Saturday, December 26, 2015

Fact Check: Richard Arnold on Mission Log

Screenshot of Mission Log Podcast website (accessed June 2015)
In 2014, Richard Arnold – a former assistant to Gene Roddenberry and research consultant on Star Trek: The Next Generation from 1989-1991 – recorded an interview with Ken Ray and John Champion for Mission Log, a weekly Star Trek podcast produced by Roddenberry Entertainment. Since that interview was released, I've been asked by several readers to fact check some of Arnold's claims, particularly those regarding the original Star Trek television series. It has taken a bit longer than originally planned, but I can finally present this piece, which fact checks a number of claims made by Arnold during the course of the interview.

If you haven’t listened to it, Richard Arnold’s interview can be streamed or downloaded from the Mission Log website. It can also be found on iTunes, along with every other episode of the podcast. Readers of this blog will be particularly interested in Mission Log's Discovered Documents section, which features scans of story outlines, memos, call sheets, ratings reports, newspaper clippings, and more from Gene Roddenberry's private archives, including material unavailable in the public collections at UCLA.

In the interest of full transparency, I should disclose that I've met Mission Log co-host John Champion a couple of times, and briefly corresponded with him online about writing this piece. To date, I haven't met Ken Ray, nor have I met Richard Arnold, although I have seen Mr. Arnold at a number of conventions run by Creation Entertainment over the years. Some of Mr. Arnold's comments below have been slightly edited for clarity. I’ve included the time stamp of each quotation for those who would like to follow along with the podcast itself.
Still from 'I, Mudd' (1967)
The Enterprise Crew
[Roddenberry] wanted it to be half men, half women from the beginning and the network said, ‘No, the audience would think there's too much hanky-panky going on.’ He said, ‘Okay, we'll make it a third women and two-thirds men, because a third healthy women could certainly handle two-thirds men.’ He did whatever he could to try and make it as fair as he could, but again, he was fighting censors, he was fighting [NBC], he was fighting [the] front office, so there wasn't a lot that he could do in the original series, but he did have Uhura in a traditionally male position – communications officer – in today's navy, rarely female. 
--Richard Arnold on Mission Log: A Roddenberry Star Trek Podcast (2014), 1:02:03 - 1:03:04
Arnold is repeating an anecdote that Roddenberry loved to tell (it can be heard on the 1976 Inside Star Trek album). In short, Roddenberry claimed that NBC asked him to reduce the percentage of women on the Enterprise from being one-half of the crew to a more palatable one-third. To date, however, I've been unable to find any archival evidence that Roddenberry ever intended the crew of the Enterprise to be 50% female.

The first time the gender breakdown of the crew was even mentioned in the writer-director's guide was the third revision, dated April 17, 1967. That version indicates that the ship "has a crew of 430 persons, approximately one-third of them female." Previous versions of the writer-director guide, as well as Roddenberry’s early pitch document (dated March 11, 1964, it references a 203 person crew) contain no specifics as to the number of women onboard the Enterprise.

Other archival evidence, such as an August 12, 1966 memo from Gene Roddenberry to Joe D’Agosta, the show’s casting director, lead me to be further skeptical of Roddenberry’s claim that NBC wanted the number of women onboard the Enterprise reduced (the subject line of the memo reads, “female extras”):
NBC has requested that, for purposes of believability, we use more pretty young females in backgrounds, corridors, and rooms aboard the Enterprise. Can we see that more young women extras are used in these areas?
Still from 'Who Mourns for Adonais?' (1967)
Gene Roddenberry and Religion
Directors and actors would sometimes make changes on the set... There were a couple of occasions on the original series where Gene's very clear instructions in the Writer's Guide [that] we do not support [or] condone any specific religion [were ignored]... I think there were notes on his copy of the script that he sent out to everybody for ‘Balance of Terror’ when we were in the chapel and they were getting married: ‘Absolutely no religious symbols or dialogue.’ It had to be as generic as possible so as not to offend anybody, or at the same time say, ‘We're this,’ or, ‘We're that.’ 
--Richard Arnold on Mission Log: A Roddenberry Star Trek Podcast (2014), 17:02 - 18:38
No draft of The Star Trek Guide (one draft can be found online; all three revisions, as well as a plethora of related notes and memos, can be found in the collections at UCLA) contains any reference to religion whatsoever. It's possible that Arnold is remembering something from the Star Trek: The Next Generation series bible, although a version available online doesn't seem to contain any reference to religion, either.

