Star Trek (1964) [pdf](leethomson.myzen.co.uk)
leethomson.myzen.co.uk
Star Trek (1964) [pdf]
http://leethomson.myzen.co.uk/Star_Trek/1_Original_Series/Star_Trek_Pitch.pdf
131 comments
Not only that, they wrote part of this math into a monologue for Dr. McCoy, where McCoy was advising Kirk.
https://youtu.be/2237SaR75iw?t=83
In this galaxy, there's a mathematical probability of three million Earth-type planets. And in all of the universe, three million million galaxies like this. And in all of that... and perhaps more, only one of each of us.
Don't destroy the one named Kirk.
https://youtu.be/2237SaR75iw?t=83
> And in all of the universe, three million million galaxies like this.
> And in all of that... and perhaps more, only one of each of us.
It doesn't follow.
The bigger the universe, the more it contains exact duplicates of you. If the universe is literally infinite, it is obvious there exists an infinite number of you. We can see only a limited slice of it, but it's not a proof there are no duplicates of you in that slice.
> And in all of that... and perhaps more, only one of each of us.
It doesn't follow.
The bigger the universe, the more it contains exact duplicates of you. If the universe is literally infinite, it is obvious there exists an infinite number of you. We can see only a limited slice of it, but it's not a proof there are no duplicates of you in that slice.
should have countered with Level 1: An extension of our Universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_I:_An_extensi...
there's an infinity of Kirk
I read that and Carl Sagan's voice comes to mind.
If i recall right (from a documentary or interview with roddenberry) is that he made up the equation (though he knew of the drake equation) to justify that aliens exist to the people he was pitching to. I guess they just didn't believe that many aliens would exist.
>surprised at how jarring the math and background on page 2 feels.
>there is an endless firehose of pitches in-front of people with the money
>living in the hyper-optimised pitch environment
This does seem to be a pitch that worked wonders in such an environment.
On page 1 it says what they want to do, and page 2 its almost like exaggerating the upside of their market to seem mathematically infinite during a startup pitch.
Everyone involved already knew the finite (but huge) size of their (highly lucrative) market at the time, no need to elaborate about it.
Let science turn fiction into reality instead.
>there is an endless firehose of pitches in-front of people with the money
>living in the hyper-optimised pitch environment
This does seem to be a pitch that worked wonders in such an environment.
On page 1 it says what they want to do, and page 2 its almost like exaggerating the upside of their market to seem mathematically infinite during a startup pitch.
Everyone involved already knew the finite (but huge) size of their (highly lucrative) market at the time, no need to elaborate about it.
Let science turn fiction into reality instead.
I wonder, how has the calculation changed based on current knowledge?
Well given how much we have learned about exoplanets, I'd say that at least one number of the assumptions are rather moot. The "how many stars even have planets" can be assumed to be basically "all of them" statistically speaking. ( https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10684 ) and while we can't yet say much about the specifics of their composition (a spectroscopy of the light passing through earth sized exoplanet atmospheres is at the cutting edge of research, with people mostly still working on new instruments, and trying to find lucky candidates where we can get any reading at all with current instruments) but we can definitely impact the lower bounds a bit here since based on current data, about 1 in 5 stars is suspected to have an earth sized planet. ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.6806 )
So the "... if only one in a billion of these stars is a sun with a planet... ... and only one in a billion of these is of earth size--" is now " 1 in every 5 stars has an earth sized planet and if only X% are earth like"
So the "... if only one in a billion of these stars is a sun with a planet... ... and only one in a billion of these is of earth size--" is now " 1 in every 5 stars has an earth sized planet and if only X% are earth like"
Ronald D Moores “series bible” for battlestar galactica is also quite a fun read for fans. A copy is available from the same site, so clearly this person enjoys their sci fi.
http://leethomson.myzen.co.uk/Battlestar_Galactica/Battlesta...
http://leethomson.myzen.co.uk/Battlestar_Galactica/Battlesta...
>“series bible” for battlestar galactica
You mean the Book of Mormon?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob#Kolob_as_the_inspiration...
https://www.beliefnet.com/entertainment/movies/2005/05/born-...
https://www.deseret.com/2014/11/22/20553208/mormon-creator-o...
https://www.millennialstar.org/battlestar-galactica-and-morm...
http://www.mormonthink.com/glossary/battlestargalactica.htm
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-Mormon-themes-in-Battles...
You mean the Book of Mormon?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob#Kolob_as_the_inspiration...
https://www.beliefnet.com/entertainment/movies/2005/05/born-...
https://www.deseret.com/2014/11/22/20553208/mormon-creator-o...
https://www.millennialstar.org/battlestar-galactica-and-morm...
http://www.mormonthink.com/glossary/battlestargalactica.htm
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-Mormon-themes-in-Battles...
Just because I'm an Atheist, that doesn't mean I can't appreciate Tolkien, or C. S. Lewis. What matters to me is the quality of the material. Sure I found the metaphysics in the last season a bit much, I know plenty of people that didn't enjoy it on it's merits and that's fine it's just personal taste, but there was still plenty for me to enjoy so that's fine.
That came out after the BSG reboot
What came out after the BSG reboot? I've known there was at least some influence from mormon culture since the 80s when the original had several references, the biggest being, IIRC, Athena and Apollo's wedding where they used the Mormon words (for time and all eternity) vs the more common (until death do us part).
Book of Mormon - came out in 2011
Have you even seen the original BSG or the reboot? It's really obvious if you know anything about Mormonism.
