Book Review 65: Captain’s Log: William Shatner’s Personal Account of the Making of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier as told by Lisabeth Shatner

“I guess the way I work as an actor -- I say ‘I guess’ because I don’t consciously have a methodology -- is to ask, ‘How entertaining can this be?’ How many levels of expression are there in a ‘Hello,’ for example? What is really being said in this ‘hello’? The person the character is saying ‘hello’ to -- how well does the character really know him? Does he really mean ‘hello’? What has gone before that he is saying ‘hello’ in his own life? So that ‘hello’ can have many variations. And you can play more than one variation in the very ‘hello.’ And so, in the interests of not only my character, but in the pure idea of entertainment value, I have tried to keep as many balls in the air as possible when saying a line. That’s how I approached playing Kirk.”
Page 28

"Captain’s Log: William Shatner’s Personal Account of the Making of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier As Told by Lisabeth Shatner" is a fascinating look behind the scenes of the train wreck that was one of the 3 worst Star Trek movies in the franchise (Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Star Trek: Nemesis being the other two that vie for the title, depending on the day of the week). In this book, Lis Shatner spends time on the set chronicling the project from the initial development to the filming to the post production. She interviews here farther extensively, interviews the cast and crew about their experiences, and relates some of her own personal anecdotes about her complicated relationship with Star Trek.

This is a great book to read. It’s a look at just how this movie got made, and about how it could have been so much worse. If you've read a bunch of the other Star Trek cast memoirs and William Shatner’s earlier books, you are likely already familiar with some of the stories. For example, we hear about William Shatner stealing Leonard Nimoy’s bike again. Still, there is new material, and some additional perspective in this book that are worth the read.

If you haven’t read many other books about the franchise, this one is a great introduction and place to start. It covers some of the basic history of Star Trek production and how the franchise got to this point. If you find the material in this book interesting, then there are lots more Star Trek histories and memoirs to read for more details.

Lis Shatner starts discussing the challenges of growing up as Captain Kirk’s daughter. She talks about trying to avoid the connection and distance herself from her life as a “Shatner” as you might expect from a teenager or college student. As a kid, though, it was always part of her life.

When we got off, my father finally had had enough. “If I give you my autograph, will you promise to leave us alone?”he asked. “Yes, yes!” they cried, still jumping up and down. He hastily scribbled his signature on an eagerly proffered sheet of paper, and the girls magically disappeared. We were finally left as before, still trying to convince my mother to let us ride the Matterhorn. 

Page 11

At this point in my life, I felt a strange ambivalence towards “Star Trek.” I knew much of my father’s success as an actor was because of the series, and for that I was grateful and proud. “Star Trek” had also made him the magical, famous father who could sweep me out of my misery. But it was also “Star Trek” that had set me apart in the first place, making me an outcast and the target for so much criticism. I often felt that I had no identity other that “Captain Kirk’s Daughter,” and even joked that those words would be engraved on my tombstone. 

Page 14-15

A career in Star Trek often posed challenges for William Shatner’s family. He travelled extensively. It was hard to avoid fans. And his drive to always be working would sometimes distract him from personal concerns.

"It all became very apparent to me one day as I visited the special effects make-up artist, Kenny Myers, to check on the Vulcan ear molds. He showed me a pair of baby Vulcan ears, which we were going to use for the infant Spock. Then he said, ‘I heard the baby was sick.’ My immediate reaction was, ‘What—now one of the twins we’re using to play the infant Spock is sick? What else is going to go wrong?’ And Kenny said, ‘No, your daughter Leslie’s son.’ I felt an immediate, momentary relief that it was only my grandson that was sick! That’s when I knew the stress was beginning to get to me.” 

Page 69

The network almost didn’t air the original series in the sixties. The pilot’s plot was just not great. To here William Shatner tell it, his interpretation of the Captain Kirk saved the series and was responsible for it’s tone and direction.

So I went back to Hollywood and saw this pilot. I saw a lot of wonderful things in it. But I also saw that the people in it were playing it as though ‘We’re out in space, isn’t this serious?” I thought if it was a naval vessel at sea, they’d be relaxed and familiar, not somewhat pedantic and self-important about being out in space. It seemed to me they wouldn’t be so serious about it. And the fact that I had come off all these years in comedy -- I wanted it to be lighter rather than heavier. So I consciously thought of playing good-pal-the-Captain who, in time of need, would snap to and become the warrior. I broached this idea to Gene, and it seemed to strike a note. So the story was written, the pilot made, and ultimately it sold. The next thing I knew, I was to play Captain Kirk on a weekly basis. 

Page 27

It’s sort of a light-hearted version of Heath Ledger’s Joker saying, “Why so serious?”

Of course Shatner is making this movie more than 20 years after he created Kirk and he sought to portray the characters in a more serious manner and with greater symbolism. Of course, Kirk is always the most important one.

“Next, I introduced our three leading characters -- Kirk, Spock, and McCoy -- at Yosemite. It was only much later that I realized this rock climbing sequences was a mythological symbol of man’s trying to achieve greater heights, which is, of course, what the whole story is about. In any case, Spock flies up to visit Kirk while he’s climbing, then saves him as he slips and falls. McCoy watches the whole scene, and when Spock later brings Kirk back to the campfire from where McCoy has been watching, they discuss life and death, aging, whether Kirk was afraid, and so on as we introduce the themes of the movie.” 

Page 35-36

Perhaps it’s by focusing on these themes that the movie gets lost. Shatner unironically describes the movie this way:

“When they arrive on the planet the holy man has conquered, they try to reason with him. The reasoning escalates into fighting, and before it is over, the Enterprise is boarded by these primitives. 

Page 36

No one can argue that William Shatner is not committed to his vision, however. He insists on doing dangerous stunts just so they look perfect.

“Sometimes it’s just not worth it to do something dangerous because special effects can take care of it,” Ralph [Winter] commented as we watched preparations for the scene progress. “I wanted to do this in a matte shot … I don’t think I’ve sweated as much on a movie as I have today.” At this point, Ralph motioned towards the cliff. “I mean, look at this. I’d hate to think of how many people would be out of work if he hurt himself.”

Despite the objections, my father felt that there was simply no replacement for actually hanging off the cliff. “I know what I want to do is dangerous,” he said. “But I also know that if I get what I want, the shot will be spectacular. The audience can always tell if something is fake or not, and a shot of Kirk really hanging off a mountain is irreplaceable. My desire for this shot is overriding my tremendous fear of heights. I just keep reminding myself not to look down!” 

Page 111

Lisabeth Shatner asked Leonard Nimoy to compare his movies to the one Shatner was now directing.

Later in the movie, I asked him what the difference was between a Leonard Nimoy Star Trek movie and a Bill Shatner Star Trek movie. He replied with a laugh, “In a Bill Shatner movie there’s a lot more running and jumping.” 

Page 109

Shatner learned a lot of lessons in his first major on location shoot as a director in the desert. To begin with, he had to learn that the actors weren’t the only people that mattered on a film. His occupation was just a small part of a production.

At that point I thought, ‘I’ve always known directing was communicating to the actor. I never realized directing was also communicating to drivers and to everyone else.’ 

Page 122

Because the schedule was so tight and the budget so constrained Shatner did everything he could to get the shots he wanted and get them on budget. No one could accuse him of not working hard. Sometimes he worked a little too hard though and became too much of a control freak. He needed to learn not just how to communicate with non-actors, but to also let them do their jobs.

My father’s distress gradually mounted as he watched several unsuccessful attempts, until finally he exploded and started yelling. In a half-joking gesture of frustration, he even flung himself down on the ground and pounded the cracked earth. 

Unfortunately, his dramatic gesture didn’t solve anything. 

Page 119 

“Basically what happened was Bill crossed the lines … he was pushing too hard,” Ralph said. “I told him, ‘Your passion for the picture is both a blessing and a curse. The passion is what excites the crew, they like working for you … you make them feel good, you have a good time with them. But the downside is, you create panic. You’re trying to do their jobs. Let them do their jobs. Let Mike Woods decide where the fan is going to go. You tell him the way you want the wind to be in the camera, and let him figure out where to put it. Forget it. You get all worked up about it and it creates problems. Then you’ve got four cameras going; four operators, four lenses. four systems, four different exposures, and it just can’t all happen in a second … if we come back from location and it doesn’t look like location, then what have we accomplished’? Nothing … we have to show the vistas. We have to show that we were here. If it takes longer, if it puts us overschedule by a day or two, let’s do it. Because that’s what makes the movie great. 

Page 120

A Teamster strike complicated the film’s production. They had to use non-union drivers and other staff to get eqipment to location. The interesting aspect of this is that it highlighted the advantages of expereinced people because they lacked them here. Driving a truck and moving a wardrobe is about more than knowing how to drive and move things. Experienced staff develop other skills that don’t pop on a list of key skills. It’s about understanding the process and role better than those without experience. It’s about knowing what questions to ask and knowing all the “obvious” stuff that is only obvious with years of experience.

And there’s value to that.

The Teamsters are saying that it’s things like the expensive actors which are driving up the costs. So there is this dispute going on. But while some people may think the Teamsters are getting paid too much, the advantage is they very familiar with industry proceedings. They know to do certain things automatically, whereas people who haven’t worked in the business don’t. 

Page 126

Another fascinating aspect of the desert filming is that we learn Shatner really had no idea what a unicorn is in popular culture. Granted, he’s Canadian, but I don’t think Canadian and American cultures are that different with regard to unicorns. And Shatner had been living in the US for decades. But in the original interpretation of Sybok (originally named Zar), Shatner sought to come up with a symbol of Zar’s violent and evil nature. And the best beast to represent that was the unicorn. In fact Shatner envisioned a battle scene where the unicorn spears a guy and then continues the battle with the guy’s body still impaled on its horn.

