Possible TAS additionEdit

I just stumbled on this brilliant discussion of the Kzinti in non-canon by Kobi, and it mentioned the original story Larry Niven submitted instead of "The Slaver Weapon", called "The Borderland of Sol" (later expanded by Niven into a Known Space novella).

I think this would be an excellent addition as a never produced TAS story, but I'd like to be sure about the details first. A google search for the source of the anecdote suggests it comes from a book called "Playgrounds of the Mind", a collection of notes by Niven. I know it's a bit of a longshot, but does anyone have this book, and if so, could he or she post this info? Capricorn 18:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, try asking Kobi, maybe? --Alan 04:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I had Jimmy Diggs ask Niven about the Slaver Weapon/Borderland thing last year and he forwarded the answer to me:
  • Email from Jimmy Diggs - 17 Nov 2006 20:08 UTC
  • In the meantime, here is Larry Niven's response to your question:
    • I did write "The Slaver Weapon" from "The Soft Weapon at the request of either Gene Rodenberry or Dorothy Fontana, I cannot now remember which. I had already tried several other stories on them. "The Borderland of Sol" wasn't rewritten from anything; it first appeared just as you found it. Tell Jan Hi for me. Larry Niven
So I'm not sure if mentioning Borderland as an unproduced script quite fits, because he also writes "My first attempt (quantum black holes) became the basis for 'Borderland of Sol.' " (Niven, L (1991): "The Lost Ideas", in: Playgrounds of the Mind.) -- Kobi 13:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all, sorry for not directly contacting you Kobi. As Alan said, it was the obvious thing to do, but for some reason I didn't think of it. Anyway thanks for your reply. Now, the way I see it is this:
  • As for your last paragraph, you don't think borderland is a valid source because you think of the novel. My fault, I messed up in my initial post, assuming the "borderland of sol" was the title of both the TAS proposal as the novella. From your mail, the TAS proposal seems to have been called "Quantum black Holes" (quantum black holes are also a significant plot point in borderland, that's probably where the confusion comes from)". Nonetheless, imho that changes nothing, then it's the "quantum black holes" story that deserves a mention.
  • However, still more info on the story seems necessary, as though the star trek script might have evolved in the borderland of sol novella, significant differences most likely exist in the story. The best recollection of the writing proces I found on this [1] TAS site:
(Quote from the Slaver weapon synopsis) As related by Larry Niven in his 1991 book Playgrounds of the Mind, in 1973, Dorothy C. Fontana asked Niven to write an episode of the animated STAR TREK series. His first story treatment involved quantum black holes and the Outsiders - a very alien species which were built like a black cat-o'-nine-tails using photoelectric metabolism. Fontana advised him that the story wouldn't work. His second attempt proved to be "too bloody." While at Gene Roddenberry's house one afternoon, Gene suggested that Larry Niven rewrite his short story "The Soft Weapon" which had been reprinted in 1968 in Neutron Star a collection of Larry Niven's stories. This third attempt became the finished episode "The Slaver Weapon." Interestingly, Niven's first idea which involved quantum black holes, formed the basis for his story "The Borderland of Sol" which was first published in the January 1975 issue of Analog magazine (see left). "The Borderland of Sol" was such an excellent story, that it won the 1976 Hugo award (pictured right) for best novelette.
  • At this point I'm very much confused, as both in this account and your last paragraph Niven claims that borderland was based on his earlyer pitch for TAS, while in your mail he claims: "The Borderland of Sol" wasn't rewritten from anything". Though I might be missing some context in said mail. Any insights? Capricorn 14:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Update: I've added this story to Undeveloped Star Trek: The Animated Series episodes. --Defiant 18:14, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Citations Edit

Can we get a citation on these? I think it's warranted so that someone off the street can't just put their name and say "yeah, i did an episode". — Morder (talk) 01:46, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, "undeveloped episode" could mean just about anything, including an idea any one of us might have had ten years ago. I think the criteria to be listed here needs to be fleshed out- is merely submitting a script that ended up being rejected by TPTB considered an "undeveloped" episode? How far down the chain does it have to go? Whatever it is, anything listed should be cited.--31dot 02:13, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
I added a PNA-cite to the page. From the introduction, I'm guessing most can be traced to Trek: The Unauthorized Behind-The-Scenes Story of The Next Generation and The Trouble with Tribbles, but as it is there is no way for a reader to know whether each entry comes from these or somewhere else.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 10:22, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
After splitting the page, I removed the pna-cite and added it to Undeveloped Star Trek: The Original Series episodes and Undeveloped Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes, since they are the series with heaps of uncited episodes.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 07:26, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

Q Makes TwoEdit

Is it worth a mention (and I don't think it would've worked for precisely that reason) boils down to "The Enemy Within", just with the whole crew?--Ten-pint 20:21, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Enterprise season 5 - request for comments Edit

This is something that has been bugging me for a while, but it seemed too big to do without discussion. So, I thought I'd just formally suggest it, and if anyone is opposed (or has other input, of course), please comment.

Currently Star Trek: Enterprise has a somewhat extensive section on what could have been in season 5. It's extremely similar to this page, featuring episode outlines etc. The info was logically placed on the Enterprise page, since that was some time before this page even existed.

But now it has become well-established put such information here. That makes it inconsistent, and completely unnecessarily so. There are to my knowledge no other groups of unmade episodes that are similarly on other pages and linked. That's probably because now that this page exists, I can't think of any scenarios where that would make sense.