Regardless, although on-set changes occasionally happened, they were strongly discouraged by Star Trek’s producers, as evidenced by several terse memos from Roddenberry to various members of the production staff early in the show’s run.

On the subject of 'Balance of Terror,' here's what the revised final draft (dated July 18, 1966, a week before the chapel scenes were filmed) says about the chapel:


Simple... a chapel designed to accommodate all faiths of all planets... 

Of course, it's possible that Roddenberry sent out the more absolute dictum that Arnold remembers, but so far I have found no evidence of this at UCLA.
Originally, at the end of the episode, McCoy scans Carolyn Palamas and she's pregnant, and the question is, is it going to be human or God? Broadcast standards did not want that in the episode! That was cut. I can't imagine them convincing Gene that he had to put in something about one God being enough. I can't imagine it getting by him. I can't imagine him saying that that would be okay. That wasn't Gene at the time, it certainly wasn't Gene later. 
--Richard Arnold on Mission Log: A Roddenberry Star Trek Podcast (2014), 19:15 - 19:50
Kirk's line from 'Who Mourns for Adonais?' ("Mankind has no need for Gods. We find the one quite adequate.") may have conflicted with Roddenberry's point-of-view later in life, but it was certainly in the episode's shooting script, and I've found no evidence that Roddenberry objected to the line in 1967.  There's also no evidence that the line was inserted at the behest of NBC's Broadcast Standards department. The closest comment on the subject from Broadcast Standards that exists in the UCLA files is a letter from Jean Messerschmidt dated March 15, 1967, which approved the story, but cautioned the producers to make sure, "that the religious aspects be treated with dignity and good taste."

That same letter also instructed the producers that "Carolyn's pregnancy not be treated lightly or as commendable," but allowed the plot point to go forward, at least at that point. Contrary to claims in These Are The Voyages – TOS: Season Two (2014), there's no evidence that network censors stopped the filming of the tag scene at the last minute (more on this to come in a later piece, I hope). Broadcast Standards may have ultimately nixed the scene during post-production, but thus far I haven't found any proof of this in the archival record.
Unfortunately, Gene Coon and Gene Roddenberry were taking a break, and this is a story that Gene Roddenberry told me, [because] Coon had died before I came out to L.A. He told me that they had taken a break, and they came back, and they didn't even know that they had shot [the tag scene for ‘Bread and Circuses’] that way. Even though it was the end scene for ['Bread and Circuses'], it was something they shot at the very beginning before they got back, so it was already in the can. I seem to recall Gene having gone out to the location at some point. I don't think he was even aware that this had changed. 
It was one of those, ‘Oh, God, how did this get by us?’ Because when Uhura says that one of their commentators on the radio was trying to put down their religion, but he couldn't, and Kirk just doesn't get it. ‘It's not because it was the sun in the sky, it's because he was the son of God,’ and they all had that knowing, "ah" look. 
It's like, Lord, that is not this show, and of course it wasn't. It wasn't the only time that things got by. It was a story that Gene and Gene had written themselves. It's not something that either of them would have put in...I think that got changed on set by either the actors or the director...I don't think that's the script they handed the actors. 
--Richard Arnold on Mission Log: A Roddenberry Star Trek Podcast (2014), 21:58 - 23:20, 28:43 - 29:01
In actuality, the tag scene in 'Bread and Circuses' was shot exactly as it was scripted by Gene Coon and Gene Roddenberry. It's not something that was changed by the director (Ralph Senensky) or one of the actors. Roddenberry may well have told Arnold that the actors or the director were to blame, but it's not what happened. Compare these September 14, 1967 page revisions (my transcript reflects some hand-written deletions and changes, as the script was being re-written by Roddenberry as the episode was shot) to the dialogue as aired, and you'll see they are nearly identical:


turning with interest to overhear:

                                       ... would evolve a philosophy
                                       of total brotherhood. Worship
                                       of the sun is almost always a
                                       primitive superstition-religion...

