No Man Has Gone Before," but there were other references. See End Notes. [9]

Audience Member #14: I heard that the real reason in “The Enterprise Incident” [that] the Romulan ship, they changed to the Klingon ship, was because the prop man dropped it on the way to get it.

Dorothy Fontana: The original Romulan ship was not very good, that appeared in “Balance of Terror.” We wound up using a totally new design, the Klingon ships, and made it sort of an agreement between them. They had become allies, as Russia and Red China, for instance, and were using and exchanging equipment. It was a production problem. Miniatures are extremely expensive to build and the Romulan ship we had was not a good one and no one was ever satisfied with it.

FACT TREK : The fate of the original Romulan ship model is unknown and debateable. See End Notes. [10]

Audience Member #15: Ms. Fontana, in the end of “The Immunity Syndrome,” in the scenes when they’re showing the credits, and also in one of the scenes from the bloopers last night, there’s a scene in sickbay with an alien with a latex mask over his head. Can you please tell me, what show—it wasn’t from any shows that had ever been on, what’s the story behind it?

Dorothy Fontana: That was a stand-in—Bill, wasn’t it?

Majel Barrett: I think so.

Dorothy Fontana: It was a stand-in and an extra, Bill Blackburn. You occasionally saw him as an extra. This was a make-up test that was done for one of the shows. I can’t recall which one it was. It might have been the aging one, “The Deadly Years.” And it was a sort of a base make-up for that. They were running tests on it to see what it looked like on film before we actually went in to doing three actors with all this make-up.

Audience Member #15: But it wasn’t from an episode that was—?

Dorothy Fontana: No, it was never from an episode.

FACT TREK : The blooper in question is of Bill Blackburn tearing off the make-up used when he played Henoch’s android body in “Return To Tomorrow.” A frame of this appeared as one of the stills for the end credits of “By Any Other Name.” An image of Blackburn facing the camera in the fully intact makeup can be seen in the end credits of "The Immunity Sydrome."

View fullsize

View fullsize

Audience Member #16: There’s three things I’d like to ask you. First, in “Journey to Babel,” there was that guy who looked like his eye sockets had been pushed back two inches. Now was that supposed to be done, or was that just Fred Phillips?

Dorothy Fontana: Fred is very talented, as you can see from his make-up. The character is described pretty thoroughly in the front of that script. There was a separate page that was costume and make-up notes. And I did describe a hairy, almost bear-like head with a pig snout and this is the way it turned out. I liked it very much, I thought they looked very different.

Audience Member #16: I heard that “The Man Trap” was not the first one filmed but it was the first one aired. Which episode was the first one filmed?

Dorothy Fontana: It was one you might have seen last night, “The Corbomite Maneuver.”

Audience Member #16: Oh, one more thing. In one of the episodes, Kirk says, “Go to the devil.”  Now, if Star Trek was still on, would you have allowed him to say, “Go to hell”?

Dorothy Fontana: It wasn’t up to us, it was up to the censorship, which is called Program Standards, it depends. If you tell someone to go to hell, they usually said “No, you may not do that because that is, in context, it is swearing. If you said that someone had been in hell in suffering, then you could say it. It was a different context. And they’re still fairly hard line on that.

Audience Member #17: How did you get away with “Let’s get the Hell out of here” at the end of “The City on the Edge of Forever”?

Dorothy Fontana: Gene fought for it.

Audience Member #18: I realize that “The Enterprise Incident” is one of those episodes that you wrote, which did not come out as you originally wrote it, however this question has divided me for a long time. What was the name of the Romulan Commander, which she whispered into Spock’s ear?

Dorothy Fontana: You can’t pronounce it.

Audience Member #19: I’d like to know if you can pronounce Jim’s middle name?

Dorothy Fontana: Jim Kirk?

Audience Member #19: Yeah.

Dorothy Fontana: Tiberius.

[Huge audience laughter.]

FACT TREK : While David Gerrold has tried to stake claim for Kirk’s middle name, it does not hold up historical scrutiny. See End Notes. [12]

Audience Member #20: What was Spock’s first name?

Dorothy Fontana: You can’t pronounce that, either.

Audience Member #21: I have two questions. First of all, whatever happened to Janice Rand? How do you explain that she left the show?

Dorothy Fontana: Do you want to answer that, Majel?

Majel Barett: No, I don’t really know.

Dorothy Fontana: The thing of it was that the deal was originally made, as many actors have, that she was to do so many out of 13 episodes, say 10 out of 13. That was all that her original contract required.[13]

Now Grace Lee Whitney is considered to be an actress of some professional stature, therefore we paid her quite a bit of money.[14] However we weren’t giving her enough work and we felt that it was a disservice to the actress because the Yeoman is kind of an extra leg, almost. They’re around to gopher, to run, fetch, and carry, and we felt that we were really wasting a pretty good actress in a [unintelligible] job.

FACT TREK : Fontana may not have known the exact circumstances of Whitney's exit from the show and is probably repeating "the party line" from Roddenberry. Whitney's own account is rather more harrowing.[15]

Audience Member #21: My next question is kind of nitpicking, but I’ve discussed it with my friends at some con. In “Assignment: Earth,” when Seven first comes onboard, Spock gives him the FSNP. It doesn’t work, then he is given the phaser stun, it does work. How does one work and not the other?

Dorothy Fontana: The phasers could be set on very hard stun, of course. The mechanical object generated much more power than even Spock himself. Physical strength.

Audience Member #22: I’d like to know, what was your reaction when you were dropped as Number One and taken to a smaller part?

Majel Barrett: Bitter.

Audience Member #22: And also, it’s said that Captain Kirk is somehow related to Horatio Hornblower. Are there any other characters that have their basis in other literary novels?

Dorothy Fontana: None that I can think of offhand. As you may or may not know, Captain Hornblower and Mr. Forester have long been favorites of Gene Roddenberry. And the essential premise of men alone, which the early English, well, any nations, warships and merchant ships in the sea, and the many perils that they then faced, are similar to what we proposed the Enterprise would be. In that sense, yes, Captain Kirk is descended from Hornblower. But he was really the only character that had that genesis.

Audience Member #22: How’d he come up with Spock?

Dorothy Fontana: Oh, Gene.

Audience Member #22: Yeah, how?

Dorothy Fontana: That’s really one for Gene. All I know is that Mr. Spock was always there, and it was always Leonard Nimoy. Always. From 1963 on. If I could expand on that for one moment, briefly. Leonard had appeared with Majel in a Lieutenant,[16] and he so favorably impressed Gene that he was the only actor that was ever considered for the part of Mr. Spock. Even when they wanted to recast, Gene held his ground. He’d recast anybody but Mr. Spock.

Majel Barrett: I think that Gene would agree that the character of Mr. Spock came out of Leonard rather than the other way around.

Dorothy Fontana: The final Mr. Spock.

Majel Barrett: Yeah.

Audience Member #23: I would like to know if you have thought about introducing Spock’s name, his full name?

Dorothy Fontana: No, because we’ve carried this myth through that you can’t pronounce it. I’d like to keep it, because it keeps him, that little part of him is an element of mystery and mystique that I think you really all like and you don’t want to know.

Audience Member #24: [Unintelligible].

Dorothy Fontana: No, not a phrase, it’s a matter of the tongue. There are a number of African tongues that the white man cannot pronounce, because of various syllables in them, which we are not trained to do. I believe what is called the click language, what is it...

Audience Member #24: It has an “X.”

Dorothy Fontana: Yeah, it has an “X” in it. It’s a language that the white man simply cannot pronounce, and that was actually the theory that I went on with the Vulcan language when I first used that line.

Majel Barrett: Wasn’t there also the idea that everybody on Vulcan began with an “S”?

Dorothy Fontana: We kind of got that along. As the Klingons all had “K” names, that just sort of evolved the same way. It was entirely followed. Xhosa, that was the African people I was thinking of.

Isaac Asimov: Due to time considerations and the fact that the Roddenberrys and D.C. Fontana have a dinner arrangement at six o’clock, this next question will be our last.

Dorothy Fontana: We can go on longer than that.

Majel Barrett: Sure we can, we don’t need—

Dorothy Fontana: We can go on longer than that, it’s only 25 past 5.

Audience Member #25: If the Enterprise is supposed to be like a community, with men and women, I wonder why there weren’t any children onboard? Because it seems like with all those people somebody would start a family.

Dorothy Fontana: We established, at least in background, that birth control devices were in use and in fact that probably most of the women in the service would have voluntarily taken some sort of at least temporary sterilization to prevent this. Going on the theory that if a woman really wanted a baby she should be out of the service and not in it because there were too many dangers in space to subject children.

Isaac Asimov: We’re going to have a small conference here. So just sit tight and we’ll tell you what’s happening.

[Inaudible conversation about how much longer the panel will go.]

Isaac Asimov: We have time for a short question.

Audience Member #26: Can you please tell me—what [do] the stardates mean?

Majel Barrett: Five numbers. There is no significance, they are just five numbers. As a matter of fact, many times we’ve used our birthdays.

Dorothy Fontana: Gene does explain this, incidentally, in The Making of Star Trek. It’s very elusive and I don’t understand one word of it. All we did was put four numbers, a decimal point, and another number because it was a device, just a gimmick.[17]

Audience Member #27: Is the Vulcan nerve pinch physically impossible?

Dorothy Fontana: I would think that it is, at least in part, because there are parts of the neck that you can paralyze someone, at least temporarily, if you know where to press. The pressure points.

Majel Barrett: One thing about childbearing on the spaceship that was never brought out. We did a show called “Who Mourns for Adonais?” and NBC wouldn’t let us film the original ending, which had Leslie Parrish as you know with “Adonais” and the leaves blowing and everything. He rapes her, makes love to her, whatever. And as they’re back on the ship, at the end of it, she comes in and says, “I’m pregnant.” So now you don’t know if it’s going to be a God or a woman. It was a lovely idea, but NBC said, “Nope! No sex on ship.”

[Audience boos.]

FACT TREK : A good story, but untrue. This ending was, in fact, filmed. Footage from this scene is on The Roddenberry Vault (2016).[18]

Audience Member #28: In view of the, at least my records maintain, some kind of racial balance on the ship [unintelligible]. Who was it that was responsible for the blatant chauvinism? 

Fontana: The what?

Audience Member #28: The Chauvinism, which is quite blatant in the face of [unintelligible], and how did you feel playing a character who was in absolutely every respect so completely subservient to men?