"We take the Opera out of Space Opera"?
I quit watching after several episodes because it devolved into High School level drama of who is fucking you and totally unwarrented flip-flops every episode of people being loyal, betraying, hating someone then in love with them etc. And (mostly) starbuck screaming, crying then totally forgetting she was overacting in the next scene. It was simplistic, base, boring and not sci-fi. It was "drama" aka soap-opera.
I quit watching after several episodes because it devolved into High School level drama of who is fucking you and totally unwarrented flip-flops every episode of people being loyal, betraying, hating someone then in love with them etc. And (mostly) starbuck screaming, crying then totally forgetting she was overacting in the next scene. It was simplistic, base, boring and not sci-fi. It was "drama" aka soap-opera.
The cylons did not, in fact, have a plan.
Sounds like they were Lost.
("Lost" was an extremely promising SF show that claimed to have a plan, but was revealed not to. Which is unforgivable when the attraction of the show was figuring out the mystery. My own theory is that the wildly successful first season led to the writers purchasing too much celebratory cocaine, and subsequently just phoning it in, while the business people were happy to milk it like a soap opera.)
("Lost" was an extremely promising SF show that claimed to have a plan, but was revealed not to. Which is unforgivable when the attraction of the show was figuring out the mystery. My own theory is that the wildly successful first season led to the writers purchasing too much celebratory cocaine, and subsequently just phoning it in, while the business people were happy to milk it like a soap opera.)
It’s down to JJ Abrams style of writing. He’s frequently talked about his love for a “mystery box” where he believes a good mystery is better than fact. The problem with his writing is, unlike most other writers who use mystery boxes, Abrams doesn’t even know himself what is inside that box. And you see this across all of his work.
Frankly, I find him to be the most overrated writer and director in Hollywood because of this. I find everything he does to be borderline unwatchable. Though with his recent criticisms for Star Wars and Star Trek, it does feel like his audiences are starting to lose their love for him too.
Frankly, I find him to be the most overrated writer and director in Hollywood because of this. I find everything he does to be borderline unwatchable. Though with his recent criticisms for Star Wars and Star Trek, it does feel like his audiences are starting to lose their love for him too.
Yeah, I'd rather not see JJ Abrams touch any of my favourite things anymore. So of course it turns out two of his writers became the Rings of Power showrunners. Fortunately they seem to at least know what's in their mystery boxes, but personally I could do without them.
The Star Wars sequels definitely suffered from the fact that Abrams just threw a lot of shit at the wall to see what stuck, then Johnson saw it was all shit and took the story into a different direction, and then Abrams lost his shit in the final installment.
Can we please just get back to writing proper stories again?
The Star Wars sequels definitely suffered from the fact that Abrams just threw a lot of shit at the wall to see what stuck, then Johnson saw it was all shit and took the story into a different direction, and then Abrams lost his shit in the final installment.
Can we please just get back to writing proper stories again?
Unlike a lot of the old generation of Star Wars fandom, I actually liked a lot of what the sequels were trying to do, and I wanted to see a fresh, revisionist (even deconstructionist) take on the lore. Instead we got A New Hope for the third time and an incoherent mess of wasted potential and mutual sabotage between directors.
It's actually astounding that they would treat one of the most lucrative properties in history the way they did. Maybe they just assumed Star Wars was so big it couldn't fail.
It's actually astounding that they would treat one of the most lucrative properties in history the way they did. Maybe they just assumed Star Wars was so big it couldn't fail.
I am old generation Star Wars fandom, and I actually liked what The Last Jedi tried to do. It didn't really succeed, but questioning the Jedi teachings, or at least Yoda's approach to them, that drove Anakin and possible Count Dooku to the dark side, and that Luke had to ignore in order to defeat Palpatine, is an awesome idea, and one of the few things left to really move Star Wars forward at that point.
It didn't come out well, was muddled in other crap, and the whole trilogy was crippled by two arguing directors, but that basic idea was solid. If that was indeed the intention.
I also liked the first half of The Force Awakens, when it was still about the Search for Skywalker, before it turned into Death Star 3.
Combine the first half of TFA with the good bits of TLJ, and you've got a good story.
It didn't come out well, was muddled in other crap, and the whole trilogy was crippled by two arguing directors, but that basic idea was solid. If that was indeed the intention.
I also liked the first half of The Force Awakens, when it was still about the Search for Skywalker, before it turned into Death Star 3.
Combine the first half of TFA with the good bits of TLJ, and you've got a good story.
Well in star wars case, the executives are to take the blame.
They planned a trilogy without writing it? They just shot ⅓ of a trilogy with no plan whatsoever of what should happen next?
They planned a trilogy without writing it? They just shot ⅓ of a trilogy with no plan whatsoever of what should happen next?
You say that but I remember as far back as the 80s there being claims that George Lucas had planned 9 movies, including 3 prequels (which at that stage hadn’t been written).
Lucas then compounded things by selling the rights to Disney, a company famed for milking their IP.
Much as I enjoy the occasional Star Wars saga, I never really considered Lucas to be a great steward of the franchise either.
Lucas then compounded things by selling the rights to Disney, a company famed for milking their IP.
Much as I enjoy the occasional Star Wars saga, I never really considered Lucas to be a great steward of the franchise either.
agile movie development
loved Super 8. Have watched it several times. It's his best movie IMO.
Super 8 has a coherent reveal of the mystery box. Lost did not and disappointed at the end.