So my suggestion is : instead this page linking to Star Trek: Enterprise and having the information there; put the information here and have a link from Star Trek: Enterprise.

Irc the idea has been floated a few times before by different people, but such suggestions seem to have flown under the RADAR. So, if you're opposed please comment here, Because if it turns out nobody really cares then after a reasonable period I'd like to just go ahead and move the info. -- Capricorn 17:28, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 02:18, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
it's done -- Capricorn 06:58, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Removed Edit

I've removed the following info – "BEM: Story outlines by David Gerrold dated 14 March 1968 and 4 April 1968." Apparently, someone doesn't know the meaning of "undeveloped," since this episode was developed (albeit for Star Trek: The Animated Series). Furthermore, the dates for the outlines are desperately needing to be cited. --Defiant 09:57, May 30, 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the original outline, but it seems far from unlikely that the TAS story was significantly different from how it was imagined for TOS. Episodes which were dropped and the premise then recycled into a new episode, even with the same name, do belong here. See Star Trek: Phase II -- Capricorn 15:08, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
It needs a citation first; but if it can be cited then Capricorn is correct.--31dot 16:50, May 30, 2011 (UTC)

I find Capricorn's post extremely hard to understand (particularly the phrasing and use of the double-negatives: "far from unlikely"). --Defiant 13:53, June 1, 2011 (UTC)

He is saying that just because an episode was eventually made for a subsequent series doesn't preclude its being listed here as "undeveloped" for its originally intended series. --31dot 13:59, June 1, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll accept that, on condition that we provide a link to how the episode ended up (something like "Although undeveloped for TOS, this episode was developed for TAS (see "Bem" for more information).") Also, the dates for the story outlines are yet to be cited and that's actually my main grievance about the note. --Defiant 14:33, June 1, 2011 (UTC)

The only source for the dates of the outlines (at least, that I can find) is here: [2] Since our canon policy deems websites as being an "invalid resource," though, it seems that the info still can't be added. --Defiant 08:36, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, iirc a lot of the undeveloped TOS stories are only sourced through that site :-s -- Capricorn 00:15, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I suspected as much. Having reread the canon policy page, I've realized that franchise articles don't actually have to follow the canon policy of what is and isn't acceptable; so, I think we can crack on with adding the website as a citation. Let me know if I'm wrong, but it's what I gathered! --Defiant 08:34, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. The whole policy needs a complete rewrite regarding background sources, which I might have a crack at after exams. The better question to ask when citing "behind the scenes" info is whether the source in question accurately reflects what happened. It appears the authors of that website have compiled it based on copies of the original material, so it's an okay citation in my books. It's certainly better than no source at all, and if someone can confirm it from a book, magazine or whatever they can do so later.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 11:26, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Having now further researched the episode, I can find no info specifically disputing that found on the website. Quite the opposite, in fact, as the fact that a sketch or sketches of the Bem character was/were submitted along with the first story outline can be confirmed (such as from the episode's audio commentary) and the book The Trek 25th Anniversary Celebration examines the narrative and story details of the two outlines, also establishing that they were submitted in 1968; it's just the dates themselves that I haven't been able to find another source for. --Defiant 11:35, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

A minor update to my earlier claim that those stories were only sourced to this site - This continued to bothering me so I've dug a bit, and I'm guessing that ultimatly the info can be traced back to the Gene Roddenberry Star Trek Television Series Collection. Also, can't this discussion be moved now that this page has been split? -- Capricorn 18:00, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Split Edit

Since this page is getting quite large (with a mega-table of contents), I believe it would be best to split it into pages for each series, like we did with studio model. The PNA-cite would be moved to the TOS and TNG pages, since they are the current sections with citation deficiencies.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 12:07, June 1, 2011 (UTC)

I support this idea (and have done for a number of years, since you're right – it is quite long!). --Defiant 14:36, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense, Support. Don't forget to reflect the change in the "undeveloped star trek projects" template though :) -- Capricorn 20:55, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

This has now been done, and I'm just cleaning up the links. I decided to split off DS9 and VOY even though there aren't many episodes now because I'm sure they can be expanded in the future, and it will save a lot of effort with links later.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 07:26, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

Spec scripts Edit

I suggest we make the grounds for spec scripts that (1) each script must have a WGA number, indicating registration with the WGA, and (2) each script must be accompanied by a claim that it was at least submitted to Paramount, if not actually optioned or sold. --Defiant (talk) 15:22, January 20, 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can make a claim, some sort of proof is what we're looking for. The WGA number could at least set the script in the right time, and at least suggests it would have been sent in, but we need something other than a random assertion that the studio at least received a copy. - Archduk3 02:26, January 22, 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree; if that sort of proof is required, we might as well scrap all the "undeveloped episode" pages altogether, as none of the entries have as much evidence as you're suggesting we need. --Defiant (talk) 04:16, January 22, 2017 (UTC)

"None" is hyperbole. There are plenty of sources we can use for these, but random guy's website is explicitly not allowed per policy. Someone printing something in a book at least required someone else to believe the claim, and allows for the studio or production personnel to refute the claim. These pages should be where these are "published" for that to happen. - Archduk3 04:27, January 22, 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "hyperbole", but I see one of the definitions is "claims not meant to be taken literally." Trust me, I definitely mean "none" literally! --Defiant (talk) 05:13, January 22, 2017 (UTC)

Then maybe you could explain what your reasoning is for that, since a large number of these come from a tier 3 resource. - Archduk3 07:51, January 22, 2017 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+