However, in spite of making some of these major changes from the original story, they still kept some of the initial concepts my father had envisioned. The holy man, whom they called Zar, still was a relatively dark and violent character, who rode a unicorn throughout his interplanetary adventures. The unicorn was an extension of Zar’s violent nature, to the point where my father had envisioned a battle scene where the unicorn had speared an unfortunate soldier who lay writhing and screaming in agony upon the unicorn’s horn while Zar rode on in triumph. 

Page 51 

This change in Sybok’s personality and methods also spawned another development. “Once we changed his character we also had to get rid of the unicorn, since the unicorn was an extension of his violent nature,” my father explained. “Also, since I don’t go to many movies, I was unaware of how many unicorns had been used in some of these science fiction films.” 

Page 57

No one knew what color a Nimbosian horse (the former Unicom) was supposed to be, or at what height his horn should rest on his forehead. They went through several tests first painting the horses gold and placing the horn high up between their foreheads. After seeing the tests on film, it became apparent the gold color didn’t register well. The horses also balked at seeing the shadow of something strange between their eyes. 

Page 96

Budget and story problems would continue to haunt the film, even up to its climax. It still seems strange that the studios exercise so much control over the budget. As we see blockbusters in the theater today, it often seems like controlling budget is an afterthought, but perhaps that’s how it looks from the outside.

In this movie, the studio significantly reduced the scope of the ending, despite what Shatner wanted.

‘But each of those Rockmen were incredibly expensive. We had to make a latex suit in which a man could fit, and the latex had to look like rock. The estimate for all six was something like $300,000. It was way too extravagant. So the first thing 1 was told was that I could only have one Rockman. One! So here I had gone from this fantastic image of floating cherubim turning into flying gargoyles, then to six, hulking Rockmen, now down to one Rockman. It was one of the first lessons I had in the realization that the movie in my head was going to be different from the one in reality. But I basically had i no choice, so we went with it. And one Rockman was all I got.” 

Page 71-72

Lisabeth Shatner also interviews other members of the cast. There are some fascinating discussions in there that illustrate the relationships among the actors. Deforrest Kelly seemed the most positive about the film. Since she is interviewing them in the middle of production, it’s a little hard to tell. The film may also have looked great to the actors during the creation of it.

Q: What did you think of the script for Star Trek V? 

I think that it is interesting in that it’s entirely different from any of the others, which is refreshing. Four was a wonderful motion picture, and you think, what are you going to do after IV? My feeling about films is that you can never tell about them until they’re strung together and scored and you look at it. Very seldom do you ever hear anyone come back from dailies and say that the dailies look terrible. You don’t know until you see the final product. But in examining the script I thought that it had an awful lot of things going for it, and if it comes together the way we all hope it will, I think it’s going to have a little bit of something for all the Star Trek fans, and hopefully that thirty-five percent of the audience that we picked up in IV will enjoy it. We have a great deal of the humor of IV once again, there’s conflict, adventure, and some powerful drama. 

Page 180-181

Walter Koenig seems resigned the fact that Chekov remains an under appreciated character. It’s also interesting how he sees it as film about taking control of your own life and destiny.

Q: What do you think this film is saying? 

A: That ultimately you have to take responsibility for your life and for what occurs. I think that probably that’s what this picture is about... My feeling is that the principal statement of the movie is: You can’t rely on the supernatural and you can’t rely on forces beyond your control to shape your own life. You have to take it into your own hands. That isn’t to say you can’t have faith, religious faith, etc. But not to throw off responsibility and let some other entity assume it for you. I think this story—and I try to couch it in the most positive way—has to do with the three main characters. The supporting group is really ancillary to the story. … If it’s a story of family, it’s a story about the family of the three top guys. Maybe that’s supposed to be a microcosm of the greater family. Maybe it’s supposed to represent a larger type family, the entire seven crew members that the audience has gotten to know know, the entire Enterprise, the universal family. Maybe that’s part of the design in the screenplay. If indeed that is the case. it’s focused on the three main people, though. 

Page 189 

Q: What do you think your character will be remembered for? 

A: I don’t have the faintest idea … In several episodes and in three out of the five films, Chekov has suffered some kind of physical trauma [he laughs] and I am frequently asked “Why is Chekov always getting beat up?” I would like to think of Chekov as a character that has some sense of fun, that perhaps is not as institutionalized an officer as some of the others. That there’s some irreverence about him . . . and I don’t know what else to say because ; the opportunities have been limited as to how the character has been developed. 

Page 190

Jimmy Doohan is relatively positive about the experience, or at least appears to be investing little personal energy in it. His answers lack the anger that comes through in his own book. Again that’s possibly because his is talking to Lis Shatner during the making of a William Shatner movie. That may have had a negative impact on his candor. He tries to treat it just like a job and he’s looking forward to his next vacation.

Q: Any challenges in this movie? 

A: No, not really. I’m working. I’ve been an actor for forty-three years. At the end of twenty years, you’re supposed to be a complete actor. When I was about eighteen or nineteen. I started to feel that, because I’d been told that by my acting teacher. I said, “How long will it take?” And he said, “Well, depends on the type of work you get. It’s about twenty years.’ And you know what? I started to feel that, a sort of sense comes over you where you think, “Hey, I don’t care what they ask me to do, I can do it.” That’s the thrilling part of it .. And a powerful feeling, knowing full well that at this moment in the scene, even though you still have to rehearse it, they’re either going to be laughing about you making just one face or sound, or they’re going to be crying. Or all the feelings in between. That’s why when people ask me if I want to be a director, I say, “No way!”I’m satisfied being an actor. The rest of the time I’m terribly interested in seeing the country. My wife doesn’t understand why I want another motor home. Within twenty months, I drove 52,000 miles in one. I take trips to places like Phoenix and Portland and Sacramento, etc. and sometimes I’ll bring the whole family. I have six children all together. Four boys, two girls. Two boys are living with me in the San Fernando Valley. 

Page 200

This book covers a lot of ground without being too long. The reader can get an idea of how this movie went off the rails while it was being made. It also has a nice bit of Star Trek history in it. It’s a worthwhile and fun read for anyone who wants to know more about the movie and the franchise in general. Experts in Star Trek may find little new ground, but the perspective is still interesting. “Captain’s Log: William Shatner’s Personal Account of the Making of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier as told by Lisabeth Shatner” is a worthwhile read.

Book Review 62: The Happiest Days of Our Lives

“We’re not supposed to do this, but I’m a big fan,” [the gate guard] said,conspiratorially. With anyone who really was a big deal in Hollywood, he was probably risking his job.

“Really?” I said. “You seem a little young for TNG.”

He grinned. “Not Star Trek, your blog.”

This took me completely by surprise. I have been so busy with other writing projects that 1 haven’t been able to give my blog the attention I want. I’ve frequently considered putting iton hiatus for a few months.

“That,” I said, “is totally awesome. Thank you.”

He smiled and then looked over his shoulder at the other guards. He turned back to me, nodded tersely, and waved me onto the lot.

Page 104

CES ended a few days ago and I wanted to get in one more Star Trek book review before the second hand smoke and tradeshow carpet formaldehyde has completely let my lungs.

“The Happiest Days of Our Lives” is another great collection from Wil Wheaton as he becomes an even more confident and comfortable essayist. The theme for this collection is nostalgia -- not in a maudlin way, but in the vein of looking back at both the good times and bad times in life and being able to softly sigh with a smile.

Most of the stories are not about Star Trek. The one that primarily is talks more about the fondness the cast felt for each other and for the show. The contrast between how the TNG felt about their colleagues and their show and how the TOS cast felt about their colleagues and their show (as expressed in other books) is striking.

Wheaton had to return to the Paramount lot to do some commentary for a Star Trek documentary.

“Yeah,” I said. “I’m just overwhelmed by a sadness right now that I can’t really explain.”

“I understand,” [the producer] said. “This happens whenever we work with someone from Next Generation. I don’t know what it was about you guys, but every single one of you loved each other and remembers working on the show very fondly.”

Page 109

Wheaton tells the story of how how came to terms with his Star Trek relationship in an earlier book so there’s not as much here. Instead, Wheaton focuses on the universal feelings many of us faced in youth -- even if we didn’t wear a space suit.

A time when my life was simpler and easier, when I had the luxury of taking for granted that I would always have everything I wanted and my opportunities were as numerous as the little mirrored stars on the black velvet starfield that hung behind Ten Forward on stage 9. Stars that are, most likely, cut up into hundreds of little bits to be doled out at auction for the next decade.

Page 113

The sense of possibility as a kid is something that’s not confined to child actors. He talks about things like music and how they have an impact on us growing up. When he hears a song, it takes him right back to a high school crush he had on an older girl.

“How Beautiful You Are” by The Cure—Kiss Me, Kiss Me,Kiss Me, the first compact disc I had, and it’s a good thing,too. I love this record so much, I would have worn it out in any other medium. This was also during the “W + K 4EVR”phase, and, nerdy little artist that I was, whenever I heard this song I longed to go with her to Paris and dance in the rain together. You know what I just realized? I don’t think I ever told her that I was so fiercely head over heels for her, and she either knew and didn’t call me out, or I had the perfect combination of infatuation and insecurity to keep it to myself. I wonder where she is today, and how she’s doing.

Page 59

I especially love that line about going Paris. It’s corny and cheesey and evocative. And, really, what 15 year old’s feeling of passion are not laden with corniness and cheeseyness? It captures the spirit of the feeling nicely.