The kelvin timeline from when he rebooted Star Trek is sort of mystery box but then we learn who Nero is in a coherent way early on as well. I did not like that JJ destroyed Vulcan and frankly made a confusing alternate, darker timeline at all. The reboots are good movies but they were not good Star Trek movies. Missed opportunities to explore the Roddenberry style themes of humanity and deep moral questions under a backdrop of optimism.
The kelvin timeline from when he rebooted Star Trek is sort of mystery box but then we learn who Nero is in a coherent way early on as well. I did not like that JJ destroyed Vulcan and frankly made a confusing alternate, darker timeline at all. The reboots are good movies but they were not good Star Trek movies. Missed opportunities to explore the Roddenberry style themes of humanity and deep moral questions under a backdrop of optimism.
Speaking of the optimism in Star Trek... is it just me, or do Discovery and Strange New Worlds seem to be a bit "over-optimistic?" There's some really long scenes where they are trying to do an inspirational, optimistic Picard-style speech, talking about love and humanity and compassion, doing the right thing, etc.
Yeah those things are great, but spending 15 minutes showing every member of the bridge crew standing up, and repeating "we are Starfleet" every episode kinda starts to get old after a little while. The shows have been great otherwise, but I'm wondering if they are making this over the top on purpose, or if they are just missing the point a little bit.
Yeah those things are great, but spending 15 minutes showing every member of the bridge crew standing up, and repeating "we are Starfleet" every episode kinda starts to get old after a little while. The shows have been great otherwise, but I'm wondering if they are making this over the top on purpose, or if they are just missing the point a little bit.
Super 8 was co-produced by Steven Spielberg, which is probably why the mystery part of Super 8 is cohesive and interesting.
And if having no plan wasn't damning enough, the compounding crime was not at least being as good storytellers along the way as X Files.
I couldn't stand all the unbelivable behavior. When you don't know anything about someone yet, then you can be forgiven for falling for deception from them. But once you do catch them doing something inexcusable, why the f have you forgotten all about that an episode or two later? And then act all devastated when the already known bad guy is bad again later... Seemed to be happening in all different directions with all different characters at different times. I never watched more than a handful of episodes before I wrote it off as pointless contrived drama resulting mostly from inexplicable behavior from the victim(s)-of-the-day.
Just to be clear, X Files was never my favorite show, just another show that ended up having no plan, but mostly didn't piss you off for being stupid, so much so that it could get away with being aimless for a long time.
Another way to say it, X Files ended up being pointless, but it didn't feel pointless all along the way. Lost felt pointless immediately and never didn't (for the admittedly short time I gave it).
I couldn't stand all the unbelivable behavior. When you don't know anything about someone yet, then you can be forgiven for falling for deception from them. But once you do catch them doing something inexcusable, why the f have you forgotten all about that an episode or two later? And then act all devastated when the already known bad guy is bad again later... Seemed to be happening in all different directions with all different characters at different times. I never watched more than a handful of episodes before I wrote it off as pointless contrived drama resulting mostly from inexplicable behavior from the victim(s)-of-the-day.
Just to be clear, X Files was never my favorite show, just another show that ended up having no plan, but mostly didn't piss you off for being stupid, so much so that it could get away with being aimless for a long time.
Another way to say it, X Files ended up being pointless, but it didn't feel pointless all along the way. Lost felt pointless immediately and never didn't (for the admittedly short time I gave it).
I watched a video wherein Damon Lindelof talks about how they wanted to end the show after 3 seasons. With its success, ABC wanted the show to go on for 10. Apparently the network kept negotiating, not understanding the creators weren’t playing hardball, they wanted to end the show.
There has been plenty of hit shows prior to Lost, but I think it was one of the forerunners of the modern TV show, where the producers were planning on making something complete rather than just an infinite ratings monster.
There has been plenty of hit shows prior to Lost, but I think it was one of the forerunners of the modern TV show, where the producers were planning on making something complete rather than just an infinite ratings monster.
Lost had a plan. Then management wanted to drag out the phenomenon. So the story had to expand, it's how all those arcs that never resolved started. Then suddenly, the fad was over and it needed a quick close.
Kinda like how GoT fell off in the last season.
Kinda like how GoT fell off in the last season.
Game of Thrones suffered from overtaking the novels. It was less about being dragged out (in my opinion) and more about not having George RR Martin at the helm with a thousand pages material already written and waiting adaption.
Martin is famously slow at writing the books, but that lead to some really deep and complex storylines. However when you try to compress that process into < 1 year and with different writers at the helm as well, then you’re inevitably going to end up with something that feels rushed and stripped of any substance.
Martin is famously slow at writing the books, but that lead to some really deep and complex storylines. However when you try to compress that process into < 1 year and with different writers at the helm as well, then you’re inevitably going to end up with something that feels rushed and stripped of any substance.
I'm pretty sure one major reason Martin hasn't finished WINDS OF WINTER after over 10 years (never mind A DREAM OF SPRING) is that he he finds it easier to spawn new characters and subplots than to wrap them up.
I.e. the TV series looks bad compared to the books because they had to tackle the hard part and Martin hasn't yet shown he'll do better.
I.e. the TV series looks bad compared to the books because they had to tackle the hard part and Martin hasn't yet shown he'll do better.
That sounds fair too.
I suppose that happens in tech startups a lot.
(One of the main reasons a side startup of mine fizzled a few years ago was because neither of us wanted to be the CEO, and we didn't know how to find one we'd trust not to kill the magic that would get us the users in the first place.)