                                       I'm afraid you have it all wrong,
                                       Mr. Spock. All of you.


Kirk, Spock and McCoy turning toward Uhura questioningly.

                                       I've been monitoring old style
                                       radio waves, heard them talk about
                                       this? Don't you understand? Not
                                       the sun in the sky... the Son,
                                       the Son of God!

                                                  (half to self)
                                       Ceaser and Christ... they did
                                       have both. And the word is
                                       spreading only now.

                                       A philosophy of total love, total

                                       It'll replace their Imperial Rome.
                                       But it'll happen during their
                                       twentieth century.

                                       It would be something to watch,
                                       to be a part of. To see it happen
                                       all over again.
Still from 'The Corbomite Maneuver' (1966)
Production: Seasons One and Two
They started early, in the spring, shooting for September [of 1966]. They hadn't been on the air yet, and they were already through more than a dozen episodes, so that the people who were being brought in to write – and Gene wanted good, solid writers, and he wanted people from the science fiction community – there was nothing to show them. There were all the scripts they were working on, and the episodes they were cutting, but nothing had aired, nobody was a fan yet. 
--Richard Arnold on Mission Log: A Roddenberry Star Trek Podcast (2014), 12:56-13:22
Arnold's timeline is a bit off here. NBC’s pick-up of Star Trek as a weekly series was announced in Daily Variety on March 1, 1966. Writing assignments were handed out shortly thereafter, and the first story outlines were delivered by mid-March. By early April, John D.F. Black had joined the staff as an associate producer, and nineteen writers were working on eighteen different stories in various stages of development. On May 24, 1966, the cameras began rolling on 'The Corbomite Maneuver.' This was in (late) spring with an eye for a September premiere date, but it wasn’t particularly early in terms of television production. To draw a useful comparison, Mission: Impossible assigned stories at the same time that season, and began production only a week later than Star Trek, on May 31, 1966 (as reported in Daily Variety).

It is true that Gene Roddenberry sought out members of the literary science fiction community to write for Star Trek. Some, like Harlan Ellison and Jerry Sohl, had their work produced for the series. Others, like A.E. van Vogt and Robert Sheckley, were paid off for their proposed stories before having the chance to write a teleplay. When Arnold implies that the first season was through “more than a dozen episodes” and still bringing in new writers, however, he’s way off-track. The thirteenth Star Trek episode produced (counting both pilot episodes) was 'The Conscience of the King,' and it didn’t finish filming until September 21, 1966. By that date, 38 stories had already been assigned, including every story that became an episode of the first season with the exception of 'Arena,' 'The Devil in the Dark,' 'Errand of Mercy,' and 'Operation—Annihilate!' Three of those episodes were penned by producer Gene L. Coon, and the fourth by departing script consultant Steven Carabatsos. None were the work of freelancers (Fredric Brown’s after-the-fact story credit on 'Arena' notwithstanding).