Wheaton’s memory exploration doesn’t just go to the 70s and 80s. He also stays in the more-or-less present when he talks about his kids. He can still see them through teenagers' eyes and express what they are likely feeling through the his own set of experiences, a couple decades longer.

I glanced at Ryan again. His right leg was bouncing along with the music, and his head was bopping just a little bit.Translation: Must... maintain... carefully... crafted... cool.but... losing... battle... against... the..rock...

Page 69

I’m not sure that’s a thought that a teenager would articulate.

One thing I find interesting in this context in the comparison in biblical imagery as a kid and as an adult. In this passage we hear the thought of a little kid in the latter part of the passage.

We arrived a few minutes early (a rarity with my parents,who would show up an hour late for the end of the world) and I was one of the first kids to slide into my desk, right next to my friend Matthew. I thought he was cool because he had a Bible name.

page 16

Here, it is clearly an adult articulating a feeling a kid might have, but not in a way the kid would ever articulate.

“Okay, that’s fine. Let’s just go,” she said. I thought of looking back wistfully over my shoulder at the Millennium Falcon, but I was so ashamed of myself, I was certain that I’d be turned into a pillar of carbonite. Instead, I trailed behind my airplane-zooming brother and nap-needing sister while my mother pushed the cart up to the checkout.

page 44

Still, Wheaton tries to keep his own feelings in mind as he writes about his kids.

The nearest Cold Stone is in the mall, and it’s a bit of an ordeal to get there, park the car, walk across the whole place,deal with the inevitable mob of teenagers, blah blah blah get off my lawn, but when I was a kid and my dad took me for unannounced ice cream, I thought it was the coolest thing in the world.

page 47

And Wheaton takes joy in the subtle ironies of living in LA.

I turned his card over in my hand. His office at Walt Disney Studios on one side, the address to an illegal poker game on the other.

Sometimes, I love this town.

Page 134

While there is a strong focus on Wheaton’s younger years, it is not a book about a child actor. The acting is on the periphery of the story. He’s just a kid hanging out with his friends, going to school, and visiting relatives, and those feelings carry into the story. Wheaton’s story as a child actor may be an interesting one, but it’s not one he’s trying to tell. Instead, he tells as many “ordinary” stories as possible.

I feel I should call out one story in particular that had me cursing him like Sheldon. “Let Go -- A Requiem for Felix the Bear” is the story of a cat that adopts the Wheatons as its people. With the title of the story, it’s no secret that the cat dies at the end. The story is a heartfelt tribute with agonizing sadness as Wheaton tells us of this beloved and powerful animal. I don’t know how you can read it without tearing up. Of all the essays in the book, it has the most raw emotional power. It’s almost a little out of place with its tone, but I’m glad it’s in here.

If you’re a regular reader of Wheaton’s blog, or have seen him speak (I heard him read two of these stories at Emerald City Comic Con in 2009) you may already be familiar with the material. Much of it has already appeared on line. So why pick up a copy of the book?

Curration. This is a collection of the key stories Wheaton needs to tell. There’s a strong theme running through the book about awkwardly trying to make your way in the world -- as a kid, as a child star, as an adult, as a teenager, and even as a tough, old cat. Wheaton is able to tell a story and take us on a trip with this material, in a way the Nick Meyer couldn’t in his much broader book.

If you’re a fan of good story-tell, nostalgia, or of Wheaton, pick up “The Happiest Days of Our Lives.” It’s a quick read and a great book. Just save some tissues for Felix.

For more Star Trek book reviews, click here.

For more general book reviews, click here.

Book Review 61: The View from the Bridge

When I began to focus on work I made myself a new rule: no speech in a screenplay by me was going to be more than ten lines long. This restriction was a killer. I was going to have to learn to write all over again, write in a way where literacy itself was a disadvantage. Later, watching the work of Steven Spielberg, I understand how much my verbal facility worked against me. It's better if you can think in pictures. What happens to your scene when you turn off the sound in your head?

Another rule: how many pages can you write of a screenplay before it is absolutely necessary for someone to speak?
Page 32

Nicholas Meyer, the man who saved the Star Trek movie franchise with his scripts for Star Treks II and VI has written an interesting book called The View from the Bridge: Memories of Star Trek and a Life in Hollywood. Is this a good book worth reading? The short answer is no; the longer answer is much more complicated. There’s a lot of good stuff in there, but the package doesn’t quite hold up. It feels like the book is 2 or 3 drafts away from being great.

The problem is that while it’s intended to be a memoir, it lacks a story. A good memoir tells the story of the person writing it. It’s not a catalog of events in that person’s life. It has to go beyond that. A View from the Bridge does not.

That being said, there are germs of that here. The sections where Meyer talks about the two Star Trek movies are fascinating. His story about making “The Day After” and about his work on Don Quixote are also excellent. The reason for that is that Meyer’s passion and excitement come through. He's really trying to tell us something in these sections. In other parts of the book, when he’s talking about his first successes and his other movies, I can see that he’s excited about them, but it leaves me feeling, “Good for you!” I don’t mean that sarcastically. The problem with that is I don’t feel as strong a connection to what he’s talking about. He’s listing events in his life, but not telling us a bigger story.

I think Meyer has a story in here, but it needs more digging. His meditations on writing, language, cinema, art, and more are fascinating, but they get lost in the narrative. I think this is a book I’ll be talking about more over the course of the year, as I use different paragraphs as jumping off points for deeper discussions.

That’s the big disappointment I have with this book. There’s a lot of really good stuff in there. It’s just lost among the other stuff.

Now I’ll get more specific about some of the interesting areas.

Meyer has one of the most positive opinions of William Shatner that I’ve read in any of the Star Trek related books (except, of course, for those written by Shatner and possibly Leonard Nimoy).

As part of my ongoing cinematic education, I was now learning how to write for a star. As a man, William Shatner is refreshingly free of ego. He is polite, attentive, unassuming, interested in other people and what they do. But as a leading actor, he is very protective, particularly of Kirk, his screen persona. Once I understood the paradoxical duality—not ego, but enormous vanity—of his character, it became easier to understand and address his concerns. Put simply (perhaps too simply), he wanted to be the first man through the door. If the messenger delivered the message, he didn't want that messenger to tower over him. He didn't mind that the film dealt with a man growing old; he just didn't want to specify that man's exact age. (Not unreasonable if you think about it. What actor wishes to find himself rejected for the role of a fifty-year-old because he's already played a character who owns to sixty-two?)

Page 91

Once he figured out the trick to writing for Shatner, he had to figure out how to direct him. He implies that Shatner was just too intense much of the time. The best way to get Shatner to calm down and give a more understated performance? Bore him.

The second take was similarly heavy-handed but, as it happened, no good for sound. (A stratagem I had contrived beforehand.) The third take, I think the focus was soft—and so on. Eventually Shatner became bored and when he got bored he got good. He dropped the attitudes he was prone to strike and instead became Kirk, with no trimmings. It was a good trick to stumble on and it happened early enough in the shoot that I was able to make good use of it throughout. The only difficulty was ensuring that Shatner, who got better with every take, did not have to appear in a two-shot with someone who was at his best on take one and thereafter deteriorated.) When all's said and done, however, a director can only do so much; Shatner's triumph in the movie is his own, the product of his own intuition and his gift.

page 112

Despite his respect and skill in using Shatner, however, even Meyer knew when to stay away. He was approached to write Star Trek V, the film Shatner would direct.

It was in early '87 when I heard rumblings about the next Star Trek film.Taking a leaf from Nimoy's playbook, William Shatner's quid pro quo for participating in the new movie was directing it. I was again asked to write the screenplay. When I asked what the film was to be about, I was told, "the search for God."

This did not strike me as an especially promising premise. How could such a search possibly conclude? Fortunately, I had the multiple excuses of my Fatal Attraction chores and my imminent departure abroad.

page 175

Meyer does a nice job in discussing Star Trek VI. He goes on a deep discussion of the politics of an impending Klingon-Federation alliance, against the back drop of the impending fall of the USSR.

Meyer had approached his Star Trek stories with more realism than Gene Roddenberry had. That’s likely part of the reason he was successful. At the beginning of the Star Trek II process, Meyer was already reimagining the Federation into a more militaristic entity than the idealised version of Roddenberry .

But none of the foregoing altered the parameters of the universe Roddenberry had set up. He was emphatic that Starfleet was not a military organization but something akin to the Coast Guard. This struck me as manifestly absurd, for what were Kirk's adventures but a species of gunboat diplomacy wherein the Federation (read America, read the Anglo-Saxons) was always right and aliens were—in Kipling's queasy phrase—"lesser breeds"? Yes, there was lip service to minority participation, but it was clear who was driving the boat.

Page 81

By the time Star Trek VI rolled around, Meyer’s views were diverging further from Roddenberry’s. Meyer fought for his script, and I’m glad he did. It’s an excellent movie. I’m more impressed with Meyer’s humility after the fact, where he acknowledges mishandling the discussions.

It was not, as I say, my finest hour. Roddenberry was old and in ill health and soon to die. The fact that I was tired and unwilling to revisit the screenplay when it was almost time to start shooting was of less moment than my conviction that what was in the script was correct. I left the meeting and returned to work, leaving others to mop up the damage I had done. I like to think of myself as a decent, straight-shooting person but as I write these lines, I have to admit that I am not always the person I like to believe I am.

page 214-215

Meyer takes several moments in the book for self-reflection. He wanted to make “The Day After” because it needed to be made. But Meyer, an opponent of nuclear stockpiles began to question that belief later in the book. In Star Trek VI, we have conspirators trying to preserve their cold war, and they were regarded as crazy. But Meyer gives that some more thought later on.