Dorothy Fontana: Well, it was like this...I was on the show and Majel was on the show, but Gene Roddenberry was hearing [unintelligible]. No, he’s not a chauvinist, he’s a doll, but in the basic structure of things in most military organizations the males do carry the weight and carry the action. It’s almost dramatically necessary. It’s one of the reasons why we didn’t have the girls whopping people with karate chops and so on. The Romulan Commander was a woman, and we tried to use as many women in positions of strength and dignity as possible, but it wasn’t always possible, and we had no control over this.

FACT TREK: Yes, readers, it smack of a cop out to us, too...

Audience Member #29: What did Sarek see in Amanda?

Dorothy Fontana: Well, let me tell you this, this is what I saw in Amanda. And by Amanda, I mean Jane Wyatt. Ms. Wyatt is the only actor, who ever—

Audience Member #29: Actress.

Dorothy Fontana: Actor, actress, it’s the same thing. In ten years of writing, who ever walked up to me on the script, introduced herself to me and said, “I wanted to tell you how much I liked your script. I really enjoyed doing this part.” For me, this is a great lady, and I think that, in her, is what Sarek saw in Amanda.

Audience Member #30: What did Amanda see in Sarek?

Dorothy Fontana: Why don’t you ask some of the ladies in the audience? Sarek, as with most Vulcans, the mystique is a very charismatic man. And by man, I mean the male of the species, actually. He’s tall, he’s handsome, he’s strong, he’s dignified, he’s intelligent, and I can’t think of too much more that a woman would want. Actually, in the bedroom he’s probably sensual and sexual, more so than anyone on Earth, and why not?

Audience Member #31: How much smaller was the Enterprise than either the Klingon or the Romulan ships, as far as warp power goes?

Dorothy Fontana: We had to say that it was just about even, for the simple fact that if we didn’t, you leave yourself open to so many bad deals. For instance, in “The Enterprise Incident,” the Enterprise had to be trapped and surrounded by about five ships because you could shoot your way out of a ship-to-ship duel. Probably.

Audience Member #31: One more question. What was Spock—Leonard Nimoy—like offstage. Was he emotional or anything?

Dorothy Fontana: Leonard Nimoy was the guest star in the very first script I ever wrote, which was back in 1960 on The Tall Man.[19] That was a Western, he played a Deputy Sheriff. I’ve known Leonard that long. He was a beautiful person, not highly emotional in that he shows it. I think he is inside, he’s a deeply sensitive man, but he has a very quiet strength and dignity at all times that is very much like Spock as far as I know him.

Audience Member #32: When I read The Making of Star Trek, it said that all people from Vulcan—male, I believe—start with “SP” How come Sarek?[20]

Dorothy Fontana: That was a gag. It was really just a running joke in the memos. We did try to start the male names with “S” and they were only five letters long, and the women’s names were T apostrophe and then a number of letters, actually. It didn’t matter, because T’Pau was T-apostrophe-P-A-U, And T’Pring T-apostrophe-P-R-I-N-G. So the women did not follow as strict a form as the men’s names. It was just a pattern, a thing that we developed, and thought it was a nice gimmick and kept it.

Audience Member #32: How old was Mr. Spock?

Dorothy Fontana: Because of the fact that we didn’t feel our viewers could relate to anybody who was possibly a hundred years old or even seventy years old who looked like Leonard, we decided he was going to be what his Earth age really was, which was about thirty-six at the time.

Audience Member #33: In The Making of Star Trek, it says that Sulu was supposed to get one girl every single time that Spock or Kirk got five.[21] How come he never got one?

Dorothy Fontana: Oh, those inscrutable Orientals. Actually, I’m really sorry to George Takei, who’s a fine actor, but we never had an opportunity to give him the good strong roles that would have allowed that.

Audience Member #34: My question is really directed at Ms. Fontana, but first I have to complement Ms. Barrett on her performance. I had never seen the pilot film until I saw it here, and I just want to say that I thought your performance was just wonderful. I thought your capacity for leadership has never been matched by any man [unintelligible] the show.

Majel Barrett: Thank you. 

Audience Member #34: [Unintelligible].

Majel Barrett: Unfortunately, NBC felt the same way and still felt that a man should run the ship, so...

Audience Member #35: If I could just direct my question to Ms. Fontana. I would like to know how she personally felt about the fact that women were so often kept in the background, and if she did try to do anything to get women more roles of strength and character. I’ve always wondered and I think that I have a right to know and so does every other female here. Just a question, just a question.

Dorothy Fontana: Alright. First of all, I am not a militant fem-lib. 

[Interrupted by huge applause.]

Dorothy Fontana: Any respect or stature that I or Majel personally gained as women, we have done through our professions and felt that we did these things to the best of our abilities, as creative people. In writing, my own personal tendency in fact is not to write for women, but rather to write for men. I like men (laughs)—a lot. 

[Interrupted by laughter and applause.]

Dorothy Fontana: But seriously, on an action adventure show, women simply do not have the opportunity to do as much as you might like them to do. 

Audience Member #36: It’s supposed to be the future.

Dorothy Fontana: In the future, I still want to be a woman.

Audience Member #37: So do we all!

Dorothy Fontana: No, you can do it sometimes. I did a Big Valley for Barbara Stanwyck in which she was very strong. I did a High Chaparral for Linda Cristal where she was very strong. I try as often as possible, but sometimes a story just simply will not work with a woman.

FACT TREK : Oh, Dorothy...

Isaac Asimov: Again, we have reached the end of our time limit. I’m sorry, we’ll try to find time tomorrow to continue this. I can’t guarantee it, but thank you very much for being patient with us.

—30—

Read a contemporary account of the con by clicking on the vintage pages above to view them on the My Star Trek Scrapbook blog.

Special Thanks!

To Bill Kobylak for making these invaluable and rare recordings available for us to transcribe and publish here on FACT TREK. Listen to the original recording of this Fontana & Barrett session from 1972 here.

Bill also kindly provided the image of the Star Trek Lives! program’s listing of panels and speakers.

Revision History

2021-04-28

• Original version

2021-11-17

• Minor edits to fix punctuation and a few words.

End Notes & Sources

[1] Image source: Roddenberry on Facebook, Roddenberry Vault 230A/366 (link)

[2] Ellison on The Les Crane Show. We consulted a WGA Newsletter, historical TV listings, and fanzines and found reference to a pair of Harlan Ellison appearances on the syndicated version of The Les Crane Show about four years prior to this convention. In June of 1968, he appeared alongside Robert Bloch and Norman Spinrad to discuss the literary value of science fiction. In August of 1968, he appeared alongside Sheldon Leonard, George Kirgo, and Bruce Geller (Mission: Impossible, Mannix) to discuss TV violence. Presumably, Ellison’s comments about Star Trek were made during one of these appearances. (If someone has a tape of either appearance, we’d love to see it.)

[3] “Balance of Terror” was the eighth regular episode produced in 1966 as part of the first season, on top of the two pilots produced in 1964 and 1965.

[4] The Star Trek Songbook was a three-issue fanzine, "A compendium of all the songs sung in episodes of Star Trek and some that weren't, along with scenes discussing Federation music." You can read about it on Fanlore, here. (link)

[5] What does NCC Stand for? Oft debated, but Star Trek Art Director Matt Jefferies explained its origins a number of times:

NC, by international agreement, stood for all United States commercial vehicles. Russia had wound up with four Cs, CC CC. It’d been pretty much a common opinion that any major effort in space would be too expensive for any one country, so I mixed the U.S. and the Russian and came up with NCC. 

Source:BBC Cult Site (c2007), Interview with Matt Jefferies. (link) [With typos corrected.]

[6] Zenna Henderson’s “The People.” Fontana could be referring to one of two collected anthologies of Zenna Henderson’s short stories about “The People” that were published prior to 1972, which were Pilgrimage: The Book of the People (1961) and The People: No Different Flesh (1967). Henderson was an American elementary school teacher and science fiction and fantasy author (link).

[7] Dangerous Visions & unintentional plagiarism. The Harlan Ellison passage referenced in the audience question appeared on pages 115-116 of the book Dangerous Visions (1967), as the first part of his introduction to “A Toy For Juliette” by Robert Bloch". It reads:

Ellison: Recently the story editor of a prime-time television series, pressed for a script to shoot, sat down and wrote one himself rather than wait for the vagaries of a free-lance scenarist’s schedule and dalliance. When he had completed the script, which was to go before the cameras in a matter of days, he sent it as a matter of form to the legal department of the studio. For the clearance of names, etc. Later that day the legal department called him back in a frenzy. Almost scene-for-scene and word-for-word (including the title), the non-s-f story editor had copied a well-known science fiction short story. When it was pointed out to him, the story editor blanched and recalled he had indeed read the story, some fifteen years before. Hurriedly, the story rights were purchased from the well-known fantasy writer who had originally conceived the idea. I hasten to add that I accept the veracity of the story editor when he swears he had no conscious knowledge of imitating the story. I believe him because this sort of unconscious plagiarism is commonplace in the world of the writer. It is inevitable that much of the mass of reading a writer does will stick with him somehow, in vague concepts, snatches of scenes, snippets of characterization, and it will turn up later, in the writer’s own work; altered, transmogrified, but still a direct result of another writer’s work. It is by no means “plagiarism.” It is part of the answer to the questions asked by idiots of authors at cocktail parties: “Where do you get your ideas?”

Of course, this is Ellison’s third-hand account of the event, which largely agrees with the historical record but some of the particulars—e.g. “the legal department called him back in a frenzy”—should not be taken literally.

[8] Heinlein & Plagiarism. According to Heinlein’s papers, Gene Coon called him on the telephone and requested a waiver for "Tribbles", which Heinlein granted—script unseen—a decision he later regretted after receiving the script and the subsequent marketing of the creatures copied from his 1952 book The Rolling Stones. We’ll be covering this in a future Fact Trek.

[9] Spock’s Parents. Fontana’s “This Side of Paradise” does in fact give the first details of Spock’s parentage, as he tells Kirk, “My mother was a teacher. My father an ambassador.” However, details about Spock’s parentage were previously hinted at in “Where No Man Has Gone Before.” In that second pilot episode, Spock tells Kirk, “The fact one of my ancestors married a human female—” before Kirk cuts him off with the line, “Terrible having bad blood like that.” And in “The Corbomite Maneuver,” the first regular episode to be filmed, the “ancestor” in question is identified as Spock’s father, when Spock tells Mr. Scott, regarding his mother, “She considered herself a very fortunate Earth woman.”