It also isn’t true that there was nothing to show potential writers for the show. By mid-September of 1966, two episodes had aired and a half dozen other shows in various stages of editing could be seen. Even as early as March of 1966, when most of the show’s freelancers actually came on board, both pilot episodes had long been completed, and attendance records in the Roddenberry collection at UCLA indicate that dozens of freelance writers (including many literary sf authors) were screened at least one of the pilots. Prospective writers could also read the seventeen page writer's guide, the first draft of which was completed on March 15, 1966.
They always shot bridge first – same with [Star Trek: The Next Generation]. They would finish the bridge on any episode and then move on to the other sets. Meanwhile they're constructing whatever planet sets they need on their swing stage, and then they move there, and then they go back and start the bridge again, and so on. 
--Richard Arnold on Mission Log: A Roddenberry Star Trek Podcast (2014), 20:12 - 20:31
Shooting sometimes began on the bridge set, but this was not always the case on the original Star Trek. The schedule for 'Amok Time,' for example, began in the Enterprise corridor set and subsequently moved to Spock's quarters. The bridge wasn't scheduled to go before the cameras until the third day of production. 'The Deadly Years' started its schedule with planet exteriors, and then shot material in sickbay and the medical lab. The bridge wasn't scheduled until the second day of filming. 'I, Mudd' didn't shoot on the bridge until its final day of production. There are many other examples.
Film trim from 'Bread and Circuses' (September 12, 1967; source: Antiques Navigator)
With 'Bread and Circuses,' it's obvious they went off on location, but they shot all the bridge stuff first and anything else they needed on the ship for that episode. You don't go back to reshoot, not when you're under such pressure from the network to get the stuff out as fast as possible. They did not have the seven shooting days that [Star Trek: The Next Generation] had; they had six, and then eventually they were being almost forced to try and do it in five. It didn't happen often, but they tried [in] the third season particularly. 
--Richard Arnold on Mission Log: A Roddenberry Star Trek Podcast (2014), 20:32 - 21:02
Arnold is certainly right about reshoots; given the pressures of a television schedule, these were exceedingly rare on Star Trek, as they would have been on any weekly television series at that time. However, Arnold's other comments here are incorrect. A number of Star Trek episodes were shot in at least seven days – during the first season alone, when the studio was most lenient about overtime, a total of fourteen episodes took seven days (or longer) to complete. When Desilu became Paramount Television, the production was pressured to finish episodes at a faster pace – but at that point, they were trying to finish shows in six days, not five. In fact, the only Star Trek episode to be shot or scheduled for five days was 'The Doomsday Machine,' which was filmed before the Gulf+Western takeover that led to tighter shooting schedules.

The shooting schedule for 'Bread and Circuses' at UCLA is not complete – it only covers the first two days of filming – however, none of the scenes planned for those two days took place on the bridge (instead, the production planned to shoot in Bronson Canyon and the Paramount Test Stage). Although the daily production reports for 'Bread and Circuses' do not exist in the public collections at UCLA, film trims such as the one above suggest the shooting schedule was followed. In addition, revisions of the episode's "son of God" tag scene (by Roddenberry, who rewrote the troubled script as it was being filmed) include the dialogue as broadcast and are dated September 14, 1967 (the third day of production on the episode). All of the evidence suggests that Arnold's chronology of the production is simply wrong.
Still from 'The Empath' (1968)
The Gulf+Western Takeover and Reduced Budgets
When Charles Bludhorn, [at the] end of the second [season] and all the third, when it became one company, Gulf+Western, bought Paramount and Desilu, and they wanted to know why the show was costing so much. They were saying, Lost in Space or whichever series, I think it might have been Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, costs so much less, and Gene had to explain very patiently, and very detailed, [in] several pages, single-spaced, [that] they don't have to do this, they don't have to do that, they're set in the same time then we are now, we have to create all our costumes, etc. He explained why it had to cost more, but they still pared down their budget. It was pretty awful. I think they were doing it for just over a hundred thousand dollars an episode, which is horrifying now. 
--Richard Arnold on Mission Log: A Roddenberry Star Trek Podcast (2014), 21:03 - 21:56
The memo Arnold mentions here was written by Gene Roddenberry (based on detailed information compiled by Bob Justman) and sent to John Reynolds, President of Paramount-Desilu Television. It can be found in the UCLA special collections, but is more readily available on pages 298-300 of David Alexander's Star Trek Creator: The Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry (1994). In the memo, Roddenberry presents twenty-six reasons why Irwin Allen's Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea cost so much less than Star Trek (a budgetary comparison done by Justman at this time shows an episode of Allen's series coming in at $166,485, while comparable episodes of Star Trek totaled $189,696 and $195,674).