In fact, however, a wonderful new chapter in human history is not what has occurred. Instead, we got 9/11 and a resurgent form of human horror, terrorism, in which incalculable destruction is visited upon us not by dictators and armies but rather by crazies with box cutters and primitive but lethally destructive capabilities. The age of the suicide bomber was at hand. How long before that bomb would prove to be a nuclear one? Was this any improvement on the cold war era or is it not, in fact, much worse? As awful as MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) was, no one was actually destroyed. But as of 2001, the world became an infinitely more dangerous place—all of which now leads me to wonder if the conspirators of Star Trek VI were not more justified than we gave them credit for being. Knowing what I now know (in the famous formulation of Senator Clinton), would I still maintain that Valeris, Cartwright, and their Klingon counterparts were misguided in their attempts to thwart detente between the Federation and the Klingon Empire?

I also confess to being troubled by the Vulcan mind meld, clearly a form of torture, wherein Spock attempts to forcibly extract vital information from the traitor, Valeris. In light of the Bush administration's treatment of "enemy combatants," I blush.

Page 231

Meyer is frank about his shortcomings as a writer. His biggest problem is writing too much.

"You want to solve all your problems with dialogue," Elliot [Silverstein] observed bluntly. "But movies aren't dialogue, they're pictures. Contrast Star Trek with Mission Impossible," he went on, ever the pedagogue (Star Trek again. What was it with Star Trek?) "Turn off the video on both and listen. Star Trek works fine; it becomes a radio play because it's all dialogue. On the other hand, Mission: Impossible without the visuals is just a series of sound effects. Now try it the other way round: if you turn on the picture and turn off the sound, Star Trek becomes essentially a series of talking heads. Mission: Impossible, by contrast, looks like a movie.”

Page 30

He takes that advice to heart as he begins to think more about writing his scripts. Word economy dogs his scripts.

Things weren't all or always terrible. During this time, I wrote a couple of television movies that were actually filmed. It's hard to convey what a thrill it was to finally hear actors speaking my lines. I wasn't always happy with their performances or the editing or the direction, or the lines themselves, for that matter (always too many words; I was always mentally reaching for a pencil to scratch things out—picky, picky, picky), but I was far from unhappy.

Page 36

Movies must move, and faces as well as actions can often do the work of words. In fact, I have since computed that the attrition rate for dialogue in a screenplay of mine, between the first draft and the answer print, i.e., finished movie is 50 percent. Half the words will go, and you will save yourself time and money if you lose as many as possible before the cameras start rolling.Cutting out the words in the editing room is possible, even inevitable, but cutting them beforehand is usually better.

page 104

I like this for a few reasons. The humility this expert screenplay writer demonstrates about his screenplay writing appears both genuine and insightful.

Meyer also discusses his feelings on the language of film itself. Despite his directorial success he struggles with it at times.

The bad news is that I came to movie making late, especially working with the camera. While Steven Spielberg was playing with lenses, I was playing with typewriters, and the difference is all too obvious. The camera and its possibilities were alien to me—a fine situation for a film director. And remember, I'm a slow learner.

Page 65

In my films, I care less for the photography and composition of the images than I do for what the people are saying and doing. I would a thousand times sooner direct actors and help shape their performance rather than work on special effects. I have this theory that the film can be anything but out of focus and audiences will tolerate it, so long as what they are watching is interesting.Ditto the sound. On the other hand, I, as an audience member, respond like everyone else to ravishing or original imagery in the movies, to nifty sound effects. I am as seducible as the next man. Even as I disapprove of the contentless image-makers, I envy them; envy their technical facility and their cheerful, absent-minded amorality. Hey, it's the movies—let's blow something up.

Page 71

Meyer also talks about language while adapting Don Quixote. He goes on at length about how Cervantes used the words to create the epic. This appears to be where Meyer’s passion lies. It really comes out as he talks about writing. With this kind of energy, he probably could have written this book about his journey as a writer or his passion for story telling. He could have used that framework to tie the book together.

He travelled to Spain just so he could soak in Cervantes.

After Mari-Carmen returned to California, we stayed on in Spain, renting a house outside Marbella where a mountain outside my office window looked suspiciously like the Paramount logo and reminded me daily of what I was supposed to be doing there. It goes without saying that, other than the broad philosophical approach I had outiined to Tanen, I had no idea how to go about adapting a thousand-plus-page novel to the screen. All I knew for certain was that Los Angeles was not the place to try; the phone rang too often there. Here, away from all distractions, Rachel would learn to eat soft food, and I would fool around with Quixote, whose real subject, I realized on closer examination, was not the Don's monomania-Chivalry-but Cervantes's: words.

One way you know that the Dark Ages have ended is each country's discovery—starting with Italy and working its way west—of its own vernacular for purposes of literature, hitherto the province of the classical tongues, Greek and Latin. But suddenly you have Dante writing The Divine Comedy in Italian;in France, Corneille, Racine, and Moliere are discovering French; in England,first Chaucer, then Marlowe, Spenser, and Shakespeare are drunk on English;and in Spain, in the same year Macbeth is written comes the first part of Don Quixote, composed in colloquial Spanish. The book is likewise high on the possibilities of language. There are big plots, little plots, poems, short stories, anecdotes, jokes, asides, puns, more poems, more tangents . . . every kind of language was grist for Cervantes's mill. (This was true for Shakespeare, too: his vocabulary -- the vocabulary of someone linguistically intoxicated was fifty thousand words. It's been shrinking ever since; I daresay we're down to about five thou?

page 178-179

Meyer sees his strength as a story teller. He sees himself as someone who can take an idea and make it into something. That’s what he does with his scripts and his movies. And because that is his strength in those media, it’s all the more disappointing that he doesn’t do that with his memoir.

That is the sort of artist I am; not of the first rank, perhaps not even of the second, but I do recognize something original when I see it; I can preserve it for others to savor, even if the originator of the act is unaware or unappreciative of just what it is he or she has done. I could never write The Odyssey, but I can probably make it into a very good screenplay. That is the other thing I am besides being a teacher. A storyteller. Not the creator of stories, but rather the re-creator. I would never have imagined anything as original as Sherlock Holmes—but I might, with some success, imagine him meeting Sigmund Freud. If someone had said their two names together first.

page 156

The only project that resonated with me was the first one I was offered following Lauren’s death: HBO commissioned me to write and direct an adaptation of The Odyssey, a tale that had been my favorite since the age of five when an uncle of mine had told it to me as an ongoing bedtime story. I knew this material inside out, and it wrote itself In the process I realized I was also writing my autobiography, the story of a man trying to get back to his wife;more, it was the tale of a man punished for his inability to distinguish between cleverness and wisdom. Yes, it wrote itself.

Page 238

Meyer directed The Day After, a landmark TV movie about the aftermath of nuclear war in the 1980s. I mentioned it earlier in this post. You can read more about that movie on Wikipedia. I bring it up again, because it was such an important project for Meyer. Of course it was an important project for the country, too, but for Meyer, it helped him to understand more about himself.

"I think this is where we find out who you really are," [Meyer’s therapist] suggested quietly.

Which is one of the most dreadful (and useful) things anyone has ever said to me. I knew the moment the words were out of his mouth that I would have to direct The Day After. I had entered psychoanalysis to find out who I was—and now I was going to.

It wasn't all that easy rounding up people to be in the movie or work on it, either. Everyone was as spooked as I was. When I approached Gayne Rescher, my cinematographer from Star Trek II, and asked him to photograph the movie, he said he wasn't up for it.

"You mean," I badgered, "that you prefer to sit around at dinner parties and bitch about the state of the world, but when someone offers you the chance to put your work in the service of your beliefs, you're gonna turn it down?" He frowned unhappily. "I think," I pressed shamelessly on, "that this is where we find out who you really are."

Damned useful, that phrase. I crowbarred a lot of people with it.

page 141

In that film, Meyer really saw his ability to change minds with the power of story-telling. With something as basic as a movie, he could influence the President of the United States.

But at least one person's mind was changed by the film. When President Reagan signed the intermediate range missile treaty in Iceland, I got a lovely card from someone who said, “Don’t think your film didn’t have something to do with this," which turned out to be intuitively prescient. Some years after I had a weird confirmation of this fact. I was speaking at Oxford, and a student asked if I'd ever read Reagan's autobiography. I said I hadn't, whereupon he handily produced a photocopied page for me in which the president described his reaction to the film, essentially allowing as to how it had altered his perception of the nuclear subject. Remember, this was a president who saw life in terms of movies, and it had taken a movie to help him see that nuclear wars are unwinnable. Later, when I met Edmund Morris, author of Reagan's biography Dutch, he confirmed the paragraph in his book that stipulates the only time he ever saw Reagan depressed was after viewing The Day After. Reagan,who had come to power contemplating a winnable nuclear war ("if we have enough shovels ..." etc.), had changed his mind.

Page 154

As I wrap this up, I want to bring us back to Star Trek. Meyer can bring a slightly different perspective to the franchise that the actors can. His identity isn’t as tied up in the show in the way that Shater, Nimoy, Koenig, Takei, Doohan, and the other actors felt theirs were. He doesn’t have the strong feelings about Shatner and Nimoy that other people do. They were colleagues but Meyer had some distance. He also doens’t portray himself as the wonder kid that other authors said he was. That professional distance makes things interesting. And yet, his feelings mirror those of the cast, just from a slightly different perspective.

The common theme through most of the Star Trek memoirs I’ve read and reviewed over the years is ambivalence. Those involved in the creation are amazed at the phenomenal success. The show is responsible for both giving theme stardom and for limiting their stardom.

