Harlan Ellison Wants In On Star Trek 2

[pokerfan]

Posted on Tuesday, December 1st, 2009 by Devindra Hardawar

Harlan Ellison is a notoriously prickly fellow. Aside from his many works, Ellison is infamous for his decade-long feud with Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry after he rewrote much of Ellison’s only Trek episode, “The City on the Edge of Forever.” Now that the franchise is in the hands of J.J. Abrams, Ellison is offering his services for the second film in Abrams’ reboot (for a price, of course).

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/12/01/sci-fi-author-harlan-ellison-wants-in-on-star-trek-2

[PVnRT]

1. ...and I bet he'll make an enormous stink about it if they don't involve him

Christ, that man is one of the biggest prima donnas of all time.

[sarge43]

4. Take that to the bank. He'll make an enormous stink about it

if they do involve him. I love his writing, but he can be an asshole.

[Orrex]

18. He'll make an even bigger stink about if they DO involve him

That's how he rolls. And don't call him a science fiction writer or he'll kick you in the jimmy.

[Orsino]

2. A chance to write for Kirk without having to deal with Shatner or Roddenberry?

I'll bet he's interested.

[Giant Robot]

3. I was at Chicago Con one year

And he was one of the guests. I was walking around and happened to look up and see he was walking right in front of me. I wanted to go up and let him know I was a fan and really appreciated his work and his wit. Unfortunately I was too scared to go up to him, also knowing his infamy for eviscerating people who annoy him. My ego was not sure it could take that kind of hit.

[kentauros]

5. I'm really surprised that he likes Abrams.

I think he's just sucking up.

[Iggo]

39. Yeah. I'm pretty sure he'd be in love with...

...whoever the current director is, whether it was Abrams or someone else.

[SoxFan]

6. I think you can drop the "-ly" in "prickly"

He's a self-important, pretentious diva. As another poster said, if J.J. doesn't kiss his keister, he will have a pissy fit and badmouth the franchise.

Abrams also has a solid stable of good, young writers like Javier Grillo-Marxuach and Damon Lindeloff. Frankly, he doesn't need the grief that this would bring.

[Dr. Strange]

7. I Have No Job, and I Must Write a Screenplay

[Archae]

8. He still has the best line about Rush Limbaugh.

On "Sci-Fi Buzz" he said Rush Limbaugh's brain has turned into bat guano. :D

[rcrush]

9. He may be a jerk but he can make the Star Trek 2 better than if it was just Abrams on it

He writes some great stuff.

He did some great work on Babylon 5.

[EndersDame]

10. Indeed he would and indeed he did

:hi:

[Love Bug]

11. He was a consultant on B5 but never wrote any of the scripts

[rcrush]

12. A consultant on the new star trek movie would be good.

NO! JJ ABRAMS BAD! Stop Blowing up planets! NO THATS A DUMB IDEA JJ! YOU SUCK!


See? It could work.

[tigereye]

20. yes, just what I was thinking...

hmm, wonder what that ST episode would have been like had it not been rewritten by Roddenberry, considering it's such a wonderful episode as it is...

[Rabrrrrrr]

31. But, let's be honest - Lindsay Lohan could make it better than if it were just Abrams

Not to say Ellison isn't a god of writing; just to say that Abrams has set the bar pretty goddamn low.

[Fire Walk With Me]

13. Let's hope Abrams is smart enough to make it happen!

[LeftyMom]

14. There's already been a Star Trek 2. It involved Khaaaaaaaaaan!'s pecs, earworms,

and a bit of plot Fail involving Chekhov. Also, whatshisname
died, but he [python]got better.[/python]

[Deja Q]

15. Understandable. The first Abrams movie was about as much sci-fi as broccoli is a dessert.

Pity Abrams prefers making vapid parodies instead...

[Orrex]

19. It certainly was science fiction. On what basis do you claim otherwise? By what definition?

Surely you don't cling to that elitist myth that s/f needs to explore a societal moral or allegory?

[Orsino]

22. Science fantasy.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/05/08/ba-review-star-trek/

[Orrex]

23. So "Bob" declared it science fantasy on May 11, and that's good enough for you?

Okay...

[Orsino]

24. I was about to ask what the hell you were talking about...

...but I see that a commenter made the same leap implied by Plait's review. When the science in science fiction is gotten so horribly wrong--in places--science fantasy becomes an appropriate term.

[Orrex]

25. But the distinction is pointless.

It's just a pissing contest between the hardcore science geeks and the somewhat less hardcore science geeks.