[10] The Romulan ship ships out. Fontana’s stated reason for the replacement of the bird of prey-adorned Romulan ship miniature with the then-new Klingon ship seems questionable. Claiming it was “not good” seems at odds with reality given the crap quality of the ion ship employed in “Spock’s Brain” and the simplicity of the Tholian ship. It’s worth noting that Fontana was no longer on staff at the point of “Incident,” but one can assume someone on the show told her to use the Klingon ship, since her earliest outline has the treaty and the use of the Klingon ship design in it (covered in more detail in our vintage Star Trek Fact Check piece linked here). That the fan mentions having heard that the Romulan ship was dropped by a prop man somewhat aligns with an utterly unverified story that Wah Chang destroyed the miniature himself.

[11] Babel aliens. UCLA, The Gene Roddenberry Star Trek Television Series Collection (1966-1969).

[12] Tiberius. David Gerrold has long tried to stake claim for Kirk’s middle name, saying in one 2014 interview:

We were at a Star Trek convention and somebody asked Dorothy and I what was Kirk’s middle name and I had just finished a book on Roman history and was still thinking Tiberius and so it popped out of my head, “Tiberius.” And the audience loved it, so later on when we were doing the animated show which was a few months later and we passed it in front of Gene and he said “OK” and that was about it. (Source). 

And in an earlier interview, Gerrold made it clear this convention happened in 1973 (Source).

We’ve always found Gerrold’s account suspect. Consider the fact that Gary Lockwood’s character on Gene Roddenberry’s The Lieutenant (1963-64) was named William Tiberius Rice. Given all that, and With Fontana dropping the middle name at this event—in 1972, the first major convention dedicated specifically to Star Trek—Gerrold’s recollection doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

[13][14] Grace Lee Whitney’s contract. It called for her to appear in 7 out of the first 13 episodes and she was guaranteed $750 per episode for up to 4 days work per episode. UCLA, The Gene Roddenberry Star Trek Television Series Collection (1966-1969).

[15] Grace Lee’s Exit. She maintained she had been sexually assaulted by someone she identified only as “The Executive”, and believed that was the reason she was dropped at the end of her contract. Source: The Longest Trek: My Tour of the Galaxy, by Grace Lee Whitney, with Jim Denney, Quill Driver Books/Word Dancer Press, Inc., 1998 (on Amazon here).

[16] Nimoy and Barrett appeared together in the episode "In The Highest Tradition," the 22nd episode of The Lieutenant, which first aired on February 29, 1964.

[17] Stardates. Here’s what Gene Roddenberry had to say on the subject in The Making of Star Trek (p.198-199) [book’s ALL CAPS SHOUTY TEXT here lowercased]:

In the beginning, I invented the term "star date" simply to keep from tying ourselves down to 2265 A.D., or should it be 2312 A.D.? I wanted us well in the future but without arguing approximately which century this or that would have been invented or superseded. When we began making episodes, we would use a star date such as 2317 one week, and then a week later when we made the next episode we would move the star date up to 2942, and so on. Unfortunately, however, the episodes are not aired in the same order in which we film them. So we began to get complaints from the viewers, asking, “How come one week the star date is 2891, the next week it's 2337, and then the week after it's 3414?"

In answering these questions, I came up with the statement that “This time system adjusts for shifts in relative time which occur due to the vessel's speed and space warp capability. It has little relationship to earth's time as we know it. One hour aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise at different times may equal as little as three earth hours. the star date specified in the log entry must be computed against the speed of the vessel, the space warp, and its position within our galaxy, in order to give a meaningful reading." Therefore star date would be one thing at one point in the galaxy and something else again at another point in the galaxy.

I’m not quite sure what I meant by that explanation, but a lot of people have indicated it makes sense. If so, I’ve been lucky again, and I'd just as soon forget the whole thing before I'm asked any further questions about it.

[18] Deleted Ending to “Who Mourns for Adonais?” On The Roddenberry Vault (home video release), disc 3, "Inside The Roddenberry Vault (Part Three)."

[19] Fontana’s First Script. We covered this in the article “Did D.C. Fontana Get Her First Professional Script Assignment on Star Trek? “Monday, March 13, 2017. Star Trek Fact Check blog. (link)

[20] Vulcan Proper Names. Bob Justman’s memo about Vulcan names, which features tongue-in-cheek suggestions such as “Spank,” “Spawk,” and “Spork,” was originally sent to Gene Roddenberry on May 3, 1966. UCLA, The Gene Roddenberry Star Trek Television Series Collection (1966-1969). The memo is reprinted in The Making of Star Trek (p.274-275).

[21] Sulu gets no love. As recounted by Gene Roddenberry in The Making of Star Trek (p.248-249) [book’s ALL CAPS SHOUTY TEXT here lowercased]:

It was from the Oriental Protective Association, which is like the NAACP. The letter firmly chastised us because these people had watched a number of the shows and had noticed it was the occidentals who always ended up with the girls. They threatened to boycott the show if we didn't give them a satisfactory answer.

So, with George's permission, I wrote them back saying that our contract with Mr. Takei was based on the Kellogg-Briand Treaty of 1925 in which Japan got three battleships for every five that Great Britain and the United States got. I promised then that on that basis Mr. Takei would receive three girls for every five that Kirk and McCoy got. It must have seemed like a reasonable answer because we never heard from them again!

FACT TREK : {facepalm}

Not The Search for Spock, which was already in the works, but the script for a proposed film you’ve never heard of. It’s got no Kirk, no Spock, no starship Enterprise, no Federation, no Klingons, and only one familiar name… one BIG familiar name:

Khan.

When Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan opened to boffo box office and a record opening weekend it appears the studio pounced on the idea of making sequels and spinoffs. Just days after the film’s opening it was reported, “Not one to rest on its laurels, Paramount is already preparing ‘Star Trek III: In Search of Spock,’" and, “According to Paramount President Michael Eisner, there even may be a future movie about the fate of Khan, the villain of ‘Star Trek II’ played with Cordoban relish by Ricardo Montalban.”*† But while there were rumors of such a thing (such as a supposed project titled Prison Planet set on Khan’s Elba of Ceti Alpha V), they were seemingly just that.

Not eight months after the film’s release the studio received a hefty screenplay—not for a sequel, but a prequel to both the movie and the 1960s TV episode that inspired it.

The script was titled THE RISE OF KHAN.

Prospective Prequel

We’d never heard of this before, so imagine our surprise when our friend and author of the excellently researched book The First Star Trek Movie (buy it here) Sherilyn Connelly handed us a folder full of documents related to the development of Star Trek—The Motion Picture within which was a 6-page memo covering this script and story.

She, and we, scoured the internet and the trades and thus far we haven’t found a damned thing on this (though we will keep looking). We can only assume that the development was never announced, and, given the nature of the coverage, we doubt it went any further than this first draft script. No one we know has ever seen the script or any treatment leading to it, but the memo makes plain that a full screenplay (“SP”) existed, and gives a page count of 138. That clocks out to almost 2 hours and 20 minutes for a film of this type, but first drafts often run long or short.

Hughes On First

One thing we do know is the screenwriter’s name...John Hughes.

Now, the lack of reporting or corroborating paperwork means we can’t at this point state with absolute and 100% certainty that this John Hughes is the famed writer-director who penned Mr. Mom and National Lampoon’s Vacation in this period and later wrote and directed many iconic 1980s films like The Breakfast Club, Pretty in Pink, Weird Science, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, and Planes, Trains and Automobiles.§

But the case for it being him is almost air-tight.

First, while a writer mostly known for comedies and teen dramas might seem as unlikely a choice for a sci-fi action-adventure as casting Mr. Mom to play Batman, Hughes had rewritten the screenplay for the swashbuckling adventure film Nate and Hayes (titled Savage Islands in some countries).¶ That film was released by Paramount in late 1983, so he was clearly on the studio’s radar.

Second, the coverage mentions the story’s similarities to The Count of Monte Cristo, the protagonist of which is named Edmond Dantès: a name Hughes sometimes employed as a pseudonym (Beethoven, Maid In Manhattan).

While fame for those films was in the future in late 1982 when The Rise of Khan script assignment would have been issued, Nate and Hayes, Mr. Mom and Vacation were all in the hopper and Hughes was very possibly seen as a rising star. He certainly was by the following autumn, when Mr. Mom and Vacation had each racked up over 60 million at the box office (about 180 million each in 2021 dollars).[#]

Finally, and although this may be a coincidence, one of the recipients of this memo, Ricardo Mestres, would later produce five films in which John Hughes served as a producer and/or a screenwriter—101 Dalmatians (1996), Flubber (1997), Home Alone 3 (1997), Reach The Rock (1998), and Just Visiting (2001).

As such, the circumstantial evidence is pretty weighty.

But what exactly did “John Hughes” deliver?

Genetic Superman, The Movie

From the coverage memo, here is the “short synopsis” of the script’s story. Bear in mind that this is a mere three paragraphs and half a page describing a document of 138 pages and thus painfully lacking in detail. Names pop up and vanish, story points are only lightly sketched, and there’s zero sense of the world these characters inhabit, other than that they have space travel, there is a tyrannical Earth government, and Khan is a genetically engineered antagonist. It’s not much, but it’s all we have.

SHORT SYNOPSIS: 

     Ingenuous young JOHN PIERCE, first mate of the spaceship Wraith, is thrust into command when CAPTAIN DUFFY dies in deep space.  Before dying Duffy gives Pierce a computer chip to deliver back on Earth to anyone giving him the password "Freedom".  This is overheard by VICTOR ISHAM, navigator, a spy for Earth's tyrranical [sic] government.  When the ship docks, Isham reports to clever, devious LT. KHAN, proud product of genetic engineering.  Khan desires Pierce's betrothed, beautiful MERCEDES.  When Pierce delivers the chip, Khan's minion STEELE has Pierce arrested and sent to the prison planet Thanas.  Khan tells Mercedes that Pierce is dead, and she becomes his wife.  Khan uses the information from the chip to play the rebels against the government, to his own advancement.

     In a cell on Thanas, Pierce meets another prisoner, wise old FARIA.  They burrow toward freedom as Faria teaches Pierce diplomacy, languages and the arts of combat.  During these years Khan becomes emperor, and he and Mercedes have a son, AEGIS, who is sixteen by the time Pierce and Faria complete their tunnel.  The old man dies before they can escape, but he gives Pierce the map to a huge treasure hidden on another planet.  Pierce escapes, recovers the treasure with the help of rascally CAPTAIN THORPE and recruits a fighting force on Tau Ceti, with which to gain revenge.