(One of the main reasons a side startup of mine fizzled a few years ago was because neither of us wanted to be the CEO, and we didn't know how to find one we'd trust not to kill the magic that would get us the users in the first place.)
They also had to drag Lost production a lot, if memory serves during season 3, due to the writers strike back then that essentially left the production with no material for some time.
Personally I loved Lost first seasons, then it rapidly went downhill, and recall the disappointment after watching the series finale. The series however in my opinion established a turning point in how drama is shown in TV series; I see a clear pattern in "before Lost" and "after Lost" series, so kudos to the creators.
One of the episodes did it right - it was a snowglobe. But that never went anywhere after that remark.
I skip any show that has only one central mystery. If they solve it, the show is over, so you know from day one it will be never be solved.
Lost was obviously in this category.
A five year mission is a much better premise.
Lost was obviously in this category.
A five year mission is a much better premise.
> unwarrented flip-flops every episode of people being loyal, betraying, hating someone then in love with them etc.
This is what I hate about most TV series these days, the writers value conflict over character. This basically prevents any actual character development, or even any character identity at all, as the character changes from episode to episode. This is what makes a series forgettable.
Roddenberry forbade intra crew conflict as a plot device, so Star Trek has identifiable character that people still remember. BSGs characters are already forgotten, because they lacked identity.
This is what I hate about most TV series these days, the writers value conflict over character. This basically prevents any actual character development, or even any character identity at all, as the character changes from episode to episode. This is what makes a series forgettable.
Roddenberry forbade intra crew conflict as a plot device, so Star Trek has identifiable character that people still remember. BSGs characters are already forgotten, because they lacked identity.
I watched "Beverly Hills 90210" for a while (shame on me), and eventually realized that all the plots were "given X cast members, how many episodes can one create that revolves around one member of the cast hooking up with another"?
I watched Melrose Place.
I watched couple seasons of Santa Barbara.
Ha! My grandmother lived with us when I was young and my parents hired someone to look after her while they were at work. I'd get home from school and she'd be watching Santa Barbara. When the Princess Bride came out, I already knew who Robin Wright was.
I remember that trumpet and drum opening music
Are there articles or reviews that mirror your view on Battlestar Galactica?
I only watched bits and pieces and it never quite connected with me.
I only watched bits and pieces and it never quite connected with me.
I never knew... the USS Enterprise was almost named the S.S. Yorktown.
https://www.cbr.com/star-trek-why-enterprise-yorktown/
https://www.cbr.com/star-trek-why-enterprise-yorktown/
It’s amazing how far ahead this was, compared to everything else on TV at the time. And that last scenario kinda reminds me of…
Yeah, that last idea has legs. Or at least eggs.
This is pure gold. The basic premise of many of those episode ideas at the top turned into actual episodes.
This is why they always tell startup founders to study how Hollywood pitches are done.
Putting together a good collection of these would be valuable to founders.
Not just for tech startups by anyone selling ideas... Writers selling novels, governments pitching policy ideas, lawyers defending clients, corporate workers pitching new ideas internally, etc etc
Putting together a good collection of these would be valuable to founders.
Not just for tech startups by anyone selling ideas... Writers selling novels, governments pitching policy ideas, lawyers defending clients, corporate workers pitching new ideas internally, etc etc
Thats all startup founders (and for that matter most Americans who want to succeed) end up studying. Beyond being great salespeople with great stories there is nothing else interesting going on in the mind.
Maybe you’ve been meeting different entrepreneurs than me because the vast majority of people with good ideas seem to suck at communicating them.
I hope they study this stuff and I’ve seen it promoted heavily in the HN/VC world, but in practice it’s rare to find well pitched startup ideas.
I hope they study this stuff and I’ve seen it promoted heavily in the HN/VC world, but in practice it’s rare to find well pitched startup ideas.
This is why they say not to worry about anybody stealing your idea: if it's any good, you will need to invent a really great story to get anybody interested.
Not a Star Trek related question, but I noticed that the title is printed in a special cursive font, while the rest of the document is typewritten. What kind of machine would have been used in 1964 to print a custom font for a one-off document?
Though I doubt the document was typeset (because it appears typed by a typewriter), before desktop publishing, and before typesetting computer systems, there was phototypesetting.[1] Because this is only a minor element on one page, I doubt it was phototypeset and instead merely pasted up with type tape... literally rolls of clear tape for every font with one letter on it repeated over and over in all point sizes. Lots and lots of these rolls of tape in production art areas. You cut off the letter from that roll of tape, stick it to the paste up, get the next letter from the next roll, stick it next to the first letter, find the roll for the lower case "a," cut it, trim it with an exacto knife, and place it, find the roll with the lowercase "r" in that font and point size, and so on and so forth. The tape was mostly used for last minute corrections, typos in the photostat type, wasn't really for typesetting a lot of copy, but using 8 letters or more of type tape wasn't out of the ordinary.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phototypesetting
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phototypesetting
The main text surely was typed on a typewriter. Computer printed letters didn't really start happening until 1980 or so. Around then I bought a Diablo 630 daisywheel printer. That would produce beautiful typed pages, but monospaced. The printer paper had sprocket holes which were torn off after printing, but if you ran your finger over the edges you could tell.
Proportional computer fonts weren't printed much until laser printers appeared, which revolutionized everything.
Proportional computer fonts weren't printed much until laser printers appeared, which revolutionized everything.
