StarDestroyer.Net BBS

So I was looking at Cracked when they said Gene wasn't the main person to come up with the ideas that made it into Star Trek, that the ideas came from advisers and other technical directors, as well as a few other sources. So that got me wondering just how much Roddenberry actually contributed and how much we just assumed was his, as well as if Star Trek was on the downhill slide due to Gene or if Rick Berman truly deserves the ire he's credited with. I know Berman deserves quite a lot of credit for running some of the good ideas of Trek into the ground, but how much blame is truly his and how much is what we're scared to shove off on Gene?

IIRC, you can see Gene's "dream" in full strength in the first seasons of TNG, when he had almost unlimited creative power, unlike in TOS where he had to listen to producers and such (and, presumably, in the movies as well).

Steve wrote:IIRC, you can see Gene's "dream" in full strength in the first seasons of TNG, when he had almost unlimited creative power, unlike in TOS where he had to listen to producers and such (and, presumably, in the movies as well).

... Damnit I don't get paid until midnight. And I don't have enough money to buy groceries and enough liquor to make that thought go away.

Given that most people here consider the time when Gene actually got his way (i.e. early TNG) to be amongst the low points of the franchise and most of the damage B&B did didn't happen until after he was gone, whereas TOS, where he had limited influence, is generally considered to be one of the high points, Gene got all the blame he deserved. B&B messed up all by their lonesome.

Baffalo wrote:

Steve wrote:IIRC, you can see Gene's "dream" in full strength in the first seasons of TNG, when he had almost unlimited creative power, unlike in TOS where he had to listen to producers and such (and, presumably, in the movies as well).

... Damnit I don't get paid until midnight. And I don't have enough money to buy groceries and enough liquor to make that thought go away.

Ha.

There's a big difference between good worldbuilding and good writing. By which standard are we trying to judge Gene here?

I've seen a lot of people throw Lucas and Roddenberry in the same boat.

They're great idea guys, and good at world building, but their best work comes when someone is around to tell them no. IMHO Lucas is a little better than Roddenberry, as the prequels all had at least some good moments, whereas Early TNG was just one bore-fest after another.

A lot of TNG's first season is due to Gene's lawyer Leonard Maizlish interfering heavily. Maizlish reportedly was telling Gene that everyone was out to steal creative control away from him, that nobody could be trusted, and Maizlish was also allegedly rewriting scripts without permission or credit. There's also David Gerrold's contributions. According to Joel Engel, David Gerrold basically wrote most of the original TNG writer's bible himself, and basically should have been credited as a co-creator of TNG. Meanwhile, Gene was increasingly ill, unfocused, and allegedly abusing a lot of prescription painkillers.

I'd say that even TNG isn't "pure Roddenberry".


Baffalo, if you want to learn about the behind-the-scenes on TOS, there is no better book to read than Inside Star Trek. It's a wonderfully written book, very fun to read, and gives excellent insight into the production of TOS and the propaganda that Roddenberry pushed about himself and the show during and since its production. It should be mandatory reading for any TOS fan.

The nearest things to Roddenberry's vision (at least his original one) are probably The Cage and Star Trek: The Motion Picture. And what those two have in common is a lot of neat concepts, but in varying degrees a lack of direction and characterisation (though The Cage was let down as much by its casting in that regard, IMO). The overall impression I get from those two pieces - and the handful of TOS Season 3 episodes that Roddenberry wrote without Fontana or Coon to assist him - is that he was full of ideas, but lacking in actual writing and development skills.

I think that while Roddenberry has previously gotten more of a free pass than he should have done in regard to TMP and early TNG, fans have started to more recognise the roles of people like Michael Piller and Ron Moore in making TNG as good as it eventually became. The only ones who try to completely exonerate Roddenberry from any blame are usually the ones screaming from the hilltops about how TMP is a flawless masterpiece of cinema, and no-one took them seriously to begin with.

Uraniun235 wrote:Baffalo, if you want to learn about the behind-the-scenes on TOS, there is no better book to read than Inside Star Trek. It's a wonderfully written book, very fun to read, and gives excellent insight into the production of TOS and the propaganda that Roddenberry pushed about himself and the show during and since its production. It should be mandatory reading for any TOS fan.

I'm heading up to my mom's house later so I'll see if I can find the copy she got me at a garage sale when I go.