     As "governor" of Tau Ceti, Pierce returns to Earth (with Aegis, whom he has captured along the way).  Welcomed by Khan, who has designs on Tau Ceti, Pierce quickly engineers the downfall of Isham and Steele.  Recognized by no one but Mercedes, who simply begs mercy for Aegis, Pierce steals Khan's spaceship and Mercedes, goes to Thanas and releases all the prisoners.  Khan follows him and Pierce defeats him in single combat, then sends him out to the stars in suspended animation.  As for Mercedes, too much has come between them; Pierce leaves her and blasts off with an Amazon warrior named ILLIUS…

Coverage

So that’s the story sketch in a nutshell. Now, what did the development department think? The report, written by one Karl D. Schanzer (KDS), pulls no punches right out of the gate.

From the comments, one can fill in a few of the blanks in the story, but keep in mind that this coverage is suggesting possible remedies for the script’s flaws, not always detailing things which happen in the script.

COMMENT:

One of the worst faults of this screenplay lies in closely following the plot and structure of "The Count of Monte Cristo", which was written for a different audience with different tastes.  Aside from that, however, there are so many flaws in characterization and execution that relatively little of this is salvageable.

Therefore, per a discussion with Ricardo [Mestres], it seems more constructive to address the larger issues than to make page notes on a story which must be radically altered.

Hughes seems to have approached this almost as a sword-and-sorcery project rather than the hi-tech, high adventure science fiction which has always characterized Star Trek.  He begins slowly, develops sluggishly and tries to cram everything into the last third of his story, making it confusing and ineffective.  With a couple of notable exceptions his characters are unexciting, their dialogue florid and unrealistic.

Most unforgiveably [sic], this story lacks humor and a sense of wonder.  Except for moments like those in which Pierce and Thorpe outsmart each other while trying to retrieve the treasure, it lacks zest and fun; At its most threatening and scarey [sic], we should be spellbound by the energy on the screen.

Khan is enjoyable because he embodies evil energy, full of spite and devious ambition.  In the same larger-than-life way, Thorpe is a likable rascal.  But the other characters, including Pierce, lack the juice to make them stand out.  In Pierce's case, his desire for revenge seems melodramatic rather than deep; the revenge itself is too easy, too contrived and shallow, to satisfy us.

The period in which this story is set is one of expansion.  Despite internal strife, Earth is enlarging her sphere of influence in the galaxy, pushing at the borders of space and science.  We can assume that many of the artifacts of "Star Trek" and "The Wrath of Khan" have not yet been invented.  Scientists of Earth are meddling with their genetic heritage (Khan is both a success and failure, a genius with no conscience), and every ship returning from space could bring something to change the fate of mankind.

This atmosphere is conducive to adventure on a grand scale and a ferment in which, to our characters, almost anything is believable.  However, the characters themselves must be believable to us, with no hokiness.  Their emotions, points of view, dialogue, must be real within our framework as well as theirs.  within these parameters we have Khan striving to bring the empire under one influence -- his -- and being almost strong enough to do it.  Against him we have Pierce who represents the race's need for freedom -- physical, mental and scientific, Khan's weakness lies in underestimating his opponent, in both a symbolic and material way.

To narrow it down a bit, Pierce could be the devil-may-care young captain of a dilapidated freighter, hauling the equivalent of nuts and bolts between starports.  He's more like Han Solo than Luke Skywalker, but his potential has been blunted by a lack of ambition as well as a liking for the fleshpots.  Maybe he comes from an old and illustrious scientific family, which impresses the genetically oriented but irritates him because everyone is always expecting more of him than he cares to give.

Such a young man, representing both a past regime and a tendency to flout the rules, could be considered dangerous by ambitious Khan, who has weaselled [sic] his way up the bureaucratic ladder with a glorious goal in mind.  If Pierce crosses Khan because of his free-wheeling ideas of liberty, Khan would think nothing of exiling him as he has many others.

But this man is different.  Dropped on a planet from which there is no escape, amongst prisoners which include riff-raff, political prisoners and disaffected scientists, Pierce could make a transitional break-through and become the unifying force which unites them into a free-state society, like the semi-piratical forces which flourished in the Caribbean at one time.  With all their energies bent toward revenge and Pierce at their head, they could develop an invention which could get them off the planet and it could be one of the devices which, in "later" Star Treks, we have grown to accept as a standard prop.  For instance, suppose that after some deadly failures the process ennabling [sic] them to "beam" bodies elsewhere is discovered.  This would get them off the planet, with a near-magical weapon.

All this should be encompassed in as short a time as possible because the second act should have them infiltrating Khan's empire in disguise, with a ship which mounts the new weapon.  Lest the going be too easy, Khan's scientists have come up with a new weapon in the meantime with which he has enslaved the planet.  Again, it could be something which, in "later" times, has become quite normal.

Now comes the test of will and guile, a guerrilla war in which the agile, quick-thinking Freebooters are matched against the awesome but lumbering machinery of the empire, headed by an increasingly enraged Khan.  It may be that pressure goads both sides into developing new weapons -- or more disaffected scientists could find their way into Pierce's camp, bringing their talents.  But at all times, the empire is strong enough to swat the rebels if it can find them so they must remain in disguise.  And the struggle must stay hi-tech; maybe they can invent a weapon which will be lost to the future, so that "later" stories had no mention of it.

If there's any kind of romance, this could be a place to let it grow.  Possibly Khan has genetically produced a perfect girl to serve as his mate but she has, to him, fatal weaknesses: A conscience and the ability to feel love.  However, if she's been engineered for brains and beauty, she could be an ideal mate for Pierce.

In the third act the battle is joined.  Each side has hidden weapons unknown to the other, and all of them are horrifying.  Because the Freebooters are outmatched physically they continue to rely on guile, and it's by guile that they finally capture/defeat Khan.  Then, perhaps in deference to the girl who thinks of Khan as a kind of father, Pierce doesn't kill him.  Instead he is sent to drift among the stars in suspended animation.

Maybe this isn't the way to go.  But whatever way we do go, we have to keep the plot bubbling with wit and high adventure…

KDS

Make of all this what you will.

KDS was dead-on regarding the similarities to Alexandre Dumas’ The Count of Monte Cristo, not only in the overarching story, but the screenplay’s opening as summarized is basically name substitution of the opening of the Dumas book.

One line that jumps out to us as accurate to the title character is the comment that “Khan is both a success and failure, a genius with no conscience.”

Even if you think this script sounds terrible, it’s occasionally possible to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, as Nick Meyer did when he concatenated several different not-good to awful scripts into what became The Wrath of Khan. But the odds of that happening were poor, as KDS flagged at the top when he wrote, “there are so many flaws in characterization and execution that relatively little of this is salvageable.”

From the coverage it seems likely the script was based wholly on what little Khan backstory is revealed in Wrath and not at all informed by the constraints of the original “Space Seed” episode.

Had the film gone forward, one can’t help but wonder who would have been cast in the title role. Hollywood was then as still now poor at casting non-white characters. In fact Ricardo Montalbán was himself of European lineage as his parents were Spanish immigrants to Mexico, and in 1966 he was painted in “brownface” to play the supposed Sihk for “Space Seed”. Age wise, Montalbán was in his mid 40s when he originated the role but given how aged Khan appears 15 in-story years after being marooned (after centuries as an unaging sleeping beauty) the studio could well have chosen to cast younger. We’ll never know.

The Demise of Rise

Given the negative assessment it’s unsurprising that this prospective prequel went nowhere. In fact, we’d be surprised if the story weren’t immediately cut off right after this memo.

One fascinating detail, however, is that the people copied on the memo excluded anyone key to Star Trek or involved in its development outside of Katzenberg, an executive who was the only recipient significantly involved with the first two films. The first omission that jumps out is Star Trek II Executive Producer Harve Bennett, who was busily writing what would become The Search For Spock.** Also omitted was Trek creator and “executive consultant” Gene Roddenberry. This doesn’t mean they were never aware of it, but their omission strongly suggests they were not in the loop.

We asked Star Trek II director Nicholas Meyer if he was aware of this project. His reply: “Never knew about or saw any John Hughes script.“

So what was the studio up to? Were they attempting a one-off prequel, or were they thinking of spinning off a film series starring the Khan conqueror, John Pierce? Setting it in Star Trek’s past made it virtually impossible to bring Montalbán back in the title role (except, perhaps in a story framing device). Were they not wishing to distract Bennett? Or were they avoiding showing things to Roddenberry unless they had to, to prevent his mobilizing fan reaction against the studio as he’d reportedly done by leaking Spock’s death? † † ‡ ‡ § §

We may never know the answers to these and all the other questions about this script, but at least now we know what to look for.

—30—

Special Thanks

To Sherilyn Connelly for pointing us to this memo! Sherilyn is the author of the excellently researched book The First Star Trek Movie, which charts the tortuous course Trek took from the end of its NBC years through The Motion Picture. Click/tap the cover to buy it (paperback or Kindle).

Matt Verboys for pointing out the Edmond Dantès connection.

Thanks also to Mark Farinas of Star Trek the Webcomic (link) for the kind use of his images.

Revison History

• 2021-03-04 Original post.

• 2021-09-10 Minor update to include feedback from Nicholas Meyer. See ††.

End Notes & Sources

* Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan opening weekend grosses totaled $14,347,221. Box Office Mojo (link). Re Star Trek II’s opening weekend box office.

† HOLLYWOOD ON A ROLL, June 9, 1982, Weds., p.79, The Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, California (link) (click the OCR button).

‡ Margaret Herrick Library, Coverage for The Rise of Khan. March 4, 1983.

§ John Hughes (filmmaker) on IMDb (link)

¶ Nate and Hayes Handbook of Production Information issued by Paramount to promote the film (link). "Nate and Hayes" is one of five feature films John Hughes has worked on this year. […] Hughes […] has to his credit screenplays for ‘National Lampoon's Class Reunion,’ as well as National Lampoon's ‘Vacation,’ […] Having written primarily comedy screenplays for film, Hughes was delighted with the opportunity of contributing his writing skills to the adventure film.”

# ‘Mr. Mom’ Author Defies Tinsel Typewriter Image, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 23, 1983, Weds., Calendar p.1.

** Ricardo Mestres on IMBd (link)

†† Nicholas Meyer, via private correspondence with FACT TREK, Sept. 10, 2021.

‡‡ David Alexander, Star Trek Creator: The Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry (1994), p463–464.