I doubt anyone had a laser printer at home until Apple's LaserWriter first sold in 1985 (for $6995!), but laser printing was first developed between 1968 and 1972 at Xerox Parc, with IBM selling the first commercial laser printers in 1976.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_3800#3800_Model_001
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_3800#3800_Model_001
Yes the technology existed, but it wasn't pervasive because it was too expensive.
This is almost certainly custom stationary; we called it Letterhead. Even before computers. You get it from a print shop, you roll it into your typewriter, and start typing. And try not to waste it, it's expensive!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letterhead
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letterhead
To me, this looks like the Brush Script font [1]. Probably Letraset [2] or a similar system. (Display lettering was the actual purpose of Letraset.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brush_Script
[2] Compare: https://www.pinterest.at/pin/brush-script-24pt60pt-letraset-...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brush_Script
[2] Compare: https://www.pinterest.at/pin/brush-script-24pt60pt-letraset-...
Back then there were several ways to do this sort of thing.
Rub-off dry transfer lettering like those from Letraset or mechanical pantographs like the Leroy were commonly used for technical lettering.
But it was probably hand drawn -- "draftsman" and graphic artists were found in all sorts of office settings that you don't see today.
Rub-off dry transfer lettering like those from Letraset or mechanical pantographs like the Leroy were commonly used for technical lettering.
But it was probably hand drawn -- "draftsman" and graphic artists were found in all sorts of office settings that you don't see today.
A pen, perhaps? Inksmanship, drafting, lettering all were much more common skills.
Could also be stickers, hot metal typesetting (unlikely), or even phototypesetting.
Could also be stickers, hot metal typesetting (unlikely), or even phototypesetting.
I don't think there was phototype in 1964. Probably Letraset.
I think phototypesetters arrived around 1974
I think phototypesetters arrived around 1974
> The use of phototypesetting grew rapidly in the 1960s when software was developed to convert marked up copy, usually typed on paper tape, to the codes that controlled the phototypesetters.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phototypesetting
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phototypesetting
Thanks!
In '64, this might have been reproduced on a Xerographic photocopier, although it's also possible it was reproduced photographically (to produce offset plates) if they were making a large number. Either way I suspect it's most likely the "Star Trek" lettering was done by hand, but another possibility would be pressure transfer lettering.
I think you’re right about the pressure transfer lettering. Letraset was introduced in 1961, and it looks like their “Brush Script” font. This would have been cutting edge graphic design when Roddenberry wrote it!
Just came to the same conclusion. (Sorry for the dupe.)
Yeah, that makes a lot more sense. Thinking about it more it would be surprising to me if a commercial artist or draftsperson worked on this document and did nothing but the header lettering... there's a reason technical reports from this period with hand lettering or diagrams usually also have an illustrated cover. It's in for a penny, in for a pound on having a commercial artist involved.
The way it worked in the old days is you would have a graphic designer make your logo, then you take it to an offset printing shop and they would make your stationery for you. Same with business cards, as made famous in that scene from American Psycho.
It could have been created the old fashioned way, with a stencil and ink. After being photocopied, it would look indistinguishable.
The very last plot idea, “infestation“, seems to predate and be kinda similar to the Alien franchise.
Seems like that's what eventually turned into the episode "The Child" of TNG. Which was earlier to be used in the never-made "Star Trek Phase 2" series a good decade earlier.
And even then, the episode only got made because there was a writers strike and they had to use scripts that were mostly finished already.
And even then the episode still sucked! It's currently ranked as the 170th episode out of a total of 176
And even then, the episode only got made because there was a writers strike and they had to use scripts that were mostly finished already.
And even then the episode still sucked! It's currently ranked as the 170th episode out of a total of 176
It ended up manifested, sort of, in "Lights of Zetar" (or, you could make the argument, slumbered in the concept space all the way to Strange New Worlds' "All Who Wander").
"Lights of Zetar" - first episode I ever saw; don't think I was even a teenager. (Didn't always get to stay up that late.) Scared the heck out of me...
Not sure if it was really that great. Maybe because it was so dark outside that night? But yeah, wonderful memories.
Not sure if it was really that great. Maybe because it was so dark outside that night? But yeah, wonderful memories.
Awesome collection! Pitch bible from He-Man Masters of the Universe is solid gold ;)
"Beyond the farthest galaxies viewed by the greatest telescopes on Earth. Beyond the limits of our universe lies another place - a place of magic, myth, sorcery and science. Through the cosmic clouds spins a solar system with a type three star twinkling in the ether of interstellar space. About the star rotate worlds inconceivable to mere mortal minds. They are populated by deities and demigods, sorcerers and sybils, men and women imbued with the powers of good and evil!"
"Beyond the farthest galaxies viewed by the greatest telescopes on Earth. Beyond the limits of our universe lies another place - a place of magic, myth, sorcery and science. Through the cosmic clouds spins a solar system with a type three star twinkling in the ether of interstellar space. About the star rotate worlds inconceivable to mere mortal minds. They are populated by deities and demigods, sorcerers and sybils, men and women imbued with the powers of good and evil!"
The D&D "Deities and Demigods" supplement was published in 1980; first ep of He-Man was '83.
I can't help but wonder if that phrasing was an instance of simple alliterative coincidence or if the He-Man showrunners were tabletop nerds.
I can't help but wonder if that phrasing was an instance of simple alliterative coincidence or if the He-Man showrunners were tabletop nerds.
You could ask @straczynski on twitter. He might know an he is usually quite happy to answer questions about past productions.
HN grok'd the reference in 7h.
I legit consult (D&D)^2 once a full moon.