Additionally, while it's true that Star Trek's budget was cut further to the bone after the Paramount-Desilu merger (in fact, it was cut every season), Arnold's figure of "just over a hundred thousand dollars" is way off track. In actuality, the average budget per episode during the third season was a little over $179,000.
Still from 'Bread and Circuses' (1968)
Battles over Credit
[Roddenberry and Coon] turned the script over to a writer named John [Kneubuhl] and he added some things to it, and sent it back, and they said, ‘Okay, go ahead and do it in first draft.’ He did, and then he sent it back and they said, ‘Okay,’ and then he started to work on finalizing it, and it was just too much. His health wasn't good, and he finally said, ‘I can't do this.’ He turned it back to them and they then went back and started from their original story and Gene Coon took it through first draft, and turned it over to Gene [Roddenberry], who then kind of rewrote it and did the final version. The writing credits on it should have been story by Gene Roddenberry and Gene Coon, teleplay by Gene Roddenberry and Gene Coon. Gene [Roddenberry] never really battled that much for credit; he didn't need it. 
They find out that the Writer's Guild is going to do an arbitration on that script and they're, like, ‘Why?’ ‘Because John Kneubuhl wrote the script,’ and they said, ‘No, the one that he turned in and then turned back to us, we didn't use. We went back to our original and we went from there. We didn't use his script.’ Despite Gene making it extremely clear what the entire genesis of that script was, the Writer's Guild still went with John Kneubuhl and gave him the story credit, even though it was not his story, it was their story, and only gave Gene Roddenberry and Gene Coon the teleplay credit. 
--Richard Arnold on Mission Log: A Roddenberry Star Trek Podcast (2014), 23:24 - 25:08
It is unlikely that Roddenberry and Coon were surprised by the WGA initiating arbitration for 'Bread and Circuses.' An October 2, 1967 memo from Gene Roddenberry to Adeline Reilly matter-of-factly indicated that, "Although there will be an automatic arbitration in regards [to] the original writer, neither Gene Coon nor I want any arbitration between ourselves." Arbitration is automatic when someone who is a production executive (per the WGA, this includes all directors, producers, and story editors) “is proposed for credit and there are other writers on the project who are not production executives.”

Arnold's account of the writing process does roughly match a September 19, 1967 letter from Gene Coon to Mary Dorfman (of the Writer's Guild of America, West, Inc.), in which the departing producer detailed the development of the story and script:
Gene Roddenberry and I sat down and developed the story idea, which you have in your possession at this time, included among other pertinent material.  We then called in John Kneubuhl, gave him the story, which, while not completely developed, was considerably developed.  John added a few pages to the story, we had it approved and then he went into First Draft; then into Second Draft.  But he had many personal problems and his health failed him, and one day John called me and told me that he simply could not finish the screenplay and requested that he be withdrawn from the project.

This was granted.  At this time, I went back to the original story, the one written by Roddenberry and me, and wrote a brand new First Draft, with different structure, dialogue, character development, and so on, which you will see in the first mimeographed copy of the script.  When I had finished with a First Draft, Re-Write and a Polish, Gene Roddenberry stepped in and contributed a complete Re-Write, with new structure and character, based upon NOT THE KNEUBUHL SCRIPT, but upon my script, which was, in its turn, a complete original and not a simple Re-Write of the Kneubuhl effort.
That said, to date, I have found no evidence in the files at UCLA that John Kneubuhl was awarded "story by" credit for 'Bread and Circuses' at any time during arbitration. The episode itself gives the "written by" credit to Gene Roddenberry and Gene L. Coon, which matches the October 10, 1967 credit memo for the episode at UCLA.