Meyer tries to answer the question of whether Star Trek is art. At the end, he’s just not sure.

But I suspect that in the long run it is the long run itself that counts. StarTreks importance-- or lack of same -- will not be determined by how much money the films have made; it will not be determined by critical appraisals in varying venues. No, time is the ultimate arbiter of Art. When Nixon visited China he banqueted with that wily courtier, Zhou Enlai, and asked him during the meal what he thought of the French Revolution.

“It’s too early to tell,” was Zhou’s answer.

Page 251

And so with Star Trek. I cannot gauge its value or understand its meaning except subjectively. While the films are not ones I would have deliberately chosen as a vehicle for self-expression (I did begin this book by acknowledging the happenstance paths of life and their unlooked for consequences), I cannot deny that my life has been changed—enriched—as a result of my association with the series, and perhaps the lives of others have been affected as well. Who’s to say if I had got to make my film version of Robertson Davies’s novel Fifth Business that as many people would’ve been affected by the result? How many scientists and astronauts at NASA were first inspired by the silliness that was Star Trek to reach for the stars? Answer? A lot.

Page 252

In some ways, as this memoir has shown, I have had similar feelings about Star Trek. I could evidently “do it” while at the same time I told myself for long periods that I simply didn’t get it.
That can no longer be said to be entirely true. And by this point it would also seem graceless of me to insist that it is. Enough time has passed so that.though I may not be able to assess the lasting merit of Star Trek, I can certainly give some consideration to how Star Trek has changed me.

Page 253

This is one of my lengthier reviews and it seems odd that I felt compelled to say so many things about a book that I didn’t enjoy as much as I had hoped. But in this book, Meyer says a lot of interesting things. They just don’t all come together to tell the story of Nicholas Meyer, of a story he wants to tell. It’s a collection of anecdotes and data without a theme to tie it all together.

If you are a fan of Nicholas Meyer and want to know more about the things he’s done, or if you are a completist who wants to read everything related to the Star Trek movies, pick up a copy ofThe View from the Bridge: Memories of Star Trek and a Life in Hollywood. If you’re a more casual fan, or you are just looking for a good memoir, you can probably skip this one.

Book Review 60: Tales from the Captain's Table

Soon Demora Sulu came in. She was older than she had been when she entered earlier that day, and older than she had been at the time when she first met Chakotay. Her face betrayed disappointment, as if she was hoping to catch her erstwhile protege. Cap knew, however, that if they were meant to encounter each other, they would have. Instead, he simply poured her another glass from the same bottle of red wine she'd drunk from earlier that day many years ago.


All in all, Cap decided, it had been a good day. He gave Sulu her drink, and then sat back and waited for the next story...


Page 329

Today (Thursday, 2011-01-06) was day 1 of CES.  That means it is once again time for me to make my feet hate my brain and spend 4 days standing on a booth at the Las Vegas Convention Center. The show is going great so far.  And since it's CES time, that means is once again time for Star Trek Book Week at Cromely's World (thought it may be only half a week this year).  I'm doing things a little differently this year and starting with some Star Trek Fiction.


I really wanted to like "Star Trek: Tales from the Captain's Table" more than I did. It's a book that would likely have been better if I was still a teenager. And perhaps it's designed to appeal to a younger audience than I represent.


I have two main problems with it -- the premise, and the writing of the familiar characters. That sounds like a deeper condemnation of the book than I intend.


The Captain's Table is a bar that is located in different places and different times. It seems to exist outside the space-time continuum. Only ship Captains can enter, and the only cost to eat and drink is to tell a story.


This neat mechanism that allows Riker and Archer and Demora Sulu to appear in the same room, and for Chaktotay to be in the same room as Sulu when she is years younger than she was when he met her.


The problem with this mechanism is that it's too magical for me. In another science fiction universe I'd be okay with it, but here it hurts my head. The Star Trek universe relies very little on magic. There is a scientific exploration for nearly everything. There's some mysticism in the Vulcan tradition and of course in the Prophets-Emissary story line of Deep Space Nine, but the magical nature of The Captains' Table just doesn't fit with the rest of the Star Trek universe and at times takes me right out of the story.


I don't know if the stories in here are considered canon, but I have my doubts that they should be. I'd like a place like this to exist in the Star Trek universe, or even in my universe, but it just doesn't fit.


Putting that aside for a moment, some of the story lines in here are compelling.


In the first one, Riker tells the story of a pirate attack while he was on his honey moon with Troi. It was a swashbuckling affair with adventure, risks, costuming and more.

Now Klag threw his head back and laughed. ''Your Betazoid mate," Klag said. "A pirate chieftainess?"


"That's right. Would I lie to you?"


Klag shrugged. "While telling a story, Riker, I would be disappointed if you didn't. Continue."


Page 20

The story does fit well with Riker's character. It's exactly the sort of story Riker would tell, but the writing itself is rather simplistic.


Picard also tells a very Picard type of story -- about scrifice for the greater good, and fighting the good fight regardless of the possible outcome. It's a classic, heroic story about the highest ideals of the human race. The author captures Picard's frank self awareness...

Picard sat back in his chair and sighed. Instead of bringing light into the darkness, he had allowed the lights of twenty-four of his crew to be extinguished. Quite an accomplishment, he told himself.


Page 59

... and his sometimes sanguine good moods.

But to think that one of them had enabled this city to exist, and its people to flourish in freedom and fulfillment... it was remarkable, to say the least. And it reminded Picard of the good he had done occasionally, which-now that he thought about it might possibly have outweighed the bad.


page 76

A Klingon Captain tells a story of battle, honor, and revenge. It's not a tale of huge starship battles, but of the smaller ones that affect Klingons growing up and learning what it means to be a Klingon Warrior.

"We were outraged, with the petulance that only children can achieve, and tried unsuccessfully to defend our honor. "


page 112

Captain Archer tells a humorous story featuring his dog Porthos. The story is all about the comic relief, which sadly seems to be the place in the Star Trek universe to which many people have condemned him.


Kira Nerys tells a story of prostitution and espionage under the Cardassian Occupation of Deep Space 9.


Chakotay tells the story of how he joined Star Fleet and the tension between his Native American roots and the scientific, off-world nature of the Federation.


They're all appropriate stories to the characters that tell them, but they also sound a little hollow. The writers seem to write to characatures of their Captains rather than to the Captains themselves.


That's why the best stories in the book are those of Captains we haven't met before.


It may be that the writers are too wedded to prewritten definitions of who Riker, Picard, Nerys, Archer, and Chakotay are. Or it may be that I am too wedded to them as an audience member. These characters are bigger than life. Captains we meet for the first time do not have that same iconic stature. And that makes for some more interesting stories.


Demora Sulu tells a fascinating story of caring for a relative. It's not typically the stuff of Star Trek, but it makes for a great story about family, honor, obligation and character. In theme, it's the kind of story you could expect from a Klingon, but the content is the kind of story you would expect from a human.


The intersections of these new Captains stories with the universe we know ground them nicely. Demora's connection to Hikaru Sulu and Chakotay, and Captain Shelby's connection to Tom Paris make me even more interested in their stories.


Captain David Gold tells a story of revenge and forgiveness as he prepares to break his Yom Kipur fast. It confuses the heck out of the rest of his audience. Captain Elizabeth Shelby tells a painful tale of a mission gone wrong.


While there are some great stories in this book, overall, it's mediocre. Even setting aside the magical element of the book, the known characters stories just seem a bit weak from a story-telling effort.

Book Review 49: Acting and Other Flying Lessons

When I initially undertook to write a book about acting several humbling thoughts confronted me. As I've never before taught acting, per se, the main question pestering me was, "Gary, Just who the hell do you think you are?" " That one held me up for some time, and as I didn't know quite how to I answer it then, and still don't—I decided to move on and write the book anyway.

Page xix

Gary Graham had a recurring role on Star Trek Enterprise, playing Vulcan Ambassador Soval. While he may not be a household name, he has successful made his living as an actor for more than 30 years. In "Acting and Other Flying Lessons" he shares some of the things he's learned over the years.


This is a good book, but I'm a little disappointed because it's just a draft or two away from being a great book. The main problem with it is the structure, or rather, lack of structure. It's a book that could benefit greatly from a stronger outline. A strong editor could improve the organization and probably cut the page count by 15-20%.


It appears as if Graham started with the ideas he wanted to convey and just started writing. There's great stuff in here, but it's in paragraphs that pop up in the chapters. It's almost as if he stumbles onto them.


The book might read better as a series of articles. Or perhaps it would work better as a weekly blog.


That said, it's still worth reading. If you are interested in acting, or presenting, there is value here.


In this review, I'll talk about what Graham was trying to achieve, how successful he was, and ways he could have better accomplished his goal. Then I'll talk about some of the key acting tips that he shares, and in some cases how they apply outside the field of acting. Finally, I'll talk about some of the acting industry anecdotes he shares.


Graham's goal with this book was to write a practical introduction to the field, so that new actors know what they are doing when they show up on the set. He intended to cover the basic mechanics of being an actor -- who you talk to, where you go at the start of the day, who's who on the set, etc.

I believe that if I'd had that information early, I could have devoted more of my concentration to the job at hand, instead of learning set protocol, where to go, who to look for, what to do and how to do it, etc.—and consequently could have gotten more career mileage from my early professional effort

Page xxii

Even though I don't plan on being a professional actor, I find this information quite fascinating. The basic operational information of what you do when you show up someplace is often missing from most ventures.