And not just for my hostname Sumerian naming convention!
https://okaq.github.io/dieties.webp
I legit consult (D&D)^2 once a full moon.
And not just for my hostname Sumerian naming convention!
https://okaq.github.io/dieties.webp
Does that robot planet episode exist? It clearly exists in Futurama, just wondering wether that was inspired by Star Trek, or rather by that Star Trek pitch document?
Parts of it sound like "What Are Little Girls Made Of"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Are_Little_Girls_Made_Of%...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Are_Little_Girls_Made_Of%...
It travels around in a cube instead :)
In some ways I really love Star Trek. But you can see (like many things these days) that the initial paradigm has been carried through over the decades and it shows it's age and limitations.
For example, stereotyping (each "alien race" has its own predominant substantive characteristics) and glorification of the military are core parts of the structure.
For example, stereotyping (each "alien race" has its own predominant substantive characteristics) and glorification of the military are core parts of the structure.
It's interesting to see how the show ended up being both similar and completely different from this original pitch. Having grown up on TNG-era Star Trek, my first reaction to this document was, "WTF" and "no way in hell a person who wrote this should be let anywhere near the writers' room"[0]. I take this as a demonstration that one shouldn't be too attached to their first / original ideas.
> stereotyping (each "alien race" has its own predominant substantive characteristics)
Yeah, the so-called "planet of hats" trope is integral to the show, and spilled to many others (Stargate franchise being a good example). They did try to subvert it a couple of times, most notably and to great effect with the Cardassians and the Bajorans in DS9, and to a lesser extent with the Klingons in ENT. I wish they'd do it some more[1].
> glorification of the military
It doesn't sound that bad in context of the show itself, because the people are different. Starfleet may be a military, but (at least in TNG-era shows) it's one that's philosophically focused on everything else other than fighting and killing. For proper glorification of the military, nothing beats the Stargate series, SG-1 in particular.
Still, I'd argue that it makes sense in context. Even with the science fantasy of the franchise, by the shows' own numbers, every starship in Star Trek is a mobile, FTL-capable WMD platform. A single TNG-era photon torpedo is given a yield 30% larger than that of a Tsar Bomba[2]; TNG's Enterprise-D carried a standard complement of 250. Phasers are capable of (and shown to be used for) impromptu geoengineering. Impulse engines can speed things up to double-digit percentage of the speed of light. There's no way in hell a future with tech like this isn't thoroughly militarized - not because of potential of conflicts, but because of the need to control the tech that can casually wipe out life on planets.
----
[0] - My second reaction was, my God, Roddenberry knew how to pitch a studio.
[1] - I generally wish the new shows would work more with what they have. There's decades of continuous worldbuilding to take from, there is no need to introduce new strange aliens and situations every other episode.
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba - 50 MT for the nuke, ~64 MT for a Starfleet photon torpedo, based on its stated 1.5 kg antimatter payload and E=mc².
> stereotyping (each "alien race" has its own predominant substantive characteristics)
Yeah, the so-called "planet of hats" trope is integral to the show, and spilled to many others (Stargate franchise being a good example). They did try to subvert it a couple of times, most notably and to great effect with the Cardassians and the Bajorans in DS9, and to a lesser extent with the Klingons in ENT. I wish they'd do it some more[1].
> glorification of the military
It doesn't sound that bad in context of the show itself, because the people are different. Starfleet may be a military, but (at least in TNG-era shows) it's one that's philosophically focused on everything else other than fighting and killing. For proper glorification of the military, nothing beats the Stargate series, SG-1 in particular.
Still, I'd argue that it makes sense in context. Even with the science fantasy of the franchise, by the shows' own numbers, every starship in Star Trek is a mobile, FTL-capable WMD platform. A single TNG-era photon torpedo is given a yield 30% larger than that of a Tsar Bomba[2]; TNG's Enterprise-D carried a standard complement of 250. Phasers are capable of (and shown to be used for) impromptu geoengineering. Impulse engines can speed things up to double-digit percentage of the speed of light. There's no way in hell a future with tech like this isn't thoroughly militarized - not because of potential of conflicts, but because of the need to control the tech that can casually wipe out life on planets.
----
[0] - My second reaction was, my God, Roddenberry knew how to pitch a studio.
[1] - I generally wish the new shows would work more with what they have. There's decades of continuous worldbuilding to take from, there is no need to introduce new strange aliens and situations every other episode.
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba - 50 MT for the nuke, ~64 MT for a Starfleet photon torpedo, based on its stated 1.5 kg antimatter payload and E=mc².
Even if you are not a fan, the PDF is a very enlightening read!
"...blonde with a shape even a uniform could not hide"
It's shockingly misogynistic!
"...blonde with a shape even a uniform could not hide"
It's shockingly misogynistic!
Remember who the audience of the document is: powerful studio executives steeped heavily in the sexism that was the social norm for the era. They may not understand the philosophy of the series (and probably wouldn't have cared for it if they had) but they do understand that having pretty faces can improve viewer counts (not so different from today really) and they want to be certain that there's going to be ROI before doling out funds.
What you should be marveling at is that, for the 1960s, Star Trek TOS had highly progressive aspects, such as having women about a warship at all, let alone as officers and even the first officer. For comparison, in the United States Navy, women were not allowed to serve on combatant ships until 1994[1] and having the first woman to be assigned to command a combatant ship didn't happen until 1998[2]. Even I'm a bit surprised to discover that it was that recent.
[1] https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/browse-by-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_Nav...
