Harlan Ellison and Lennier

[B5JMS Poster]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: vonbruno at aol.com (Von Bruno)
Date: 22 Jul 1999 15:03:30 -0600
Lines: 84

<<Sure.  But they don't have every right to lie about the reasons for it for
over
a quarter of a century.>> benvarkent at aol.com

According to everyones account I have read (Roddenberry, Coon, Solow, Shatner,
Nimoy, Justman, etc...), except Ellison's, the same overall sentiment is
expressed. Harlan's script, as submitted to TPTB, was simply not ST: TOS as
TPTB wanted it to be, therefore, it was obviously reworked in order to meet
their needs (as was their right to do).

<<The two situations are not comparable in the way that you are trying to make
them ...>>

They are comparable in terms of how the original poster of this thread, Mr.
Bacon, used Ellision and "City on the Edge" within his post. I responded soley
to what he said and within the context and commentary of how and what he said.

<<Roddenberry didn't write "City".>>

I didn't say he did.

<<He worked on it after Ellison had
had the idea, and Coon and Fontanna had worked on it.>>

Which is basicly what I stated in my post. SO?

<<Or is this just another "Roddenbery was God" rant?>>

Not at all. While I am apreciative of Gene Roddenberry's creation and initial
work on ST: TOS, however, I also believe that after a certain point GR became
more a liability and detriment to Trek. He wasn't perfect by any stretch of the
imagination and I recognise that much of what people loved about the classic
Star Trek series wasn't of his own creation.

<<Yes, and those self-same PTB (Roddenberry) increased the amount Ellison's
script was supposed to have gone over budget every time he spoke of it>>

GR may very well have exagerrated the budgetary over run of the episode over
the years, so what?

According to Herb Solow, VP of Television production at Desilu, and Robert
Justman, associate producer of Trek, both have stated that the episode produced
was, though still over budget, made at far below what it would cost to shoot as
Ellison originally wrote it.

<<You're gonna have to be more specific here.  Please tell me you're talking
about the whole "Scotty dealing drugs" lie.>>

No, I am not talking about the "Scotty dealing drugs" bit, and GR did, in fact,
publicly apologise for that faulty recollection.

TPTB did in fact take issue with Ellsion's script having a crewmember indulge
in  recreational drug use, and that is something they simply didn't want to
have within their show.

TPTB had a vision of what they wanted their show to be, Ellison's script wasn't
in tune with that vision so TPTB tailored it to meet their requirements and
vision (as was their right), and the the end result was, in my opinion,
fantastic.

<<The lie that to believe, you have to believe that Ellison boasted about this
after a few drinks.>>

And I have good reason to believe its true as a friend of mine, who is a
writer, has attended writing confrences where Ellison has been a guest and has
mentioned to me that Ellison has indeed been known to drink alcoholic beverages
in the past.

If Ellison is indeed claiming he hasn't had a touch of alcohol in the past 40
years than, based on my friend's account, I have even more reason not to
believe what Harlan says regarding this issue.

<<Contradiction.  If, as you say above, they admit it was an excellent piece,
why
would they need to "save" it?>>

It is not a contradiction. Herb Solow, for example, stated Ellison's script
would have made a great theatrical motion picture, however, it, as Harlan
submitted it to them. wasn't Trek. Gene Coon and others "saved" it by taking an
unsuitable Trek script and made it Star Trek at its finest. Where's the
contradiction in that?

-Von Bruno-


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 24 Jul 1999 00:21:34 -0600
Lines: 48

><<The lie that to believe, you have to believe that Ellison boasted about
>this
>after a few drinks.>>
>
>And I have good reason to believe its true as a friend of mine, who is a
>writer, has attended writing confrences where Ellison has been a guest and
>has
>mentioned to me that Ellison has indeed been known to drink alcoholic
>beverages
>in the past.
>If Ellison is indeed claiming he hasn't had a touch of alcohol in the past 40
>years than, based on my friend's account, I have even more reason not to
>believe what Harlan says regarding this issue.

Von Bruno...your friend is a liar.  Pure and simple.

I've known Harlan more than 10 years.  I have met others who have known him for
50 or more.  He does not drink, ever, and never has.  Alcohol literally makes
him ill.  This is a man who can literally get nailed by an over-the-counter
painkiller.

Further, when Harlan was putting together the CITY book, he had a lot of the
materials out on his desk and open area where he was working.  He showed some
of them to me, including *the actual draft he gave Roddenberry initially*. 
It's aged and has all the marks of the submission draft.  It's EXACTLY THE SAME
as the one that won the WGA award.

It was NOT polished or changed, and Harlan did NOT say any such nonsense over a
drink because he does not drink.  How your friend could have seen something
that no other living person I have met who has known Harlan in 50 years goes
beyond belief.

Your friend knows what he's saying?  Then fine: I've put my name on the line
here, have your friend do the same.  Tell us who he is.  Where and when the
incident took place.  If he remembers all this, then surely he must remember
the rest.  

He won't be able to.  Because what your friend said is purest BS.

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com




-***
-*** B5JMS SUBSCRIBERS: Replies to messages go to the list maintainer,
-*** <b5jms-owner at cs.columbia.edu>.  If you want to reply elsewhere, adjust
-*** the "To" field.  See http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~ezk/b5jms/ for all
-*** other information about this list.