And by calling it "science fantasy," you knock out some of the genre's all-time heavy hitters, such as Wells, Verne, and Shelley, to name just a few.

[Orsino]

26. I see nothing to fear in the distinction...

...and didn't mean to encourage any pissing.

When established science is ignored, knowingly or not, "science fantasy" becomes appropriate.

[Orrex]

27. IMO the science must serve the purposes of the fiction

It's an art form, after all, and not a dissertation. If that means that we get "wooshing" noises in space or dubious "black holes," then so be it. The story necessarily takes precedence over the physics.

Within the genre as a whole, science "fantasy" is looked down upon as inherently less "serious" than so-called "hard" science fiction, and for this reason I see it as a pissing contest between proponents of one sub-genre and another.

Perhaps there's "nothing to fear in the distinction," but I equally fail to see the value in it. For that matter, the science fiction that you describe (i.e., wholly consistent with established science) isn't "science fiction" at all; it's futurist fiction or alternate-timeline fiction.

[Orsino]

29. I hadn't gotten around to describing any particular science fiction...

...but almost no authors seem to bother keeping sci-fi entirely consistent with known science. Probably because so few of them are scientists.

You don't see much pure science fantasy, either. It's a spectrum that usually defies easy pigeonholing.

[Orrex]

34. Sure you did:

When established science is ignored, knowingly or not, "science fantasy" becomes appropriate.

You're clearly identifying science fiction as that part of the genre in which "established science" is not ignored. In fact, I can think of very, very few works of science fiction--even so-called "hard" science ficton--that didn't include at least some element of fictionalized science.

You don't see much pure science fantasy, either. It's a spectrum that usually defies easy pigeonholing.

Well, that's what I meant when I said that the distinction is pointless. It's just a matter of where the commentator decides to plant the goal posts at the moment.

[Orsino]

35. I think you've identified the point.

The goal posts can and do move. With less hard sci-fi being published these days, more leeway is given.

[Orrex]

36. Hey, where do you get off agreeing with me? I was looking for a fight!

:grr::grr::grr::grr::grr:
GRRRRRRRRRR!:grr::grr::grr::grr::grr:

[Rabrrrrrr]

32. Ain't that the truth? The only thing remotely "science" was spaceships

and some pseudo-futuristic interior design.

I would not put that latest Star Trek into the realm of science-fiction at all.

It's just meaningless purple prose set in space.

[Orrex]

37. So you probably don't identify the original series as science fiction, either.

I completely understand.

[Rabrrrrrr]

38. The original series was very good science-fiction (at its best)

with occasional forays into crap.

[Orrex]

40. But that's inconsistent with your earlier complaint

The only thing remotely "science" was spaceships and some pseudo-futuristic interior design.

There was no "science" in TOS whatsoever. None. And they didn't even make a token attempt at it.

How can you overlook in the original series what you condemn in the current incarnation?

And please don't invoke the old "it's the social commentary" argument, because none of the first 10 films offered any such insight, and when TOS did it it was ham-fisted and forced.

So let me see if I understand:

1. Bad science in TOS = "very good science fiction"
2. Bad science in Abrams' film = "it's not science fiction"

Got it.

[Aristus]

16. That would be totally awe-inspiring. Ellison can write like nobody's business!

Here's me with the Man Himself:



He may be a prick, but generally just to people who deserve it. Some people like a guy who doesn't suffer fools gladly. Me, I like Harlan Ellison because he doesn't suffer fools at ALL! B-)

I had the pleasure of having dinner with him and a few of his fans. He tended to dominate the table conversation, but hell, he's a great conversationalist. And he treated the waiter with courtesy, respect and an avuncular kindness that really warmed my heart.

Ellison finally getting a crack at ST would be incredible.

[tigereye]

21. wow, how cool! Nice to see some positive info about him

he's a brilliant writer, and if he doesn't suffer fools gladly, so be it.

[BlueJazz]

28. Oh..Man..That is double cool. Always loved his writing.

[AsahinaKimi]

17. He probably wants a chance

to either kill off Kirk and Spock, or to kill off the series entirely. Most likely end up with Androids running
starfleet..with little furry creatures.

[Rabrrrrrr]

30. It would be the best hope of Star Trek actually, finally, having a script worth watching.

We haven't had a Trek movie worth even half a shit since Star Trek VI.

[Orrex]

41. Star Trek VI was awful in a great many ways. Want me to list them?

[MilesColtrane]

33. "The Lens Flare on the Edge of Forever"?

Seriously, he could only improve on Abrams' "vision".