It extends beyond big things like jobs to simple things like restaurants. Have you ever walked into a restaurant and not known what to do? Do you seat yourself of wait for the hostess? Do you go to the counter or go straight to your table? When there's no sign telling me what to do, I get very stressed at a new restaurant. Tell me how things work, and I'm much more relaxed.


Those initial steps are often overlooked, and Graham attempts to address that in his book.



Graham does cover those sorts of things, but they sometimes get buried in his other stories about acting, or in his lessons on art of acting. Unlike a memoir, or a theoretical book, a practical lesson book should have stronger organization. I would like to have seen Graham start each cahpter with an introduction to the topics he was going to cover, and call out the key lessons at the beginning.


In a novel you want to build suspense. In a memoir, you want to share your life experience. In an educational book, you want to share knowledge and promote the retention of that knowledge.



That takes a different approach to the material. It by necessity removes some of the spontaneity you want the reader to feel in other genres. Here, we are not just along for the ride. We are not just here to learn something about Graham or understand the history of the industry better. We are here to learn more about the practical aspects of acting.More than in other books, the author needs to tells us what he's going to tell us, tell us, and then tell us what he's told us.


Graham would have done better to structure his chapters around the key lessons he wants to teach us, discuss those lessons, then choose key stories from his own life to illustrate those stories.



All those elements are in this book, but they're scattered within chapters.



As the author moves through the material in an educational book like this, it's good for later chapters to build on earlier ones. The author should be able to assume that if the reader is reading Chapter 6, they have already read the material in Chapter 3.


Graham has a tendency to repeat his stories. When they appear later in the book, he's often using them to illustrate a different point, but he introduces them like it's the first time he's telling the story. It's fine to refer back to previous stories, but he should assume the reader already read them .

Here are two examples.

Back in '87,I starred in a sci-fi picture called "ROBOT JOX" (Did I mention?) that we shot in Rome. The film was originally called ROBOJOX", a much better title, but the "ROBOCOP" people threatened to sue unless we changed it—even though our production preceded theirs by six months. They had a bigger budget (and could hire better lawyers, I guess), so we acquiesced and called our picture "ROBOT JOX." Go figure, everybody wants to rule the world

Page 218

I did not see him again until we were on location in San Francisco. We were shooting in an adult bookstore in the strip club district and my first scene was just George and I—and I was to do all the talking—acting opposite an industry icon, the internationally famous George C. Scott. Imagine in your first scene on your first big movie having to take stage opposite George Patton!

Page 299

Graham talks about Robot Jox earlier in the book several times. By the time we get to this passage on page 218 anyone who doesn't know he starred in Robot Jox obviously hasn't paid any attention at all. The story can still be effective, but refer back to it. Don't introduce it again.

It's the same thing with his discussion of George C Scott. He's already told elements of this story in his section on Matching. He even set the scene there. Yet again, he is introducing the story and covering well trod material rather than simply referring back to it

The second to last chapter in this book doesn’t quite fit. In it, Graham gives a different section to a variety of actors and talks about his experiences with them.



Now it's not a bad idea to do things like this, and in a book about the basics of acting there is definitely some benefit to it. But the execution is the issue. As it is, it might have worked better as an appendix to the reset of the material. It's a lot more memoir heavy than the book calls for. These stories could also work as monthly magazine articles, or weekly blog posts, or as similar episodic content.

Assuming they are going to stay in the book, however, they do need tighter structure. Again, given the education nature of the book, the lessons should be more obvious. In some of the stories, Graham talks about what he learned from them. In others he just talks about how great this person is to work with as a fellow actor.

It would have been more effective to start (or end) each of these sections with the specific lessons Graham learned from that person, or the specific lessons the reader can learn from that person. Call it out and these anecdotes become much more valuable.

Perhaps outline each of these section like this:

• What I learned from this person.
• Who this person is.
• How I learned the lesson.
• How I applied the lesson.
• How you can apply the lesson.

Or some similar structure. If there is not particular lesson to draw from that story other than that Graham is a fan of that person, cut the section. It doesn't advance the purpose of the book and doesn’t need to be there.


Graham also needs to be careful about undermining his own points.

In one section he talks about fight scenes and other stunts. He emphasizes the importance of taking your time, getting it right, and if something goes wrong, stopping to scene so no one gets hurt.

To illustrate his point, he tells the story about a fight scene that went wrong. He accidentally hit another actor, and the other actor almost got carried away.

It turned out all right—but with a different actor, less experienced with less self-control, who knows how it would have turned out?

Again, my ardent note of caution here is this: With stunts, if something goes wrong—stop immediately] It's not that big of a deal to reset and roll again. Yes, accidents do happen, nothing is one hundred percent safe. But someone getting hurt needlessly is unforgivable. Use your head. And always remember. IT'S ONLY A MOVIE.

Page 207-208

The problem with this story is that nothing happened. Graham would have been better off citing a story where someone did not heed the advice to stop as soon as something goes wrong and that resulted in negative consequences of some sort.  This story seem like one he wanted to tell, but couldn't fit in anyplace else.  It reflects a lack of prior planning while writing the book.

But enough about the organization of the book. There are some great gems in here, and I'd like to explore them.

It's interesting to note that a lot to the key acting lessons that Graham discusses really have nothing to do with acting. They apply just as well in most professional endeavors.

• Be professional. 
• Show up on time. 
• Work hard. 
• Treat people well.

He tells one story about sitting around a campfire with other crew member on set. Folks started talking about an actor they had worked with recently. A couple people had similar negative experiences and shared them.

The producer said he had been thinking about hiring him for a movie fie was to produce next in Canada, but after hearing that he said. "Well, forget that. I certainly don't need that bullshit."

I couldn't believe it. Here we were, middle of the night, freezing our butts off in the mud, and a Hollywood casting decision had been made. That actor lost a job (a good job) at four-thirty a.m. m a muddy field in Yugoslavia—and he didn't even know it.

Always be a professional. Word gets around.

Page 126

Part of making movies and TV shows involves matching. Once a scene is shot, they will start filming it again from different angles. They'll shoot close ups and reshoot other parts. It's important for the actors to perform the scene exactly the same way, from intonation to motion to props. This way the editors can easily cut the scene together for the final product. Doing those same things over again is called "Matching."

Career advancement note: Actors who can match well end up with more screen time because they cut together like butter, the editing looks seamless, and the actor's performance look great. Become an expert matcher.

Page 142

In short, if you make the editor's job and the director's job easier, it helps you in the long run.

It's a lesson that applies in the business world as well. When you can make a coworker's, boss's, or employee's job easier, it can only help you do well in your professional life. And often, the best way to do that, is to do your own job well.

A postive attitude is also an improtant asset. Just because an actor has had some success does not mean they can look down on others. There are few people that have such star status they can get away with an "attitude." And even then, that may not last long.

It doesn't matter what those actors wear to the audition, all the producers see is the Attitude. Then the actor can't figure out why he doesn't work more.

Be in a good mood. Nobody wants to be around a downer, so carry a good mood into the office, even if you have to manufacture one. Optimism is a trait that opens many a door. It's all about energy. Negativism and depression suck the energy out of a room. It's palpable, you can feel it, you can almost hear it. Be a source of light.. .warmth assurance.. .and yes, love. And if you can't muster love for these folks sitting in the audition room, for your fellow man, then focus on your love for acting. Or your love for your wife and kids, your Mom, your cat, your Harley.. .something. Bring your love with you when you walk into the room.

Page 97

While Graham is talking mainly about the audition process, the same principle applies when talking about the corporate world. Obviously things don't always go well, but approaching things from a nihilistic perspective or with a "bad attitude" (whatever that means) does not help the situation. People want to feel there is an opportunity to win -- that things can get better, even when things are falling apart. A positive outlook is just as important in an acting career as it is in any other career.

The old adage applies in the film biz: The cream rises to the top. There is nothing stronger than the human will. If you have a goal, a dream, and it's reasonable, and you believe you can achieve it, there is nothing that can stop you. Except, of course, yourself.

Page 16

Regardless of your current life or career situation, your subconscious mind will direct you toward whatever you place before it.

Page 22

One of the most important lessons I learned when I took motorcycle classes was that you should never look at the object in your path that you want to avoid. If you look at it, you will hit it. Instead, look at the path around that hazard, and if you are focusing on the path you want to take, your bike will take you there.

Goal setting is a natural off shoot of having a positive attitude. You have to believe you can do it, and then you have to pursue it. If you focus on the obstacles to success, your subconscious will take you into those obstacles, just as your motorcycle will take you into that wall.

Positive attitude carried Graham through a lot of the early missteps in his career when he didn't quite know what he was doing.

I'd heard that being in a play could help land an agent, so I started auditioning for plays. I didn't know what I was doing really, but I was young and eager and went for it. Youthful enthusiasm can cover a multitude of sins—and sometimes even a lack of substantial technique.

Page 35

Graham did study acting. Taking classes is part of the hard work involved in being an actor. Being exposed to other performances and understanding why actors make the choices the do is one way to learn. Just as important as the theory, though, are the practical lessons. The hard work never stops.

I dove into the curriculum with both feet and hit the stage running. I couldn't get enough. Scene classes, sensory exercises, auditing the master class with Lee Strasberg, art-film nights with classmates. Actor's Studio guest speakers (honest-to-god-stars! Well...one or two anyway George Peppard, Roddy McDowell. Ellen Burstyn. A telling omen: I asked Roddy the question, 'What are you doing now?' thinking he must be on some exciting film project. He looked at me with brutally candid eyes and didn't miss a beat: "Looking for work." He said it like, "That's the reality, kid, get used to it." Twenty-four years later, I've come to find that find that an actor's main job is to get a job).