§§ William Shatner with Chris Kreski, Star Trek Movie Memories (1994), p120–122.

¶¶ Mark A. Altman and Edward Gross, The Fifty Year Mission: The Complete, Uncensored, Unauthorized Oral History of Star Trek: The First 25 Years (2016), p.419.

But have you heard the rumor that this triumphant sequel was originally conceived as a humble TV movie of the week?

And, whether you’ve heard this or not or believe it or not, we always have to ask: Is it true?

Garbled Communications

At the center of the confusion is whether or not Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) was ever intended to be a TV movie-of-the-week (that is, a movie made for television)—and if it was, when the decision was made to distribute the film theatrically instead. Take, for example, these comments from author Mark A. Altman, appearing in “The Genesis Effect: Engineering The Wrath of Khan,” a home video bonus feature released in 2016:

Now a lot of people misunderstand. They think that Star Trek was going to become a TV movie, and that Star Trek II turned out so well, they decided to release it as a movie. That is not true. It was always going to be a feature, but developed by the TV division.[1]

But where does the perception that the movie was made-for-TV come from?

Project Genesis

It was Starlog Magazine’s May 1981 issue (which would have hit newsstands and mailboxes in April) which gave many fans the notion that the film was planned to be a TV movie. It reported:

[...]Paramount has admitted that if the TV-movie is good enough, it could be released theatrically instead of being broadcast on the tube (as was done with Universal's Buck Rogers pilot).

Another source for this notion was Gene Roddenberry. A few weeks after the Starlog article, in mid-May of 1981, the Star Trek creator was telling the press that the film’s release strategy would depend on how well the film turned out:

A new “Star Trek” TV series is unlikely, said Roddenberry. “The route now is to two-hour movies. Paramount has one in the works. But whether for TV or theaters depends on how it comes out.”[2]

Privately, Roddenberry—who had been demoted to serving as “executive consultant” on the project after producing the first movie—had already expressed concerns over how the film would turn out. Just a month earlier, after reading the April 10, 1981 draft of the screenplay by Jack B. Sowards and Harve Bennett, then titled “The Genesis Project,” he had written a “personal and confidential” memo to Paramount TV executive Gary Nardino, where he expressed grave concerns about the current state of the project:

The difficulty in this letter is that I have gotten to know Harve Bennett during this project and have begun to like him very much. It is clear to me that he wants very much to do a good and even a proud job on STAR TREK and he has worked very hard at this assignment. It is, therefore, painful to me to have to face the fact that he and his writer have come up with a “final draft” script that is not only bad but actually downright embarrassing. I fear this story and script may not even be salvageable -- the basic unbelievability in the story premises and in the motivations of the key characters permeates the script.[3]

A few months later, other press outlets began running with the story that Paramount hadn’t settled on a release strategy for the film. In an article that ran in Weekly Variety on September 9, 1981, for example, the trade paper indicated that plans for the movie were still in a state of flux only two months before filming would begin:

Paramount will release the project theatrically abroad, but has decided to take a “wait and see posture” domestically. At one point, it had been planned as a two-hour telefilm and later anticipated as a feature. Word is creative personnel are receiving salaries “commensurate with a feature film.”[4]

There were similar reports in several other newspapers over the next few weeks, such as this one published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on September 17, 1981:

There will be a “Star Trek II,” but Paramount isn’t sure if it will go to TV or theaters...It will be released theatrically overseas, but Paramount won’t decide on the U.S. release until the film is completed.[5]

Operation: Obfuscate!

Paramount was apparently unhappy about these reports (unsurprising, since the implication was the studio had a lack of confidence in the project). When they issued a press release on September 18, 1981 announcing the start of production, studio head Michael Eisner took the opportunity to deny that releasing the film as a movie-of-the-week had ever been considered:

“Contrary to all the unconfirmed reports and the inevitable speculation about this project, ‘STAR TREK II’ has always been intended as a full-length motion picture for release in the United States and Canada as well as in the international territories,” Mr. Eisner commented.[6]

But Eisner’s blunt public assertion was contradicted internally eleven days later in a memo from Paramount Executive Bob Rosenbaum to Gary Nardino dated September 29, 1981, which indicates that the project had, in fact, been conceived as a TV movie and budgeted as such only five months before the start of principal photography (which began on November 9, 1981):

On June 9, 1981 Television Production put out a budget based on a script written by Jack B. Sowards and Harve Bennett dated April 10, 1981. This budget was considered as a two-hour movie of the week to be made in thirty-five (35) days and to be shot and staffed in a television manner. It was budgeted at $4,914,786 excluding optical work. According to business affairs, if this script was to be released as a theatrical motion picture, there would be an additional cost of $667,018 to be added (as noted on the top sheet.)

Since the existence of this script there have been various meetings which resulted in an extensive rewrite by Harve Bennett, Jack B. Sowards and Samuel A. Peeples as well as much creative imput [sic] by Nicholas Meyer, our director. This script dated September 16, 1981 grew considerably from its former concept and after discussions with management, and the main cast, revisions were made. A final draft dated September 25, 1981 has just come out. We are in the process of scheduling and budgeting this final script.[7]

It was only sometime after June 9, 1981 that plans changed and it was decided to release the movie in theaters (at this time, we do not have access to the paperwork that might help us pinpoint the exact date this decision was made). According to Rosenbaum’s memo, the budget was being adjusted to accommodate all the extra costs of a feature film:

Management's decision to go theatrical and anamorphic has changed some things. Detail on the large screen is much more obvious than were it to be on television. Set construction, set dressing, special effects, wardrobe and, of course, special optical effects have to be much more sophisticated. This along with crews to be hired knowing that this is now a major motion picture (as was so announced) and who will not work for less than feature money have made this first budget escalate.[8]

In other words, by the time the cameras were rolling, there was no doubt that the movie would be exhibited theatrically. Any rumors that Paramount did not make the decision to upgrade the film to theatrical release status until after seeing it have been greatly exaggerated.

TV, But Not TV

Nevertheless, the film was produced under the auspices of Paramount’s TV division, as a way of curbing costs after the runaway production of Star Trek—The Motion Picture (1979) had gone disastrously over budget. This led to some (possibly baseless) speculation in the press about the studio’s intentions:

Interestingly “Star Trek II” will be made under the supervision of Paramount’s television division which means it will likely be tested theatrically and then sold to cable TV if the market is soft. It will be sold for theatrical release abroad.[9]

Consequently, this also led to further denials by Paramount that the movie was headed towards anything but a theatrical release, such as these remarks that were printed in The Baltimore Sun on October 11, 1981:

Gordon Weaver, a spokesman for the studio, scotched one rumor that the sequel was destined for television. He said it would be released to theaters next summer.[10]

The TV movie origins are further underscored by the fact that Gary Nardino, who received the budget memo excerpted in this piece, was President of Production for the TV division when Star Trek II was produced. From 1977 until 1983, he supervised many TV movies, miniseries, and weekly television series—including the unmade series called Star Trek II (popularly misidentified as Star Trek: Phase II) developed for the aborted Paramount Television Service.[11] However, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was the only theatrical film he was involved with during his tenure at Paramount. (Following his departure from Paramount Television, he was the executive producer of Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984), but he mostly returned to television thereafter. Nardino died in 1998.)[12]

By mid-October 1981, the press seems to have gotten the message. A story that ran in the Wall Street Journal on October 9, 1981, for example, speculated on the effect Spock’s demise would have on the movie’s domestic box office.[13] The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s “Tattler” column, which previously claimed the movie might head to television, reported on November 25, 1981 that “Paramount is seeking bids in major cities for its premiere. Trekkies should circle June 4, 1982, on their calendars.”[14]

—30—

NOTE: We previously wrote about this question as part of “20 Things You Didn't Know About Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan (1982)” for What Culture. You can read that piece from the beginning here or go directly to the slide about the movie’s TV movie origins here.

Revision Notes

• 2021-02-25 — Original post

• 2024-02-03 — Corrected the ABC Sunday Night Movie date for The Wrath of Khan to February 24, 1985. Previously it was erroneously listed as the 25th.

End Notes & Sources

[1] "The Genesis Effect: Engineering The Wrath of Khan," Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan [documentary extra, Blu-ray] Prod. Roger Lay Jr., Denise Okuda, Michael Okuda, Paramount Home Video, United States, 2016, 29 mins.

[2] Bettelou Peterson, “‘Star Trek’ Fantasy Merges With Reality,” The Hartford Courant, May 17, 1981, Page YY4

[3] Memo from Gene Roddenberry to Gary Nardino, April 17, 1981, released by The Trek Files podcast (Roddenberry Entertainment).

[4] “Nicholas Meyer Directs ‘Star Trek II’ For Par; TV For US.; Screen O’Seas,” Weekly Variety, September 9, 1981, Page 4.

[5] George Anderson, “Triangle Tattler: ‘Star Trek’ sequel might be released on TV,’ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, September 17, 1981, Page 20

[6] Paramount Pictures Press Release, September 18, 1981, Nicholas Meyer Papers, University of Iowa Special Collections.

[7] Memo From Bob Rosenbaum to Gary Nardino, September 29, 1981, Nicholas Meyer Papers, University of Iowa Special Collections.

[8] Memo From Bob Rosenbaum to Gary Nardino, September 29, 1981, Nicholas Meyer Papers, University of Iowa Special Collections.

[9] “Paramount Signs Director For Second Star Trek Film,” The Sacramento Bee, October 6, 1981, Page 36.

[10] Desmond Ryan, “‘Star Trek II,’ starring Shatner and Nimoy, is blasting Off,” The Baltimore Sun, October 11, 1981, page D18

[11] Edward Gross, Trek: The Lost Years (1989), Pages 45-58; Memo from Gene Roddenberry to Gary Nardino, September 15, 1977, released by The Trek Files podcast (Roddenberry Entertainment).

[12] Nick Madigan, “Gary Nardino dead at 62,” Variety (online), February 1, 1998, https://variety.com/1998/biz/news/gary-nardino-dead-at-62-1117467318/ A quote:

“He [Nardino] ran Paramount when Paramount was by a large measure the No. 1 TV studio in town,” said CBS Television president Leslie Moonves, who for years attended Nardino’s lavishly catered Thursday night poker games. “He was larger than life in more ways than one. He was a showman, and he enjoyed all the trappings of being a top TV executive. He was a major figure in our industry and he affected the lives of a lot of people.”

[13] Stephen J. Sansweet, “Does Mr. Spock Die In the Next Episode Of ‘Star Trek’ Saga?” Wall Street Journal, October 9, 1981, Page 1.

