tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-739267574084387275.post1616925998408739195..comments2023-09-12T09:49:42.006-07:00Comments on Star Trek Fact Check: Fact Check: CBS Watch! Magazine (Star Trek Special Issue)Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00552147805234543255noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-739267574084387275.post-67279716972333726772015-07-04T15:11:04.985-07:002015-07-04T15:11:04.985-07:00Hi Will,
Thanks for your comment. It appears my ...Hi Will,<br /> <br />Thanks for your comment. It appears my original point was less than clear, so I hope you'll allow me the chance to clarify.<br /> <br />I in no way meant to suggest that your piece from 2007 was the source of the claim that Lucille Ball "was a producer on Star Trek." That head-scratcher comes squarely from the (uncredited) author of the CBS Watch! Magazine article that I fact-checked here, not you, and I apologize if that was in any way unclear.<br /> <br />The point from the CBS Watch! Magazine which I traced back to your article was this: "Using her pull as a studio head -- a rare amount of power for a female in the 1960s -- Ball was able to convince the higher ups to give Star Trek a second chance." What you originally wrote was very close to this account: "After rejecting the pilot, The Cage as being "too cerebral" - it's said Lucy stood firmly behind the show, prompting NBC to order a second pilot..."<br /> <br />According to Herb Solow and Inside Star Trek, however, that’s not what happened. NBC wasn’t swayed by Lucille Ball’s steadfast support for the show – they liked the Star Trek format, and wanted to give the series another chance, since they now believed Desilu could actually pull it off. If you think about it, this makes total sense. The network where Lucille Ball’s firm support would have had some sway was CBS (where she and Desilu had a firmly established, fifteen year business relationship), not NBC, which is why Gene Roddenberry and Oscar Katz’s infamously blown pitch to CBS was such a big deal.<br /> <br />None of this, of course, is to lessen Lucille Ball’s support for Star Trek. On that point, Inside Star Trek is abundantly clear – Ball’s support led to Desilu’s Board of Directors approving the production of the initial pilot and, later, making the commitment to go the series (after NBC ordered sixteen episodes). Without her support, it's unlikely that Star Trek would have been made.<br /> <br />Speaking of myths, here’s another one I’d like to tackle sometime: “After three seasons, the network canceled the show citing dismal ratings. Shortly thereafter, executives realized the most valuable audience segment - the favored demographic of males 18-49 were primary viewers. This is advertising gold. If NBC had known this fact before cancellation, Star Trek may have had additional seasons.”<br /> <br />I don’t mean to single you out here – this one has shown up in just about every historical account of the series beginning in the early seventies (from coffee table books to newspaper articles to academic studies). There's compelling evidence, however, that this isn't true. Re-cycling a bit of material I wrote elsewhere:<br /> <br />Paul Klein, the vice president of research for NBC, told Television Magazine in an interview printed in August of 1967, "A quality audience--lots of young adult buyers--provides a high level that may make it worth holding onto a program despite low over-all ratings." In a later TV Guide interview from around that same time, Klein claimed that Star Trek was renewed, in spite of poor ratings, "because it delivers a quality, salable audience...[in particular] upper-income, better-educated males." The "What About Demographics?" section of a terrific article at Television Obscurities (http://www.tvobscurities.com/articles/star_trek_look/) offers further insight and evidence contradicting the long-repeated claims about Star Trek's cancellation and demographics measurement. It's well worth a read if you haven't already.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00552147805234543255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-739267574084387275.post-19220239916885960642015-07-03T18:31:52.654-07:002015-07-03T18:31:52.654-07:00Devil's in the details? Yeah. But please, do...Devil's in the details? Yeah. But please, don't get lost in them.<br /><br />In my article relating the cosmic adventures of 'Star Trek's Mom' - in no way and in no instance did I ever call Lucille Ball a 'producer.' on TOS. I perpetuated no 'myth'. If the writers of this magazine misconstrued it, that's their misstep. <br /><br />The facts: Lucy DID firmly stand behind Star Trek, if she hadn't, it never would have seen the light of day. Ball approved the final financing for Trek - AFTER the order from NBC. Without that, Trek would never have been. Lucy endorsed Trek with the most powerful weapon in Hollywood - her studio checkbook. Without her confidence, you wouldn't have this blog, and I wouldn't have written my ST:TNG and DS9 episodes, nor my books on Trek.<br /><br />One can list as many names in as many production capacities as you want on who produced the 2nd pilot - etc - fact is they reported to their boss, Lucy. She had final say.<br /><br />She's ultimate reason the Starship Enterprise still warps today. Star Trek's Mom, indeed!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06902302055887077193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-739267574084387275.post-9571646489166518712014-12-28T19:13:16.459-08:002014-12-28T19:13:16.459-08:00Thanks for writing this! Now I have a place I can...Thanks for writing this! Now I have a place I can point people to when they believe something they read in that magazine.<br /><br />Another thing the magazine says is that Gary Mitchell was first officer of the Enterprise during "Where No Man Has Gone Before," but you and I talked about this before, and there's no evidence that Mitchell was ever the exec, plus there's evidence that Spock was first officer during WNMHGB.<br />Coryleahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16961220703672521166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-739267574084387275.post-55058533473254793822014-12-28T10:36:06.547-08:002014-12-28T10:36:06.547-08:00Quite right on "cryptomnesia." I've...Quite right on "cryptomnesia." I've fixed my typo there.<br /><br />Regarding "The Trouble with Tribbles," one could make that argument about the passage, although it doesn't get around the bizarre claim that the episode was the first episode of the second season. Here's a more full quote, for reference:<br /><br />"When they are first introduced in Season 1's 'Errand of Mercy,' the Klingons are presented as adversaries on the verge of war with the Federation. By the end of the episode, though, it's revealed that one day the Klingon Empire and the Federation will cooperate as allies. Created by Gene Coon, the Klingons were initially meant to act as a metaphor for Cold War era Russians (and later North Koreans) and weren't intended to exist past their appearance in that one episode. It wasn't until the first episode of the second season, 'The Trouble with Tribbles,' that the race began to emerge as the perfect foil for Kirk and Co., and would remain so throughout the rest of The Original Series." (Page 76)Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00552147805234543255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-739267574084387275.post-56101212172803916462014-12-28T10:16:24.437-08:002014-12-28T10:16:24.437-08:00Compounding the inaccuracy of the Mission: Impossi...Compounding the inaccuracy of the Mission: Impossible claim is that both M:I and Star Trek premiered at the same time. Herb Solow sold both Desilu series simultaneously. There was no series for Nimoy to leave. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03013528092908857360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-739267574084387275.post-64403491703549938732014-12-28T04:23:31.891-08:002014-12-28T04:23:31.891-08:00It looks like they got the title of The Making of ...It looks like they got the title of The Making of Star Trek wrong too, unless it was originally published under a different title.<br /><br />Also, the word is cryptomnesia, not cryptoamnesia. The Greek root meaning "memory" is -mnesia. The "a-" prefix is a negative, as in "no memory," and it's replaced with the crypto- prefix for "hidden memory."<br /><br />On the Klingons/"Trouble with Tribbles" entry, I don't think the article is claiming that the Klingons never appeared before "Tribbles," just that that was the episode that elevated them to the status of "perfect foil." After all, "Friday's Child" was a disappointing showing for the Klingons, so it wasn't until "Tribbles" that they were proven as a reliable recurring nemesis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com