Page 33

In his chapter on Acting Lessons, he talks about some of the teachers he studied under. For example, he studied under Kim Stanley, an acting teacher and alcoholic.

With Kim it was always the drink talking—and sometimes the drink made a lot of sense. I loved the year I studied with her. I learned about taking huge chances, losing my fear of making an ass of myself, and throwing caution to the wind on stage. And most importantly, I learned to listen to my own inner voice and trust my own instincts.

Page 38

Acting classes are just one part of being an actor, though:

In the final analysis, acting is self-taught. Learn all you can from the best, but largely you will end Up discovering your technique on your own. Yes, acting classes are great—expose yourself to as many different sources as you can, and keep studying even after you start working—but life is the greatest teacher, and ultimately it is from your own well you draw.

Page 37

There's a lot of great practical information in the book, but there's also some good acting theory. The part I found most interesting was where he talked about crying on stage. Or acting drunk. Many amateur actors may try to force tears. Or the may try to stumble around as if drunk.

Graham points out, however, that people to not behave that way in real life. They don't try to cry -- they try to avoid crying. The drunk doesn't just stumble and slur -- the drink tries not to stumble and slur.

It is this struggle to maintain composure that we find so very compelling. This is the very essence of great drama, of great I pathos. To merely succumb to tragic events tells us nothing new about the fragile fabric of life. But to witness folks in denial and shock, masking the horrific reality, this can be compelling. And to experience someone who rages against the assault, who defies the destroyer, who fights the good fight to hold it all together when the world has fallen down upon their head—that's the stuff great novels, movies and plays are written about.

It's heroism that man aspires to, not victimization. No one wants to pay nine bucks to sit in a darkened theater and watch a bunch of victims succumbing to their pain and hardship. We will pay it gladly and encourage our friends to come, however, if you show us that heroic resistance to calamity, the battle of the brave to overcome their desperation—and if you give us an heroic struggle against all odds, with twists, turns, close-calls, several good laugh and a moving love story.. .well, not only will you reap a huge payday. but your mantle will likely sport Oscar gold.

Page 63-64

Likewise, a highly emotional scene can be like a pot of boiling soup on the stove. We stir it up, cover it, let it boil, the lid jangling and spitting hot water. But if the soup isn't boiling over, why lift the lid? In your scene don't create the blowing off of the pot lid, rather, create the heat, which in turn creates the boiling over of the soup that blows off the lid—then the way it manifests itself in the scene will be free and natural and real. Nothing will be forced, fake, or phony Your emotional responses to the events you've created in the scene will find their own colors of expression and will be perfectly valid and intriguing and engaging and interesting to watch, no matter what you do—because it will have arisen from your own personal reality, your own personal truth.

Page 71

He tells the story about when he and another actress had a scene together where they argue. The practiced it in a more subtle way -- not with other the top screaming, but with the goal of trying not to explode. As they practiced their lines, and assistant director approached. He mistook it for a real fight and awkwardly backed away.

But that A.D.'s misconception told us we were right on the mark in our rehearsal. It's because we weren't acting' a scene about two people arguing—we were arguing, really arguing, and using the screenwriter's words to do it.

Page 79

While being professional and working hard is important, it's also important to take chances. Actors are in an interesting position in that it is difficult and expensive to fire them.

At the same time, don't allow yourself to become rigid with paranoia about making the wrong suggestion, or doing something silly or inappropriate. And absolutely do not worry about getting fired. (This is Actor's Paranoia and nothing more.) I believe I've mentioned it before, but it bears repeating: It's a huge expense for the producers to hire an actor, put them in wardrobe, make-up, pay them for the day—only then to fire them and recast the part, reschedule the shooting, switch to a cover set while they recast, etc. Believe me, no one wants to do it, so you really shouldn't worry much about that remote possibility.

Page 145

While it may be easier to be fired in a corporate setting, it's still not an easy undertaking. In the working world, bosses don't want to fire people. They want success. They want employees to do great work. Firing people is not something most people enjoy. From a practical perspective, bureaucracies make it difficult, and expensive. They want people to do well, to bring forward alternative suggestions (in the right context), to take an interest in what they are doing, to approach it with passion, and to aspire to success.

Eventually, an acting career will stall and it's time to take a different approach. It's been said that, "If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got." When what you are doing isn't getting results, it's time to change.

If you work hard and are blessed with a career in acting, you may find at some point that your career appears to be stalled out. Stagnant. Nothing going on. This is the nature of the beast, and these doldrums happen periodically. The key is to keep the faith. as they say, and hang in there. Keep working at working. Keep increasing your employability. You may have not set foot inside an acting workshop or graced the stage of a small theater for some years—take this opportunity to step outside your comfort level and Stretch yourself Humility is a cleansing experience. Get out and read for small theater parts. Take that workshop. The worst that can happen is you'll have a lot of fun. But there's also the possibility that the experience will return to you a sense of forward momentum to you career. This perception, however artificially contrived, is precious life blood to an actor.

Page 324

There are great stories in this book. And Graham writes well. His sentences and paragraphs are a joy to read. But the organizations behind them needs work. He's got plenty of raw material here; there's a great book (or two) in here. It just needs more structure, organizations, and a stronger editor's pen.

He started out writing a book about the basic mechanics a new actor needs to know. Unfortunately, Graham seems to have lost track of that goal in large portions of the book.

"Acting and Other Flying Lessons" is a good book that could have been a great book. As it is, it's worth reading whether you are an aspiring actor or just someone interested in the field.

Book Review 48: Get a Life

It never occurs to me that people might be offended. It never occurs to me that Trekkers might believe I was making fun of them. The sketch is simply SO exaggerated and SO stupid and SO cartoonish that I can't even fathom the possibility. I decide to think positively, and hope for the best.

Page 111

In 1986 Shatner angered legions of fans with his now infamous "Get a Life!" sketch on Saturday Night Live.

In plenty of previous book reviews and Shartner-Palooza posts, Shatner's self involvement has been obvious. Many cast members have said he was oblivious, at best, to their needs as actors. That sketch showed that he lacked similar awareness of needs and feelings of his fans.

This book is, in some respects, a chance for Shatner to try to fix that and understand his fans better.

And there you have it. We're barely fifteen pages into this thing, and I'm deeply embarrassed to confess that until fairly recently, what you just read constituted the sum total of everything I knew about Star Trek conventions. Somehow, throughout more than a quarter century of "featured speaker" appearances, I managed to remain almost entirely ignorant of the bigger picture, my sole point of view coming from the podium out.

Page 10

In "Get a Life!" William Shatner takes the reader on a tour of the Star Trek Convention phenomenon. It chronicles his efforts to learn how the conventions got so big, why people attend, and just what exactly happens outside of the speaker's stage.

Much of the early material, including the efforts to save Star Trek from cancellation are detailed elsewhere, so I won't go into detail here. Shatner retells those stories because he wants this book to be about the fan movements and their impact on Star Trek, so it's they definitely have a place in the book.

Shatner is not afraid to admit his ignorance of the impact conventions had on fans. He interviews attendees, organizers and others involved in the convention circuit, including Joan Winston, one of the women responsible for the very first convention.

Joan: We were never in it for money. We were doing it out of love and affection for the show, for the characters, and for the writers. We genuinely loved you guys. Did you know that?

Bill: I do. And I'll tell you, Joanie, the voyage of discovery I am making, while doing research on this book, is the fact that there was and is all that love out there. I had no idea, quite frankly, I truly had no idea as to its depth and breadth. I have been moved to tears on some of these interviews when people have opened up about what the show meant to them.

Page 99-98

As that's the thing about Shatner. His book about conventions and fans isn't about the conventions and fans. It's about William Shatner learning about the conventions and fans.

There is a little bit of self-awareness at the end, but throughout the book, it's still mainly about Shatner.

I spent a full two decades scared to death of a big blue space-slug of my own concoction. Star Trek's fans confused and eluded me, while Star Trek's conventions were every bit as terrifying as that mammoth, mythical, murderous mollusk. However, once I'd allowed myself to actually confront my fears and to understand the motivating factors that drove Star Trek's fans fan and simultaneously allowed their conventions to thrive, I realized just how silly and ignorant my own apprehensions had been. I was the Starfleet bad guy.

Page 317

So if you want to learn about how Shatner learns about conventions, this is a good book to read. If Shatner's ego-cnetric approach to everything annoys you, you are not likely to enjoy this book.

For the rest of this article, I'll highlight Shatner's convention experience, some of the fan comments he picked up in his interviews, a few of his Leonard Nimoy stories, and finally the Shatner convention presentations.

When Shatner would speak at a convention, he typically flew in just in time for his presentation and would leave as soon as he could. He contrasts the travel experience with the love of the fans when he speaks.

Ever notice how every airport smells exactly the same? As far as I can tell, it's an endlessly recirculated mix of old coffee, fast-food french fries, newspaper pulp, and a huge collective cloud of cologne, parfum, and other upscale stinkwaters. Disgusting, yes, but I swear to you, I absolutely love it. Somehow, over the past thirty years, and countless white-knuckle plane flights, I believe my subconscious gray matter has come to equate that distinctively funky airport aroma with official notification that my airborne torture session's now over, and the terra-firma fun is about to begin.

It doesn't matter what town I'm in, or what gathering I'm headed toward, William Shatner's ''Star Trek Convention Experience'' always begins right here, with a happy, heaping lungful of airport funk. It then proceeds pretty much like this.

Page 5


A convention ovation is unmatched, and probably best described as a loud, long, percussive "I love you." You can never get used to it. You can never prepare for it. It's a message that genuinely overwhelms me, every single time it hits. It's unique; a heartwarming, mind-boggling, ego-inflating, plainly staggering experience.

Page 9

He decided to learn more about the conventions and fans after Star Trek Generations came out in 1994. This was also around the time he was working on Star Trek Memories, and Nichelle Nichols first told him that the rest of the cast hated him.

Maybe three stops into Kirk's "Yes, I'm really dead" convention tour, I realized that I still had absolutely no idea what went on outside the featured speaker's auditorium.

Page 101

Throughout this extended "kirkapalooza" tour, I also began consciously squeezing the most out of my convention time, chatting one-on-one with dealers, organizers, and fans whenever I could, while simultaneously arm-twisting my embarrassed coauthor into wandering convention floors in search of hard-core fans who'd sit for an interview.

Page 23-24

Naturally, William Shatner couldn't very well walk around the convention floor without a mob, so he wore a mask. A green, rubber alien mask.

I was a hideous monster, manipulating and secretly interrogating innocent victims. I'd become Linda Tripp.

Page 102

He tells stories about chatting with Klingons, trying to talk people out of buying expensive Leonard Nimoy autographs, and generally annoying people while trying to understand them.

Of course a Star Trek convention is on of very few places in this world where you can walk around in a rubber green alien mask to specifically not attract attention.

And it goes beyond wearing a mask to be anonymous. Fans who may not be noticed in their daily lives, dress up in costume and become the center of attention. Fans who may get too much unwanted attention in their daily lives can come to a convention and just be accepted and not stared at. This comes up when Shatner interviews Dan Madsen, the Publisher of Star Trek Communicator. In additon to being a fan, his is a self described littler person (he's 4 feet tall)and enjoys Star Trek conventions in part because he is simply accepted. He talks about acceptance he feels at the show, and the large presence of those with handicaps.

So you see, the beauty of a convention is, Bill, for people like me who want to escape being noticed all the time, I can go there and blend in with the crowd and I'm fine. For people who don't get noticed enough and feel like the world has forgotten them and people overlook them, they can dress up in a costume, they can come to these conventions, and everybody makes a fuss over them.

Page 131

Shatner is blown away by the joy and optimism in the crowds that attend conventions.

Unconditional delight is an extremely rare commodity in the lives of most adults.

Page 314

Shatner is never one to leave Leonard Nimoy un-picked-on. They've built a strong friendship over the years. If they weren't good friends, I'm sure Nimoy would have arranged a transporter accident by this point.

He tells the story of one of Nimoy's first appearances at a convention.

When at last Leonard was able to get out a few words, he simply thanked the fans for their love and support, and shared his joy at seeing such tangible evidence that our work on Star Trek really had been appreciated. Overwhelmed, Leonard then said his good-byes, left the stage, and ran for his life.

Ushered quickly back through the hotel kitchen and out through a service entrance to an icy New York alley way. Leonard was nevertheless spotted by a large contingent of overzealous fans. Their shouts of "Spppppppooooooccckkkk!" gave Leonard's position away immediately, allowing the trailing crowd to grow at an almost exponential rate. At that point, Leonard, Joanie Winston, and their pair of security men all frantically began flailing their arms, in a desperate attempt to flag down a cab. Sensing that their prey might elude their grasp. the mob picked up speed now, and began running, as did Leonard. Can you imagine this? It's the middle of winter. there's ice and snow everywhere, and here comes Leonard (who, by the way, runs like an old lady) sprinting down the sidewalk, eyes wide, making a mad dash for a taxi while a posse of kooks gives chase. He must've looked like a turkey on Thanksgiving morning.

Finally, Leonard lands a Checker cab and dives inside, but the chase isn't over yet. Four gung-ho Trekker/stalkers leap up onto the cab and hang on for dear life. They dangle, giddily, until the cab pulls away, sliding on the icy street, while narrowly avoiding both a pair of fellow cabs and a delivery truck.

Page 88-89

Shatner does ask a StarTrek convention organizer about working with different cast members. Adam has positive things to say about everyone. Here are his comments about Nimoy.

Adam: Leonard was the type of guy who would show up for the engagement, deep in thought about what he was going to say. And so he would come in, somewhat disassociated from you, his mind thinking about what he was going to say when he went on. He was basically a Vulcan. So the usual rule of thumb was just say "Hello," then as little as possible, and try and get him on quickly, because he was concentrating, primed to go on, and he wanted to go right on, urgently. So when he would show up, it would just be about expediting him, getting him onstage, as quickly and as expediently as possible.

Page 145

Shatner also uses this book as an opportunity to talk about his experience as a speaker. He discusses the different questions people ask in Q&As. He spends some time talking about the autograph lines, and about the time he shared the stage with Sir Patrick Stewart, Avery Brooks, and Kate Mulgrew.

What is a Shatner presentation like? Well, he asked the attendees one time, and promised to put it in the book.

Never make a promise you'll regret. I learned that the hard way, because in less than ten minutes, this crowd had an overwhelming favorite. In an unbiased nutshell, according to your evil, conventioneering peers, my speaking style is best described as "a cross between Rip Taylor and Regis Philbin."

I mean come on. Rip Taylor, maybe, but Regis? You people really know how to hurt a guy.

Page 135

Shatner does tell stories at the conventions that largely feature him being humiliated. He talks about ending up covered in elephant dung in one story. In another, he talks about his misadventures walking to a horse show. And in yet another, about his inability to get help via a 911 call. It seem Shatner just can't catch a break.

Shatner has property in Kentucky. And he waxes poetic about the beautiful country side. But he can't discuss the beauty of nature without talking about peeing all over it.

On those joyous occasions when good ol' boy meets good ol' truck, there's nothing my pickup and I love to do more than cruising aimlessly about the backroads of rural Kentucky. George Jones in the cassette deck, a thermos full of black coffee in the glove box—it doesn't get any better than this. Here, in this beautiful part of the country, you can spend an entire afternoon meandering along two-lane roads, soaking in the beauty of dense, green, entirely unspoiled pine forests, every once in a while pausing to simply get out of the truck, take a deep breath, and realize how truly beautiful the world can be. With each roadside pit stop I take time to wander, to watch quietly as the wonders of nature unfold around me, and more often than not, to deal with the aftereffects of that aforementioned thermos full of black coffee.

Page 219

He tales pains to draw the comparison between cell phones and the Star Trek communicator, like it's the first time anyone has seen the links between the two (okay, he did write this this in 1999 so I'll cut him some slack on that).

Tucked away in the back of the glove compartment, I had stashed one of those tiny, pocket-sized, portable phones. You know the type. They fit into the palm of your hand, flip open, you push your buttons and speak. They really do look exactly like our old Enterprise communicators, so you can imagine how silly I feel using them in public. Nevertheless, I snatched it up as fast as I could, and without having any idea where I was. Or even how to get to the nearest town, I dialed 911.

Page 222

He talks about how grateful he is for his career and fans. He feels the love, but there still appears to be a detachment. He doesn’t quite understand them.

Trust me, I know exactly how lucky I am. It's nearly impossible to survive when your career choice is actor, even harder to work steadily, and next to impossible to become financially secure. I've been lucky enough to achieve all three of those impossible dreams, and there's not a day that goes by where I don't look up into the heavens and say, "Thank you." Still, the God's honest truth of the matter is that though I love my work, and I'm thrilled with the fact that I have fans, I simply don't give a rat's ass about the phenomenon of "being famous."

Page 280

Perhaps Shatner is mystified by this affection because of his self-centered-ness. Is it possible for Shatner to feel about someone else the way his fans feel about him?

Even in the middle of this love fest, he can't help but take a shot at James Doohan.

Unlike the Gilligans and Marcia Bradys and Montgomery Scotts of the world, never will you hear me complain that being inseparably tied to a familiar television character has hurt my career. I've repeatedly missed out on roles because producers or directors couldn't imagine me as anything but a starship captain, but to even insinuate that the positive aspects of being James T. Kirk weren't undeniably and exponentially more impactful than the negatives would be insane.

Page 289

Doohan was tied to the role of Montgomery Scott in a similar manner to the way Shatner was tied to the role of Jim Kirk. The difference, though, is that Kirk was a starring role. Scott was not. Kirk was a big payday role. Scott was not. It's one thing to be inseparably tied to the starring role of the biggest sci-fi franchise in TV history. There are a lot more doors available to you then are opened to the scecondary cast members.

I'm not saying Doohan didn't have any options or alternatives. The successes of Walter Koenig, George Takei, and Nichelle Nichols show there were plenty of other options. But that fact that Shatner chooses to think he and Doohan were in the same situation, and feels the need to take a shot at him, just further illustrates how detached he was from the needs and feelings of the rest of the cast.

In "Get a Life" Shatner tries to make up for his earlier arrogance and ignorance. He doesn't quite succeed. He still seems to lack the self-awareness necessary for that. We don't really see that honest self assessment until his more recent book, "Up til Now," which is a far more compelling portrait of the main behind the yellow shirt.

Still, it's a nice primer on the Star Trek convention industry. The people Shatner interviews are insightful. The history of the early conventions is useful for those new to field. And Shatner's stories are still funny.

Of the four memoirs/histories Shatner has written, this is probably the least important. "Up til Now" will give you a much better understanding of who William Shatner is and how he got to be the person he is today. "Star Trek Memories" and "Star Trek Movie Memories" have a lot more information about the series and movies respectively, admittedly through the lens of William Shater. Still, they'll tell you a lot more about the struggles to make the show and movies than many other resources.

"Get a Life," part mea culpa, part documentary, and part story telling. It is still an interesting and well-written book. I would just suggest reading the others first.