Arnold may have been recalling the version told by Marc Cushman and Susan Osborn in These Are The Voyages – TOS: Season Two (2014). In that book, the authors claim that, "After arbitration, it was determined Roddenberry and Coon would indeed share the “written by” credit. Surprisingly, considering the story originated with the producers, the Guild determined John Kneubuhl would receive a “story by” credit. Of this, Kneubuhl declined."

However, Cushman and Osborn's account makes little sense, as it would be against guild policy to award "written by" credit when another writer was to receive "story by" credit. If someone does have evidence that Kneubuhl was ever awarded screen credit and declined, I would love to see it. As it stands, I suspect that the WGA ultimately sided with Roddenberry and Coon, and awarded them the full "written by" credit they receive on the episode as it was originally broadcast.
We talked about the other one, ‘A Private Little War,’ where, again, they had turned it over to Don Ingalls, who did a good job on it, but it wasn't what Gene wanted. He wanted to make his comments on Vietnam, etc., so he ended up having to rewrite it, but did not try to get the writing credit for it, but Don Ingalls was so angry with Gene that he took his name off it and used the name ‘Jud Crucis’ – Christ on a cross – because he felt he'd been crucified by Gene, and didn't speak to him for years because of that. And yet he still got the money for it, as John Kneubuhl got to keep his money [for ‘Bread and Circuses’] even though they never used anything that he did.  
--Richard Arnold on Mission Log: A Roddenberry Star Trek Podcast (2014), 25:14 - 26:05
While it's true that Roddenberry did a complete re-write of 'A Private Little War,' it's an exaggeration to suggest that he didn't use anything that had been written by Don Ingalls (who, after arbitration, received story credit; Roddenberry received full credit for the teleplay). Ingalls' story outlines and first draft teleplay certainly have their differences when compared to Roddenberry's final, aired version, but the broadcast episode's premise, most of its characters, and many of its narrative turns come straight from Ingalls.

Additionally, although David Alexander's Star Trek Creator: The Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry (1994), claimed that the pseudonym Ingalls used on the episode, "Jud Crucis," was shorthand for "Jesus Crucified," Ingalls himself offered a different explanation for the pseudonym in the pages of Starlog:
His pseudonym, which he has only used twice in 32 years, comes from 'judicious crucis,' which he describes as 'a form of combat in which two kings would send out their two Paladins to battle each other, rather than two armies. Whoever won the fight, won the war.' 
--Lee Goldberg, Paladin in Blue, Starlog (June 1992), p.37
For what it's worth, that same feature in Starlog also claimed that Roddenberry and Ingalls' "differences on the script...hurt neither their abiding friendship, nor Ingalls' fond memory of the series."

Regarding Arnold’s comments about money, of course Kneubuhl and Ingalls were paid to write. Whether or not their work was produced in part or even at all is immaterial – Kneubuhl and Ingalls were professional writers with a contract; they were not working on spec. Stories that were cut off before they even had the chance to become teleplays were bought and paid for the same as stories that became the episodes we know and love. Residuals, on the other hand, were another matter. Since they were based on screen credit, Roddenberry likely received a healthy share of residual payments over the years for both 'A Private Little War' and 'Bread and Circ,' thanks to frequent re-runs of the series following its cancellation in 1969.
Still from 'Turnabout Intruder' (1969)
The Ratings
Star Trek was considered a failure by just about everybody. Only recently has NBC or Nielsen, somebody has finally released the actual ratings for the original series. They were better than they admitted. They basically were telling Gene that the show [was a ratings failure. That was] one of their excuses for cutting the budget, I'm sure. 
--Richard Arnold on Mission Log: A Roddenberry Star Trek Podcast (2014), 41:05 - 41:28
In all likelihood, Arnold is thinking of the ratings conclusions of author Marc Cushman, which I've thoroughly examined and debunked previously. As evidenced by the Roddenberry papers donated to UCLA, as well as documents from the Roddenberry archives published on the Mission Log website, Roddenberry frequently saw Star Trek's actual Nielsen ratings during the run of the series, as well as ratings provided by Arbitron and Trendex. As a result, it would have been difficult for NBC to pull wool over his eyes regarding the size of the Star Trek's audience.