DaveJB wrote:The nearest things to Roddenberry's vision (at least his original one) are probably The Cage and Star Trek: The Motion Picture. And what those two have in common is a lot of neat concepts, but in varying degrees a lack of direction and characterisation (though The Cage was let down as much by its casting in that regard, IMO). The overall impression I get from those two pieces - and the handful of TOS Season 3 episodes that Roddenberry wrote without Fontana or Coon to assist him - is that he was full of ideas, but lacking in actual writing and development skills.

I think that while Roddenberry has previously gotten more of a free pass than he should have done in regard to TMP and early TNG, fans have started to more recognise the roles of people like Michael Piller and Ron Moore in making TNG as good as it eventually became. The only ones who try to completely exonerate Roddenberry from any blame are usually the ones screaming from the hilltops about how TMP is a flawless masterpiece of cinema, and no-one took them seriously to begin with.

TMP isn't flawless, but it's a good deal better than most fans give it credit for. And as for The Cage, I don't know what problems you have with the casting but I found it one of the best examples of Star Trek period. Jeffrey Hunter does not have the same level of charisma as William Shatner, but they were playing two different characters anyway.

Stofsk wrote:TMP isn't flawless, but it's a good deal better than most fans give it credit for.

That's a viewpoint I can fully respect, even if I don't agree with it. I was referring to the more vehement and "anti everything Star Trek post-1979" fans of TMP; the kind that Chuck talked about in the intro to his TMP review.

And as for The Cage, I don't know what problems you have with the casting but I found it one of the best examples of Star Trek period. Jeffrey Hunter does not have the same level of charisma as William Shatner, but they were playing two different characters anyway.

Of the Cage-specific cast, I did like Hunter and the guy who played the ship's doctor. However, Majel Barrett and the actress who played the yeoman were pretty forgettable, and the guy who played the helmsman came across like Barney Rubble on speed. The big problem overall with the casting and characterisation was that Pike/Hunter sorely needed another strong character to play off of, and The Cage (and the hypothetical Star Trek series it would have led into) was set up with Pike playing off the two least interesting characters in the ensemble. Really, the casting and characterisation aren't that bad in of themselves, but they combine in just about the worst possible way.

As for the overall storyline of The Cage, I actually do quite like it; I didn't mean to stick it in the same boat as TMP overall. I do feel that it became kind of aimless in the middle of the story, but not to nearly the same extent as TMP.

Stofsk wrote: TMP isn't flawless, but it's a good deal better than most fans give it credit for. And as for The Cage, I don't know what problems you have with the casting but I found it one of the best examples of Star Trek period. Jeffrey Hunter does not have the same level of charisma as William Shatner, but they were playing two different characters anyway.

TMP isn't at least utterly devoid of interpersonal conflict. A lot of this is due to Decker's resentment of Kirk, and the slightly darker interpretation of Kirk's love for the Enterprise (he'd do anything to get it back - using an emergency to dick over Decker).

I don't think anything is wrong with Pike. He actually falls somewhere between Kirk and Picard in his portrayal - introspective like Picard, but a bit more willing to throw up his fists. He also ordered his ship to warp with "Engage" twenty years before Picard grabbed that as his line.

If you read Roddenberry's character treatments of "The Cage" cast they actually come across as more well drawn out than the actual TOS cast. Maybe as a result of Scotty, Sulu and Uhura being more on-the-spot creations (Scotty for example was just "Engineer" in the "Where No Man Has Gone Before" script). Boyce of course got pretty much all his character traits carried over to McCoy.

All I can offer's that Gene spoke at one of my dad's university classes (English, with a heavy lean toward literature). My father says he was a nice, easy-going fellow who admonished his class, "Whatever you pursue, do not write for television if you value your sanity."

That was circa 1975 or so, and that's as straight from the source as you can get apart from a direct quote on film.

On the other hand, I'm one of those guys who thinks Star Trek was at its best when old Gene wasn't in charge; i.e., TNG's peak, which was probably around the "BOBW" mark and shortly thereafter. I know the Spock/Bones/Kirk dynamic in TOS was great and there were a number of really kick-ass TOS episodes, but I maintain that TNG is a superior series.

Around these parts, that is probably an unpopular contention However, I am more than prepared to defend it

I think you'll find a lot of people agreeing that TNG grew into an if not superior then at least equal series as time went by, and that TOS had its stinkers (heck the TOS movies did. TMP was merely boring but TFF?)

TFF is still a better movie than Insurrection or Nemesis.

It's a real shame that TNG didn't get any really good films. The only good one was FC, really, and even that I dislike. