posted
In a question that I will most likely be crucified and castrated for on this forum (not like people here don't want to do this to me already), it's a question I'd like to ask all of you. I help write for two sites and I had an idea for an opinion article.
A month or two ago, I found a site that had some "Behind-the-Scenes" info on the Star Trek movies and some of the things I read were "interesting" to say the least. After reading the entries on all of them that question popped into my brain: "Is Trek's success really because of Roddenberry himself or other people developing his idea?"
There are a few guidelines I'd like to put down on responses to this:
1) No profanity, please. I have not expressed any of my viewpoints with them and I request that you not direct any towards me.
2) No personal attacks. I don't think that really needs explaining.
3) When responding, please treat this query with an open mind. Don't go at it with the mindset of "Well of course he should get all of the credit, he did create it!!!!!!!!" Listen to both sides and keep a calm demenor when responding. Don't turn this into a ing field.
Thank you for reading.
------------------ Daniel Henderson Senior Babylon 5/Crusade Editor http://www.myrkr.com
------------------ "The demon was an idea, the demon is awake. Scratch mark left across the surface of your mind. This hour now upon us, the hour has now arrived." -- Soul Coughing
Although Dan has good reason to be worried. There are some people would would call this "blasphemy."
I disagree. TOS reached its peak in stories by Gene Coon, D.C. Fontana, and two outside writers (namely Ellison -- which is debatable -- and Gerrold). TNG became more liked under Berman's control...
------------------ Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")
posted
Yes .. but if it weren't for Gene's persistance, dedication, and the stick to his guns type of attitude, Star Trek would have never become the sensation that it is!!
The man was ruthless when NBC wanted to cut the guy with the evil ears outta the script.. it was Gene's insistance that Spock had to be included in the story lines in order for Star trek to be believable..
Also, it was Gene's insistance to be as Scientically correct as possible. When a writer wrote something that couldn't be backed up by his NASA consultants.. he'd re-write it .. sometimes he'd be re-writing a script until 5 minutes before the shoot.. and more oftent than not , he'd hadn't slept the night before.
I've read two books on the behind the scenes - Bill Shatners and Leonard Nimoy's books.. and both said the same things about Gene ... without him .. Star Trek would not be .. PERIOD.
quote:Although Dan has good reason to be worried. There are some people would would call this "blasphemy."
How true it is Elim, especially if I go into the back history of this. I posted a question like this at both PhilosophySphere.com and Roddenberry.com. Not exactly the best places to ask this kind of question. I'm thinking about sending this to Scifi-Art.com so BORG can try and cut me a new one, too, just to see him squrim.
As for Alshrim post, I already know that if it wasn't for him, Star Trek wouldn't exist (and whenever I watch an episode like Alice or Riddles, I start to think maybe that isn't a bad idea). My main question is was it his direction that he wanted to go with Trek his responsiblity? My main examples of this point is Trek's II and VI. These are two movies Roddenberry hated with a passion but ended up being two of the greatest Star Trek and Science Fiction movies ever made. For my "source," here's the website I was talking about (which also lists his sources):
posted
Is he responsible for its success? Yes and no. Trek couldn't have been successful w/o his influence, but I also think it couldn't have been successful if it had been just him. Am I making sense? He was neccessary for Trek's success, but so were others.
------------------ "Back in the 14th century, stair-stepping to the oldies was not considered manly." -John Scalzi, on the longbow as the best weapon of the second millennium
posted
I tend to agree with Tim. Beyond that, there's also the fact that my favourite series (DS9) certainly wouldn't have been the same by Gene's way. Even TNG happened to improve only after Berman got control.
And sorry Dan, although I love Trek II, I personally don't think VI deserves such high praise.
------------------ "Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets) Dax's Ships of STAR TREK
posted
I guess the way I see it is this: Roddenberry had the idea, the vision that birthed Star Trek, but beyond that, much of his involvement with things other than the logistics of the show was flawed. His outlook on life, such as the belief that humanity would eventually reach perfection is fundamentally wrong.
I guess I would say that Roddenberry was both the best and worst thing to happen to Star Trek. He did us all an enormous favor by creating Star Trek, but most of what I consider Star Trek's finest moments were those that were done without him. Take VI, for instance, or First Contact. These are, in my opinion, some of Trek's creme de la creme. One of my favorite episodes, All Good Things, was written and produced some time after his death, yet I consider it to be one of the best Trek episodes, ever.
Orion Syndicate
He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!
Member # 25
posted
Partly, yes. It was Gene Roddenberry's ideas about the series that led to the success that the franchise has earned. As Alshrim Dax correctly points out, it was Roddenberry who insisted that they keep Spock - who has gone on to become a character who symbolises the entire franchise. He created the idea which others built on, but if it were not for him, we would quite possibly not be here today discussing this.
So yes, he is partly responsible for the success of Star Trek. The rest of the credit has to go to a lot of the writers today who moved Star Trek away from the old ideas and created new things to develop. If Star Trek had remained the way Gene Roddenberry had envisaged - this Utopian existence, then Trek would have ended with TNG. Berman, Piller and Taylor went away from the accepted norm of Trek and created DS9 and Voyager. Granted, both were hopeless atb the start but they have gotten a lot better, especially DS9.
------------------ The line must be drawn here, this far, no further. Picard, First Contact
The line has to be drawn here, this far and no further. Quark, Dogs of War
[This message has been edited by Orion Syndicate (edited December 20, 1999).]
posted
Let's not forget out thread-ly dose of Voyager bashing...
------------------ Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")
posted
I'm hopeless with names, but I seem to recall a lot of the credit for the original series belonging to Gene Coon. He left with season 3 too. Now, was it Roddenberry or Coon's absence that made season 3 of TOS the piece of poo that it was.
Was that non-profane enough?
------------------ "Obesity. Adiposity. Corpulence. Whatever word you use, it represents one thing: being a big fatass."
posted
I believe Gene Coon (you got that right) left after A Piece of the Action in Season 2. That was about half-3/4 of the way through. Then there were a couple good eps in Season 3 (Day of the Dove and Whom Gods Destroy), but it does contain the worst Trek's ever made (Way to Eden).
------------------ Daniel Henderson Senior Babylon 5/Crusade Editor http://www.myrkr.com
Printer-friendly view of this topic
