"City on the Edge of Forever" – great idea, poor execution
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Star Trek
grizzledgeezer — 9 years ago(October 02, 2016 11:49 AM)
When Harlan Ellison published the original version of "City" in the late '90s, I eagerly purchased an autographed copy. Reading it, I discovered its many problems. It had only taken 30 years to recognize them!
I sent a note to Ellison's publisher. He called several weeks later, politely thanking me for writing. We spoke all of 30 seconds.
"City" is not a drama but a melodrama, and it contains many logical and factual errors. You have no right to say I don't know what I'm talking about, unless you have a basic grasp of what good storytelling is about.
Interestingly, David Gerrold talks about these very things in
The World of Star Trek
, where he really rips into the series. Even someone as arrogant as Gene Roddenberry incorporated at least one of his ideas in
TNG
.
Now Anyone who cares may request a copy of my rewrite. You'll see how to tell a much better story by paying attention to character motivation and logic. Are you afraid that I know more about writing teleplays (this one, anyway) than Harlan Ellison? (My writing has been complimented by John Crye and Tom Skerritt.) -
alanr4447a — 9 years ago(October 02, 2016 02:13 PM)
This does arouse some interest in seeing what you're talking about, even bringing to high levels, and giving you a glimpse of my reaction to your discourse. In other words, you've piqued/peaked/peeked my curiosity.
So I would be interested in seeing it. Shall I PM you my email address? -
alanr4447a — 9 years ago(October 02, 2016 06:04 PM)
aroused some interest: piqued
bringing to high levels: peaked
giving you a glimpse: peeked
I welcome serious criticism.
KIRK:
Serious? Serious, Bones? It upsets the whole percentage.
("A Piece of the Action")
Well, start by changing the title to "The City on the Edge of Eternity". It refers to the same concept without the atrocious grammar. -
WyldeGoose — 9 years ago(October 02, 2016 06:36 PM)
I knew about the flaws in this episode from the start, and it took Ellison's novel to confirm them for me. What Ellison wanted was a real conflict between the characters, and Gene fought him at every turn on that. I could see that he tried to sneak the beginnings of this in the episode, but we all know what happens in the end.
My biggest beef with this episode, which Ellison did try to address, was Spock's interpretation of events. It is he, alone, that determines that Edith Keeler should die, based on what he was able to record from the Guardian of Forever. But I would counter that by having both him and Kirk then travel into the portal sometime after Bones that history is theirs to write as they see fit. He only sees a glimpse of what may be, and concludes that it could only be Keeler who is so influential that she prevents America's involvement in WWII. While there have been people who have been that influential, they are incredibly rare, and they often have a great deal of help in the process. Granted, it's television, and they only have so much time to tell a story, but this is what really should've been the big point of contention between Kirk and Spock, and something that Kirk should've held a grudge over Spock for, to allow Keeler to die by being hit by a car, when it's just as possible to allow her to live, to tell her that some things need to happen and they happen for a reason that do not make any sense at the time, horrible as it is. This is the kind of thing that should've caused a rift that would take years to repair. -
kerryedavis — 9 years ago(October 02, 2016 07:52 PM)
I would argue that if Edith Keeler died originally, then she had to die to restore the timeline as the Guardian stated. Anything else would be "playing dice with the future" so to speak. And for that matter, the Guardian might not have even let them return if they did anything else.
-
WyldeGoose — 9 years ago(October 04, 2016 07:11 PM)
That's basically correct. Edith had to die but in my version, her death comes about differently.
There are two themes to approach this with. I think what Ellison was trying to avoid was the Inevitability of History theme, which is that certain things in history are unavoidable. One of the reasons why I cringe at Spectre of the Gun is in the beginning of the Melkotian simulation, Spock is saying that history cannot be altered. But the mere fact that they have to go back in time to correct something Bones did indicates that history can be changed, so the Inevitability angle can't be used. I think Ellison was deliberately attempting to put a serious conflict between Kirk and Spock, something that they would, over time, have to get over, which is what Gene objected to (and mind you I don't necessarily disagree with that, given the episodic nature of the series).
I wouldn't mind seeing what you'd have come up with. -
WyldeGoose — 9 years ago(October 03, 2016 06:58 PM)
But, unless we see that change of mind of Spock, which is rather important, it didn't happen. I saw Kirk saving Keeler on the staircase as a normal reaction by anyone with a conscience.
Now, I want to say that my beef detracts from the episode at all. Given what I know about what went on behind the scenes, it's rather amazing this episode got aired at all (Harlan Ellison's own attitude didn't help matters). I still love this episode and I think it's great; but I can see the missed opportunity here.