[14] George Anderson, “The Tattler: Fonda deserves an Oscar for ‘On Golden Pond,’ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 25, 1981, Page 20.

So why is this significant?

Most Star Trek fans probably have no idea who Kellam de Forest was. But he and his de Forest Research company were important if unsung players in the production of the original Star Trek series, reading each story outline and script to provide technical advice, clear names, point out potential legal issues, etc.

But, as consultants, they were never credited for their creative input. Theirs was unacknowledged creative labor, but the names of many characters, substances, planets and solar systems, as well as some story points, originated with de Forest Research.

In salute to this oft unsung player in the making of Star Trek and his company we’ve pulled up an item written 8 years ago by our own Michael Kmet.

The following research summary was originally published on August 28, 2012 on the UCLA Mediascape blog. At the time, I had just finished a master’s degree in cinema and media studies and was still pursuing further work in academia, so please forgive the drier than usual tone. The project described here was never fully completed—but I did have the chance to interview several key figures in script clearance and research while I was working on it, including Kellam de Forest, who died earlier this month at the age of 94. Mr. de Forest, who I spoke with for several hours in 2011 and again in 2012, was remarkably generous with his time, sharp as a tack, and full of stories. An edited transcript of his interviews will be published on FACT TREK soon.

—Michael Kmet, Fact Trek

Script Clearance and Research:

Unacknowledged Creative Labor in the Film and Television Industry

Posted on August 28, 2012 by Michael Kmet*

Historically, the world of primetime commercial fictional television has been described as “the producer’s medium.” Since the mid-2000s, for example, television producers of programs as diverse as Gossip Girl (2007–2013), Battlestar Galactica (2003–2009), and Eureka (2006–2012) have recorded online podcasts in which they assume creative responsibility (as well as creative credit) for the television programs they produce.[1] However, as many subscribers to the auteur theory of motion picture authorship (especially the kind popularized by the late film critic Andrew Sarris) have discovered, such individualistic conceptions of authorship are problematic when it comes to the collaborative nature of the film and television industry.

To date, little attention has been given to the critical (and, as I will argue, creative) role performed by script clearance and research departments working in both film and television production. Script clearance and research has been the subject of only a handful of newspaper and magazine articles, has been marginalized or totally ignored by popular “making of” books, and has never, as far as I’ve been able to determine, been the subject of a dissertation or an academic essay. The purpose of my project is twofold. First, I want to begin to map out the history of script clearance and research in the film and television industry, focusing on de Forest Research, the most dominant research firm. Second, I want to argue that script clearance and research is an act of fundamentally creative labor, and it should be recognized as such by media scholars.

For those unfamiliar with the terms, script clearance and research are two distinct processes in the film and television industry, but they’re often done at the same time by the same firms, which is why I am considering them in tandem. Script clearance is the legal process of ensuring that the proper names of people, products, companies, etc., in film or television do not present a conflict with ones that actually exist. Script research is the process of checking for scientific, historic, geographic, and series-specific accuracy and continuity. It is the job of a researcher to point out every possible legal conflict, inaccuracy, and continuity error and to suggest legally cleared and accurate alternatives.

Kellam de Forest in Hollywood

During the height of the vertically integrated Hollywood studio system, script clearance and research was conducted internally. By the late 1940s, however, the major studios had either downsized or closed their internal research departments. In 1950, just as the industry was at this turning point, Kellam de Forest—who would eventually run the largest script clearance and research firm in the business—made his way to Hollywood. He had recently graduated from Yale, earning a degree in American History in 1949, and was looking to work in a creative industry. Eventually de Forest found a job with a short-subject producer who was venturing into independent production after being laid off by MGM. Although de Forest would later do research for such notable productions as The Godfather (1972) and Chinatown (1974), the first film he worked on was a modest one: a short subject on traffic safety. However, the market for theatrical short subjects was drying up, and after the film was completed de Forest found himself out of work. This led him to seek employment in the nascent television industry and to found his firm, de Forest Research.

De Forest’s most important professional relationship was with Desilu, the production company run by Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz. This relationship significantly increased the profile of de Forest Research in 1957, when Desilu bought out RKO. Along with studio space in both Hollywood and Culver City, the acquisition also included RKO’s shuttered studio research library. Desilu ended up handing de Forest control of the library, along with office space on the studio lot, rent-free. Not only did this guarantee de Forest the business of every television program produced by Desilu, it also guaranteed his firm the business of all the production companies that rented out studio space from Desilu.

View fullsize

View fullsize

click/tap items to see full articles

At the same time that Desilu took over RKO, television was growing increasingly popular in the United States. In 1950 only 9.7 million television sets had been sold in the U.S.; by 1959 that number had skyrocketed to 67.1 million. As a result of this rapid increase in the popularity of television, the chances of litigation due to the use of names, copyrighted material, and plagiarism also increased. While many television shows didn’t require a significant level of research, every television show needed to have its scripts cleared so that the production company “could prove that due diligence had been made.”[2] If a script featured a character named Edward Bunker living in present-day New York, for example, de Forest Research would have to check New York telephone books and directories to ensure that nobody had that name, or that the name was so common that no individual could sue, claiming they were personally maligned. (In this particular example, a man named Edward Bunker did show up in a Queens telephone book, leading de Forest to come up with the now-familiar name of Archie Bunker as a replacement.) [FACT TREK NOTE: a contemporary article (above) indicates the changed name began as Wally Bunker.]

As the 1960s wore on, de Forest Research took over more and more of the script clearance and research business in Hollywood. In February of 1967, Gulf and Western, then the parent company of Paramount Pictures, announced their intention to buy out Desilu. By July 27 of that year the deal was finalized and the wall between the Paramount and Desilu lots in Hollywood was torn down. As a result of the merger, de Forest Research eventually took over the Paramount research library and began handling script clearance and research for all of the television shows and theatrical features produced by Paramount. By 1984 de Forest Research was described in The New York Times as “the largest Hollywood research firm operating today.”[3]

Since the late 1980s, the business of script clearance and research has become much more fractured than when de Forest Research was dominant, but it continues to have an important effect on the shape of film and television today. It is my goal with this project to further map out the history of script clearance and research in Hollywood. Investigation of the studio files held in various archives, such as the RKO files at UCLA and the Warner Bros. files at USC, could lead to a clearer picture of how these departments functioned before most of them were shut down. Disney and Universal never shut down their research departments or their libraries, where current and former employees may still be alive and interested in discussing their work. It would also be useful to visit and observe the workplace at script clearance and research firms to get a better idea of how they operate in the industry today.

The Marginalization of Script Clearance and Research

The subject of script clearance and research interested me for the same reason I’ve been drawn to many areas of cinema and media studies: what I found in the archival record (and, later, in my interview with Kellam de Forest) didn’t match what I was reading about the subject elsewhere. For example, in The Fugitive Recaptured, a retrospective “making of” book about the television series The Fugitive (1963–1967), Kellam de Forest’s role is confined to pointing out a potentially liable situation and a factual inaccuracy in the pilot episode. Yet my interview with de Forest confirmed that he did research and clearance for all 120 episodes of the series, including regularly providing the art director with visual materials, especially those related to the look of law enforcement in different parts of the United States (an essential element, given the constantly changing setting of the series). Furthermore, after reading more than three dozen de Forest Research memos (although not memos from The Fugitive, which appear to be unavailable), it seems likely that in the pilot episode alone de Forest’s suggestions led to more than just two significant changes.

One anecdote that Kellam de Forest related to me struck me as important. According to de Forest, in the original screenplay for Chinatown, written by Robert Towne, the villain was named Joshua Cross. After checking a 1930s period telephone directory, however, de Forest discovered that a man with that name not only lived in the area the movie was set, but was still alive. The original name of Joshua now considered too risky to use, de Forest considered several alternatives before finally recommending the name of “Noah, since [the movie] was all about water.”[4] The name change was ultimately adopted. All I could think about upon hearing this information was how often Towne must have been praised for the use of such a symbolic name. Sure enough, a simple Google search of the terms “Noah Cross” and “biblical” resulted in a dozen examples of authors making this claim. Indeed, one website discussing the film wrote, “There is no doubt some biblical portent to Noah Cross’s name.”[5] While this website gets the biblical portent right, the creative contribution of script clearance and research in its conception goes uncredited.

This leads me to the second goal of this project: to demonstrate that script clearance and research is a fundamentally creative act. Certainly Kellam de Forest thinks so. One of the first things he told me was that he entered the field because he “wanted to do something involved in creativity.” Although I’ve been lucky enough to read about three dozen de Forest research reports at UCLA, a broader sample of script research materials will only strengthen this point, and I hope I’ll be able to uncover many more of them as I continue this project. Recently I discovered that the Bruce Gellar files at UCLA may contain de Forest Research reports for episodes of Mission: Impossible (1966–1973) and Mannix (1967–1975), and I’m eager and curious to see what can be found there. Although it doesn’t have the corresponding research memos, UCLA does possess 600 boxes of TV scripts from de Forest Research, a wealth of material I’ve only begun to scratch the surface of.

—30—

More about Kellam de Forest

• Obituary in the Los Angeles Times (link)

• In memoriam: Kellam de Forest, who gave us Stardates and the Gorn, by Glen E. Swanson, The Space Review, Monday, January 25, 2021 (link)

• Santa Barbara Historical Preservationist Kellam de Forest Dies from COVID, 95-Year-Old Helped Define Santa Barbara Architecture, by Nick Welsh, Fri Jan 22, 2021 | 12:27pm (link)

Notes

1. Kompare, Derek. “More ‘moments of television.’: Online cult television authorship.” Television in the age of Media Convergence. Ed. Michael Kackman, Marnie Binfield, Matthew Thomas Payne, Allison Perlman, and Bryan Sebok. Routledge: New York, 2011. 95–113.

2. De Forest, Kellam. Personal interview. 6 Dec. 2011.

3. Farber, Stephen. “Before the Cry of ‘Action!’ Comes the Painstaking Effort of Research.” New York Times. 11 Mar. 1984. H17. Print.

4. De Forest.

5. Roman Polanski’s Chinatown, 2004. Web. 8 Dec. 2011. [preserved on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine(link)].

Additional Sources for this Blog repost

* This original version of this item, “Script Clearance and Research: Unacknowledged Creative Labor in the Film and Television Industry” by Michael Kmet, was posted on the UCLA Mediascape blog, August 28, 2012 [preserved on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine (link)].