Additionally, it should be noted that NBC wasn't the entity that slashed Star Trek's budget during the show's third season – that was entirely Paramount's doing. NBC actually paid a larger license fee per episode during the 1968-69 broadcast season of Star Trek (the annual license fee increase was contractual).
[Gene Roddenberry] could have had it back on the air within a year. That was the first time they came back to him, when they discovered that the Nielsen ratings were actually wrong, and that the new demographics showed that it had been NBC's most popular show when they cancelled it – in the most important demographic, not overall, but in the 18-35. They said, ‘Congratulations, you just cancelled your most successful show.’ 
--Richard Arnold on Mission Log: A Roddenberry Star Trek Podcast (2014), 51:42 - 52:10
Many sources have made similar claims, suggesting that NBC did not have access to demographic information when they decided to cancel Star Trek. Shortly after the show’s cancellation, the story goes, Nielsen began measuring demographics, and NBC realized it had cancelled its most popular show with young adults.

The problem with these accounts is that they’re not accurate. In truth, Nielsen not only measured demographics in the late 1960s, but the networks considered demographics when they renewed or cancelled programming. NBC’s vice president of research even cited Star Trek’s young demographic as the reason for its renewal in a 1967 interview, despite the fact that the show had low overall ratings (read more about this here). You can read more information about Star Trek and demographics in this piece at Television Obscurities, which comes highly recommended.

Images courtesy of Trek Core.

Editor's Note: Roddenberry Entertainment recently announced "The 366 Project," which "will see one piece of Trek history posted to Roddenberry Entertainment’s social media channel each day beginning in 2016." How cool is that?



  1. Wow. I'd always heard the story that "We find the one quite adequate" was added at NBC's insistence; it's very interesting to hear that this was in the original script.

    But I understand how memories can become distorted, even when there's no intent to lie. I would have been prepared to swear on a stack of Star Trek scripts that Kirk's line was "We find the one quite SUFFICIENT," but I checked Chrissie's transcripts, and she agrees with you. Memory. It's not as good as we believe it to be. :-)

    Thanks, as always, for checking the facts and setting the record straight.

    1. Amusingly enough, I also remembered the line as being "sufficient," not "adequate," which is why I always defer to transcripts and the episodes themselves when quoting dialogue on this blog. Memory is a funny thing.

      In this case, the facts have basically been filtered twice. (1) Whatever Roddenberry remembered and/or chose to tell Arnold 25-40 years ago and (2) whatever Arnold can remember know from things Roddenberry told him at least 25 years ago.

    2. I do believe Kirk's very similar final line from "The Doomsday Machine" is the source of our collective miss-recollection:

      SPOCK: Appropriate, Captain. However, I can't help wondering if there are any more of those weapons wandering around the universe.
      KIRK: Well, I certainly hope not. I found one quite sufficient.

  2. Thanks for checking on this and setting the record straight. That interview was of particular annoyance with so many false and misleading statements. I guess I should feel sorry for Richard and how he inserts himself into situations AND timelines he was never even remotely a part of. He was in no way involved with Star Trek in a creative way EVER. TOS was produced 15-20 years before Richard was ever employed by Gene Roddenberry. His continual use of the phrase "We" in describing events that took place during the production of the original Star Trek, his speaking for others and offering statements as fact for decisions that he was not in anyway involved with is of particular irritation. Sad, Sad, Sad little man who in trying to elevate his own stature has globbed onto Star Trek and Gene Roddenberry as if he was a part of it - which we all know couldn't be further from the truth. During the first 4 years of STNG’s 7 year run he was Gene's errand boy, gopher and all around lackey, which is a polite way of characterizing his role. Within an hour of Gene's death, The person whom the writers of STNG referred to as “Chumley” was fired and escorted off the lot for good. 24 years after that fact he is still trying to mike the Star Trek cash cow with ‘Insider Information’ and presenting himself as some type of authority on Star Trek.