What you should be marveling at is that, for the 1960s, Star Trek TOS had highly progressive aspects, such as having women about a warship at all, let alone as officers and even the first officer. For comparison, in the United States Navy, women were not allowed to serve on combatant ships until 1994[1] and having the first woman to be assigned to command a combatant ship didn't happen until 1998[2]. Even I'm a bit surprised to discover that it was that recent.
[1] https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/browse-by-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_Nav...
> in the United States Navy, women were not allowed to serve on combatant ships until 1994
Meanwhile, the audience had pleasure of dealing with a Starfleet fleet admiral Nechayev in 1992, and then rear admiral Rollman in 1993.
> having the first woman to be assigned to command a combatant ship didn't happen until 1998
By that time, captain Janeway was in the middle of the delta quadrant, stirring up trouble.
I wonder if the shows had any influence on the US Navy letting in women earlier.
Meanwhile, the audience had pleasure of dealing with a Starfleet fleet admiral Nechayev in 1992, and then rear admiral Rollman in 1993.
> having the first woman to be assigned to command a combatant ship didn't happen until 1998
By that time, captain Janeway was in the middle of the delta quadrant, stirring up trouble.
I wonder if the shows had any influence on the US Navy letting in women earlier.
In fact, many of the plots were used as a way to “sneak” progressive ideas past the network execs. Gene would have had to make them think he was a certain kind of person pushing a certain kind of narrative instead of who he was, pushing those progressive ideas.
Chauvinistic? Misogynistic traditionally meant hatred, and the way it has been redefined is genuinely bad for communication.
As others have said, while this looks exploitative to modern eyes it was in the context where having a women serve in the quasi-military context of Trek was almost absurdly progressive. At the time, NASA refused to contemplate putting women in space, despite the efforts of a shadow training programme (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_13) - far more misogynistic.
Trek also featured an interracial kiss (not quite the first, but nearly) at a time when interracial marriage was still illegal in several states. It was very much the SJW show of its time.
Trek also featured an interracial kiss (not quite the first, but nearly) at a time when interracial marriage was still illegal in several states. It was very much the SJW show of its time.
Eh, the bigger issue was Roddenberry was a Weinstein-type producer who hired women who he was sleeping with. "Free Love" guy who signed the checks. He's describing a particular actress who has been open with the star trek community about her issues. He is almost bragging that he could put her into a major role. (Even back in 1960s, this point in the proposal was creepy and barely appeared in the tv show.)
I think the end of that paragraph is more interesting.
> She is not dumb; she is very female, disturbingly so.
It is interesting how things change over time. The undercurrent in the character description for both of the women has big "she's real competent for a woman" vibes. I'm sure they were trying to be progressive and just stumbled over the attitudes of the era. Hey, we'll all be there some day, right?
> She is not dumb; she is very female, disturbingly so.
It is interesting how things change over time. The undercurrent in the character description for both of the women has big "she's real competent for a woman" vibes. I'm sure they were trying to be progressive and just stumbled over the attitudes of the era. Hey, we'll all be there some day, right?
Sexist maybe, not misogynistic.
Give some credit for the female Executive Officer.
Young Kirk was pretty buff.
Is it misogynistic to revel in the female form?
If it exists for males to revel in?
Yes, the male gaze is misogynist. I don't think that still requires explaining, it has been written about a lot.
Yes, the male gaze is misogynist. I don't think that still requires explaining, it has been written about a lot.
I'm guessing the word "misogyny" doesn't mean "woman-hating" any more?
I'm which case, why is it still considered a bad thing?
I'm which case, why is it still considered a bad thing?
Why is it considered by others to be a bad thing, to see women as lesser and to keep them down, just because they're women?
Let me give you an easy out here, and tell you my assumptions. I am assuming it also only took you a minute to look up the definition. And after reading it, then couldn't come up for a reason for others to judge that kind of behavior.
I am kind of stumped of how to actually reply to this, to me it is just pretty obvious that any kind of prejudice or bias like that is strongly unwanted.
Let me give you an easy out here, and tell you my assumptions. I am assuming it also only took you a minute to look up the definition. And after reading it, then couldn't come up for a reason for others to judge that kind of behavior.
I am kind of stumped of how to actually reply to this, to me it is just pretty obvious that any kind of prejudice or bias like that is strongly unwanted.
> Why is it considered by others to be a bad thing, to see women as lesser and to keep them down, just because they're women?
Eh? I thought you were using some obscure definition? What does any of that have to do with appreciating and making note of the female form?
Btw: this is kinda interesting: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncen...
Eh? I thought you were using some obscure definition? What does any of that have to do with appreciating and making note of the female form?
Btw: this is kinda interesting: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncen...
As stated, the male gaze is a form of misogyny.
Since you keep asking the same, here's some reading for you as well. It's not worth my energy to reply if your just going to ignore that and repeat your question. Best of luck.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze
Since you keep asking the same, here's some reading for you as well. It's not worth my energy to reply if your just going to ignore that and repeat your question. Best of luck.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze
A useful link for yourself: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
And a more complete list: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-th...
And a more complete list: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-th...
How is pitching a sexy women a women-hating thing to do?
The unaired pilot episode features characters very close to those described here. There's a "secretary has crush on her superior, he doesn't notice or doesn't care" cliche going on which would have been a feature over the whole series. Obviously making her physically attractive helps that plot point.
Of course that got axed after the unaired pilot episode, but in return the gender ratio took a hot with both the yeoman and Number One gone.