† Jerry Buck, AP Television Writer, “Around the Dial”, The San Bernardino County Sun, San Bernardino, California, 07 Oct 1984, Sunday, p138

‡ Gene Handsaker “Kellam deForest Runs TV's Reference Service”, Janesville Daily Gazette, Janesville, Wisconsin, 07 Jun 1967, Wednesday, p28

§ UCLA, The Gene Roddenberry Star Trek Television Series Collection (1966-1969).

Permalink

]]>de Forest, KellamMichael KmetFri, 22 Jan 2021 08:00:00 +0000https://www.facttrek.com/blog/roddenberry19725d8938941257b15f27f817c2:5d9aac688ee65f3d4a93a8e3:5fe44430637c246a07eb0bf4If you do a bit of searching it won’t take you long to find an audio or video recording of Star Trek creator Eugene Wesley Roddenberry. He did a lot of touring over the years, addressing audiences at colleges and conventions alike. Hell, he was speaking to a crowd at the 1966 World Science Fiction Convention days before the show hit the airwaves, and even dressed up in a Romulan uniform!

So Roddenberry’s takes of his most famous creation are both widely shared and broadly known. But did his opinions and his stories change in the two decades that followed Star Trek’s cancellation? What did he think in the days between the Star Trek and Star Trek Animated?

As with our article Oscar Where Are You? thanks to FACT TREK fast friend Bill Kobylak we have a 43 minute recoding of Gene Roddenberry telling us about Star Trek in his appearance at a Star Trek convention—the first major Trek con, held in New York City on January 21, 22, and 23, 1972, only two and a half years after the show’s final curtain on NBC.[2]

Introduced by his friend Issac Asimov, here’s The Great Bird of the Galaxy himself talking about Star Trek’s past and what future he could imagine for it 48 years ago. (This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.)

STAR TREK LIVES! Convention

Statler-Hilton Hotel, New York City, Saturday, January 22, 1972, 2 p.m.

GENE RODDENBERRY — GUEST OF HONOR

Isaac Asimov: Our guest of honor at Star Trek Convention, is a man who is known to most you, if not by sight, by name and stature. Out of a television serial, he has created a legend, which seems to expand and grow with time. Star Trek is but only one man’s glimpse of the future, yet it is a dream shared by all. Star Trek lives, and it is my pleasure to introduce you to the creator and executive producer of Star Trek, Mr. Gene Roddenberry.

[Audience applause.]

Gene Roddenberry: Thank you very much. I think it feels something like this to get nominated for President. I can’t help but start off by wondering what’s going through NBC’s mind today. I think I know: I think there are several executives saying, “Roddenberry is up to his old tricks again. He’s trying to annoy us.” 

For four years or more I’ve been trying to convince them that, really, I didn’t make the torchlight parades and the fan marches and the mail that deluged them. They kept calling me up, and [they’d] say, “Stop it, now. Come on, Roddenberry, stop it.”

The crazy thing is, I don’t if many of you know that a group of college students on both the east and the west coasts snuck into the NBC private parking areas and put “Save Star Trek” stickers on all the executive limousines. And, in the sacred washroom of the executive vice president, on the mirror. Well, I’ve tried to convince them that, and I suppose they still don’t believe me. Even though I said to them, “Look, if I could push buttons and make things like this happen, I’d get out of this crazy writing business and get into politics.”

[Comment from audience, unintelligible.]

Gene Roddenberry: One thing about writing that I’ll never give up is the eraser on the end of that pencil. It doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate your response. I am staggered and flattered, because I understand some of it, because I am a fan, too, and a very ardent fan of someone who’s here. And quite sincerely, I’d like you to join me in a round of welcome and applause for Isaac Asimov, a great mind.

[Audience applause.]

Gene Roddenberry: I hadn’t realized until today that my wife was such a fan of his. That is, I hope that’s it, because they get into each other’s arms every chance they get. And, speaking of my wife, let me introduce her. You know here as Majel Barrett, of course, who played Nurse Christine Chapel. I know her as a wife and a lover, but I also know her in another way that’s very unusual, I think, in this time and in marriages today. I know her as my very best friend. Majel Barrett.

[Audience applause and cheers.]

Gene Roddenberry: Finally, before I get any further into the notes, I also want to express my thanks to another friend and a most unusual business executive, who had the kind of courage that made Star Trek possible. Although he’s left the building, many of you heard him speak, a courageous man and a man who really believed in Star Trek, Oscar Katz.

[Audience applause.]

Gene Roddenberry: Let me ramble a bit, if you will. I’ll try not to repeat anything that’s in The Making of Star Trek. As a matter of fact, I read it last week because I thought I’d better check what was in it. The thing still amazes me. Some of the jokes we pulled, I don’t know how we ever got a show made.

One thing that might interest you is, looking back on it, if I had it to do it again—and we’ll get into whether there will be another chance—but if I could start all over knowing what I know now, what changes would we make in the show?

I think, first of all, I would have fought much harder to keep the same time slot that we started with on the first season. Our change of time slots really is what lost us our Nielsen [ratings], because we would certainly grow during the year and during the summer, then would go to another night, and each time it was a worse night, and have to start at the bottom and grow up again. And so, I think even at the risk of having the show cancelled the first year I would have said, “Keep us at this good time, or let’s drop it now.”

Next, I’ve made jokes at NBC and enjoyed them along with you, and I think they deserve many of them. I think at the same time, though, if I had it to do over again, I would spend much more time, and perhaps even at the risk of taking some of our creative time, and develop relationships with the network officials. And I’ll tell you why. 

None of them make television what it is anymore than any single producer does. With a closer relationship, it would have been possible to, I think, get through to some of them what we were striving for, what we were trying to do. We hoped in a rather foolish way that we would stun them with our brilliance.  And that type of ego is typical of writers and actors—we have to have it, or we die. But it wasn’t wise and I think many times we, as a show, were too brusque with them. Many times we did not go as far out of our way to understand their problems as we were insisting they go out of their way to understand ours. Very often, in anger, you think you’re going to change the face of television as a producer, and of course this can’t happen. No producer in any one or two seasons is going to appreciably change the practices and economics of television. 

The way to work a change in television is to get a good show on the air and keep it there. Of course, by saying we would do this does not mean we would violate any principals or deeply held feelings. We would still throw them out of our office, the one who comes in and says, “I don’t think we’re going to sell too well in the South because you’ve got a black on the show.” That man deserves to be thrown. And there’s no point in trying to make that kind of man—

[Interrupted by audience applause.]

Gene Roddenberry: That kind of junior executive mind will never understand what Star Trek’s about, anyway, if he became your Saturday night drinking buddy. On the other hand, Mort Werner, who we’ve directed a few letters to, was responsible for ordering a second pilot and okaying it, and I think more time could have gone toward establishing a relationship there.

Speaking of races, I think if we did Star Trek again, now, turning to the show, we would... You must remember, when we brought the show in, when we did the first pilot, it was rather unusual on television to use people of varied races. It was really a WASP medium then. I think if the show came on now, with the change of attitude and a change of perspective and outlook, in the networks as well as in America, we would see many more black, brown, Oriental, and various faces and races. I think, also, and this came out of a question in the elevator today. We were trying very hard to find one or two non-humanoid crewmembers. Now, that’s difficult, you don’t get a lot of those in the actor’s guide they send you.

Audience Member: There’s always a dog.

Gene Roddenberry: Yes, there’s always a collie we could bring in.

Audience Member: A dolphin.

Gene Roddenberry: And a dolphin…

No, we would try for more non-human—and I think some other things we would try for is more instances of alien philosophies and religions. With the changing face of television, if you remember, Laugh-In came on the last year of Star Trek. This show greatly loosened up what you could do with sex and satire and so on. I was appalled after three years of “no open mouth kisses”—

[Interrupted by audience applause.]

Gene Roddenberry: In your fatigue, you go home to your wife and you say, “Watch it! That’s an open mouth kiss.” 

If we should do the show again, one thing that we would certainly be able to do now that the show is established and a format achieved is we would be able to happily use established science fiction writers more. 

As I’m sure you realize, both from reading the book and from talking to many of us, both producers and science fiction writers, that until we solved certain problems about science fiction and television and the economics and how long it takes to shoot and, “Hey, to do this costs $50,000,” and so on... Many science fiction writers now have become television writers. There had been very few, up to that point, established science fiction writers, who wrote in the television medium. Of course, television is a hard and demanding medium for, say—I think Isaac could develop this better than I, but it’s a hard and demanding medium for someone who has the total freedom of the novel.

If you want to say, “There is a city that covers a thousand square miles and rises twenty miles into the sky,” hey, it’s as easy as that. In television, what happens is your producer comes to you and says, “That’s the second new room you’ve had him go into and you get no more!”

Let’s talk about, can Star Trek ever return to television? 

Well, before I go on, let me say this. I would suspect that another thing would happen is we would develop and get more fan scripts, and find more usable ones than in the past, too. We had one or two instances of it. I think if the show had continued on there were a number of our fans developing into writers. They did discover that there’s a rather strange way to get a script in—you don’t just mail it, you get it mailed back because studios have liability insurance and of course their liability insurance has a requirement that scripts must be submitted by authorized literary agents. But we were beginning to develop a nice pool of writers that I expect to see in future years as a group of science fiction [and] of television and motion picture professional writers. There’s a great deal of talent out there.

About Star Trek returning. If I had given this speech six months ago, I would have said, “No, definitely not, it’s impossible.”

[Audience comment, unintelligible.]

Not that Paramount has come to me and said anything. In fact, I’ll be the last one they’ll come to. I think that there is a chance. I think, probably, the way it will happen, though, is probably through another medium. I suspect that, probably now, and there’s something else I didn’t believe would ever happen—I think probably now there will be a theatrical, reasonably high-budget Star Trek film made and—

[Interrupted by audience applause. Unintelligible comment from the audience.]

Gene Roddenberry: So far, most of my ideas are X-rated. But I’ll get over that. There are some fascinating areas we can go into, though. No permissiveness in film today. I heard a girl on the elevator ask another one, “Do you know what color Spock’s genitals are?” I must say, it never occurred to me. I’ll [unintelligible], but what the hell do they look like?

Remember to take this up with Phillips and Leonard Nimoy. Freddie Phillips, our excellent make-up man, I wish he were here. He could probably do thirty minutes on that.

Although there is a joke that wasn’t in the book, I don’t think. The joke of what really happened with the dummy. We had a show on Star Trek where we needed a mannequin, a woman’s mannequin.[3] We used it and Bob Justman had laid the mannequin on my couch to scare me or something one morning when I came in. Or to say, “Ha ha, I know,” or God knows what he had in mind.

He’d been sort of annoying me with jokes like that and things for some time. Of course, it was his job to say “no” to us as unit manager, but “no” gets annoying now and then. I knew that he was having a group of ladies into his office the next day. And if the mannequin or something was around, he would lift the dress and go, “Haha!” and of course the mannequins really are not equipped.

So I said to Freddie, “How are you on female genitals?” And he said, “What the hell do you mean?” I said, “No, you’re a make-up man, you know what they look like, you can reproduce them. The human body is well-known to all of us, right?” He said, “Oh, yeah, I think I could do rather well.” I said, “Well, I’m having a mannequin delivered over to you this afternoon, I’d like it back for five o’clock completely equipped.” 

So, she came back, indeed well-equipped, although my knowledge is small in these areas, it seemed quite well-equipped to me. I really haven’t lived, that’s one of the problems of—

[Interrupted by audience laughter.]

Gene Roddenberry: So, we put it in Bob’s [office]. He often kept it in the shower over there with a little dress on. Actually, I worked that night and then went home and went to sleep, and Bob got up the next morning. He had the ladies in about ten o’clock and he was showing them through the office and the secretary reports to me: he went to the shower, he opened the door, and he went, “Haha!” The one from Pasadena left the studio, she never came back.

No one said anything to Bob. He went right to the phone, he dialed my number, he woke me up, the first words I heard: “You son-of-a-bitch.” 

This young lady went the rounds of the studio and for all I know they still use it on unsuspecting clients. Thank God we’ve reached an era where something like that is not threatening or filthy, but is really sort of a joke on ourselves that we once thought so.

Now, back to Star Trek on the air. I think it is quite possible it could happen with Paramount, it could happen with a private group of investors wanting to purchase the rights from Paramount, or another network. As far as I know, there are no active plans, there are just people now in business circles beginning to say, “Yes, maybe, let’s consider it.” 

If it should happen, let me caution you about a few things, as I know I’m to come out the bad guy, because once you get some fans, you kind of like to hang onto them. What could very easily happen is Paramount could and probably would come to me with an unacceptable offer. This could come out of many things, it could come out of a praiseworthy American capitalistic attempt to get as much as you can for as little, or it could possibly come out of a maneuver to give me something unacceptable so I would refuse and they would be free to bring in another producer and another producing team. If you hear that I’ve said “No,” it’s not because I’ve deserted you, it’s because this is the nature of business. You can’t always say, “Yes.” 

I really fear sometimes...there’s new management there, it’s hard to say what will—we, in the creative end are always a little fearful of the business end because we have different jobs. We try to entertain, they try to make money for their people, and of course that we both do our job and very often it requires a lot of compromising. And sometimes a compromise is possible and sometimes it’s impossible.

But if it should happen, and it is reported to you that I have refused to do so, my refusal, I tell you in advance, will not be based on a lack of desire to do this show again because we still have twenty or thirty ideas we never got around to. We watch reruns ourselves and then we say, “Oh, would I love to do that a little better.”  And it would be great fun.

I’ve talked off and on to almost every member of the cast and the crew and outside of contracts that they might be in at a particular time holding them somewhere, they all welcome chatting about doing Star Trek over. We had a—

[Interrupted by audience applause.]

Audience Member: And Spock?

Gene Roddenberry: Leonard Nimoy might be the most difficult based on his considerable success as you know he’s been having on legitimate stage and in motion pictures and in other areas. He’s enormously successful. His talent continues to grow. His public appeal continues to grow. I’m happy to report that he also remains the same nice guy he was when he was on the show.

I think I’d give Christine Chapel a few more lines now. I could have cut my throat when I realized I was proposing to her and I’d had her say, “Yes, doctor,” for all these episodes. The residuals I could have been sharing. Poor Majel, she found out it doesn’t pay to sleep with the producer, didn’t she? Take warning, you [unintelligible]. [Unintelligible] a novelist, he’s probably more honest.

Let’s talk for a minute about television as a medium. I have so many questions. Why isn’t it better? Why can’t it be better? What is happening? In what direction it is going? And since I have been watching, analyzing closely, and since this is very much my business to keep abreast of it, perhaps you’ll be interested in a few items there.

Of course, the reason television doesn’t get much better year-to-year is not any lack of talent or desire by creative people. It has to do with the structure and nature of television, the economics of what it is and what it is for. It’s too easy to make it a case of highly creative writers facing evil, thoughtless, tasteless network executives. They exist, tasteless writers exist. What makes television bad is really something different. Television does not exist to entertain or uplift you. Television, you must understand this, exists primarily to sell products. To sell toothpaste, soap, items like that. The way it functions best is to sell as much of these products as—since it's very expensive, a minute of prime time can cost up in the six figures, you have to sell a lot product. You have to make that minute count. Therefore it must be aimed at as wide as possible [an] audience, a mass audience.

The job, from the business point of view, the men who have the option of picking shows and of putting them on the air and slotting them and keeping them there, what they must provide is a show that will attract as many as possible of that audience who will buy that product. Now very often if you’re selling something like soap, you need an audience that can be made to believe that the change of the soap will...her husband will love her, the children will sing gaily on the way to school and you want to get the people who you can stampede down to the supermarket and change it. Unfortunately, you people are a bad audience, you’re rotten. And thank God. You don’t stampede easily.

Although recent studies are beginning to develop that you are a different kind of audience for more thoughtful, different things and you do have a surprising amount of purchasing power. And I think we would have had a better chance to stay on the air if these new demographics had developed during our three years on the air, rather than beginning to develop as we left. Because you are a good audience, but you’re not a good audience for mass product and being stampeded. You don’t really seriously believe that guys if they get Karate, they’ll be surrounded by girls.

There is an audience, if they don’t believe it, they just don’t want to take a chance that it’s not true.

So what we will need to have any very serious change in the nature of television is different economics. We are convinced now, almost everyone in television is totally convinced now, this will come about very rapidly now through what is known as cable television. We see it that in the next few years, and a much shorter time than we ever thought possible, practically every home in the nation will be wired, will get their television via cable rather than by aerial, which will improve some rooftop vistas greatly. Then a way will be open to not use television only to sell product, but we can also have something of a type of pay television, which really in the end, will not cost the American people, I think, any more than—you pay for it now. You pay for a bar of soap, which you must use, you’re paying three or four cents of that price, you just don’t feel it.

With pay television, you will be able to put on a science fiction, aim it at five or seven ardent, thoughtful science fiction fans, charge fifty cents, a dollar, whatever the price is, and get your money back. And aim at that audience, they’ll longer be the minority. Television is today, unless you have fifteen million fans, you’re a failure. Eventually, we expect to see twenty or thirty different channels operating in a typical large city. You’ll have an incredible choice. It won’t all be mass television. You’ll also be able to tune in and get how-to shows, there will be educational shows, you can take a French lesson on TV. And I think this will revitalize the whole industry. There will still be commercial, free television, but the quality of the things that are available on the outside will force commercial, free television to also have challenging, exciting programs in order to meet the competition.

I have some more notes here. If Star Trek came back on the air, things we would do differently. I think almost certainly we would, I said something about religion, I’m sure that one of our writers would have come in with a Jesus Christ, Superstar type thing on another planet. I think of sex, of course, but we would be able to deal more honestly with politics, we would be able to mention or allude to red China. We would do many more comedies; comedies were among our most successful.

[Unintelligible audience comment about the blooper film.]

Gene Roddenberry: We would make more blooper films. We’d probably make them dirtier. Unfortunately, you’re seeing a very cleaned up version, because, again, these were made about four years ago and they reflected the trend of the time. What is acceptable has changed. I’m sorry they’ve been lost, but some of our very best jokes have been thrown away. This will never happen again; we’ll keep them in a private vault.

I mentioned stars, we would also try a return to the original production group of people like Dorothy Fontana, Gene Coon, Bob Justman—

[Interrupted by audience applause.]

Gene Roddenberry: Dorothy would finally write the story of the Doctor’s daughter. [Unintelligible], even if I have to pay her. Dorothy is here and you’ll be seeing her on a panel, when?

Unknown voice: Four o’clock.

Gene Roddenberry: At four o’clock today. We continue to work together. She’s also not [just] a business associate, but a fine, close friend. And I know you’ll... She’s my other girl, so say hello to Dorothy. Are you out there, Dorothy?

Now, to things that were most difficult in the show. I think that the most difficult thing is the one covered in the book. The loss of writer friends...the friendship of professional writers, fellow writers in Hollywood, who I’d known for years, and who I rewrote the first year. Writers hate to be rewritten and particularly when they wrote a very, very good script and I rewrote it and it was not as good. That was necessary, as you know, very often because when you start a show and there’s no show on the air to go by, the producer has to maintain a continuity. Mr. Spock must be the same next week as he was last week. And at the beginning, you must understand, Spock was a totally new character, the ship was a new ship, and so on. I regret that. I regret the professional science fiction writers I did not get to meet because of the problems of their moving into a new medium. And there are many fine ones around the country I’ve since met. I wish we’d been closer and we will be, of course, as I said, on any new show.

Ted Sturgeon was, I guess, the exception.[4] I’m a fan of Ted’s, he’s quite a guy. Instead of being annoyed, he would smile and say, “Hey, that’s very good, tell me why you did it?” We discussed television and he finally said, “Look, can I hang around the audience for a few months? I’d like to study and analyze what this creature is.” And he did. It’s refreshing to find that kind of openness and that kind of anxiety to learn in a man who is already totally established as the tops in his field.

I wish I hadn’t had the Harlan Ellison fights that went on. I don’t know how they could be prevented and perhaps things like that couldn’t be. But I respect this man immensely. I think he’s a young genius. I think he’s often an annoying young genius, but I would not hesitate working with him again because he’s very, very good. I would put certain ground rules. He could not eat our office plants. He must not send us scripts for [a] $185,000 budget show that would cost three hundred to produce. And then when I do it, say, “You’ve sold out, haven’t you, Gene?”

Audience Member: What about Spinrad?

Gene Roddenberry: Spinrad, of course. He was developing very well as a TV writer and as you know wrote some fine episodes.[5] I last saw him at Free Press offices in LA where he had written what I thought [was] a rather kind review of a picture I did. I dropped in to thank him and we had coffee. I think it’s probably the only straight drink that was being had in the Free Press office at that time.

Audience Member: How about Bob Heinlein?

Audience Member: Robert Bloch!