Of course that got axed after the unaired pilot episode, but in return the gender ratio took a hot with both the yeoman and Number One gone.
Heh, if you are a fan then you’ll realize women being sexy is integral to a good portion of the original Star Trek’s plots…of of course, Kirk being Kirk.
Then you actually watch TOS and start to wonder where did people get the idea wrt. Kirk from. He wasn't anywhere near the womanizer people accuse him of being - this seems to be one of those commonly widespread misconceptions about the show, up there with "beam me up, Scotty" (never actually said on the show), or "redshirts" being the ones to always die (someone did the math of casualties by uniform color, and red wasn't first).
If you want to find a womanizer in Star Trek, try commander Riker from TNG.
If you want to find a womanizer in Star Trek, try commander Riker from TNG.
Kirk wasn't a womanizer - it's just that all of the women liked him.
Some of it does seem odd to a modern audience though, such as the episode where he gets flirty with a girl hitting puberty in "Miri." The odd part was he was taken aback when the others told him that she liked him.
Some of it does seem odd to a modern audience though, such as the episode where he gets flirty with a girl hitting puberty in "Miri." The odd part was he was taken aback when the others told him that she liked him.
Tons of echoes of things that happened later in the various series. This was a fun read. Thanks!
Fascinating! Bones is just as described.
I'd realised a while ago that the 'ship' is the structure; the fact it's a 'spaceship' is a detail but it's very naval in organisation.
Lucille Ball's best or second best decision in television history was to greenlight Star Trek. It was not a straightforward process, requiring an unusual 2nd pilot.
It was fun to look for hints of actual episodes in the episode suggestions.
"Mirror" and "Charlie" for examples, and many others.
"Mirror" and "Charlie" for examples, and many others.
Great find. Tyrannosaurus in 1,000,000 BC though? More like 65,000,000
I wonder how Jose Ortega(s) becomes Hikaru Sulu or Pavel Chekov.
Apparently he became José Tyler in the series pilot[0]. And, of course, nearly 60 years later, we now have Erica Ortegas[1] named after that original character.
----
[0] - https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Tyler
[1] - https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Erica_Ortegas
----
[0] - https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Tyler
[1] - https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Erica_Ortegas
"eliminating the need to encumber our stories with tiresome scientific explanations"
Sigh.
Sigh.
Maybe you are assuming it would be actually "scientific". IMO, TNG Technobabble was one of the worst elements of the later shows and inspired a legion of lukewarm nerd bullshit.
Strong disagree. Technobabble inspired a generation of STEM people, and at least early TNG, when the show had proper scientific consultation, it was a delight. Problem came with the witers' attitudes and production cheapening out - ignoring internal reference works, treating exposition as something you can stub out with a "[TECH]" placeholder, to be substituted by some word salad after the episode is already written.
In fact, I think technobabble was critical to the effect of the show getting people into science and engineering, and its omission would kill that effect - it's because it delivered a message: any problem faced can be overcome with help of science and technology. Sure, the terms were bullshit, but all this talk about nadion particle counts and how many cochranes does the subspace field measure, etc. reads as "this is all things we can investigate, understand, measure, build machines around".
This overall feeling - that there's nothing out of scope for science and engineering - is a major theme of all Trek shows, and pretty unique to Star Trek. In other works of sci-fi on TV, the writers tend to be too busy writing character stories and focusing on people to the exclusion of everything else.
(I may be biased about this, because TNG and its technobabble are what got me interested in the sciences, and is indirectly why I ended up working in software.)
In fact, I think technobabble was critical to the effect of the show getting people into science and engineering, and its omission would kill that effect - it's because it delivered a message: any problem faced can be overcome with help of science and technology. Sure, the terms were bullshit, but all this talk about nadion particle counts and how many cochranes does the subspace field measure, etc. reads as "this is all things we can investigate, understand, measure, build machines around".
This overall feeling - that there's nothing out of scope for science and engineering - is a major theme of all Trek shows, and pretty unique to Star Trek. In other works of sci-fi on TV, the writers tend to be too busy writing character stories and focusing on people to the exclusion of everything else.
(I may be biased about this, because TNG and its technobabble are what got me interested in the sciences, and is indirectly why I ended up working in software.)
I agree with you about the technobabble in TNG and how awful it was. But I've read enough scifi that did have reasonable scientific explanations for things like a warp drive, they just didn't want to make the effort. I'm also annoyed by characterizing it as "tiresome", I don't find reasonable explanations tiresome at all.
Robert M. April :-o
Fascinating
It really feels reflective of a different era, coming from a modern perspective Id never dare include something like that, with a big "scary looking formula" that needed explanation text, in the first half dozen pages. I wouldn't trust the reader to care enough to keep reading one word past the formula if I didn't already have them reasonably invested in the concept. These days there is an endless firehose of pitches in-front of people with the money for all fields artistic, scientific, and financial ... Statistically your odds of making it past their initial selection process gets worse and worse and you’ve even seen some push back against this with more "shotgun" approaches to funding strategies, but this isn't as common outside the startup world. With risk appetites falling we get ever more obsessed with having the initial pitch be hyper-polished to the point I've seen people reference eye tracking studies while designing a slide deck layout, the last hope of "thoughtful consideration" having been extinguished as they try to ensure that the first few glances at their pitch deck slides might entice the viewer to look beyond the thumbnail.
So yeah living in the hyper-optimised pitch environment we have today, page two was a real whiplash moment for me... really just adds to how interesting it is to read this.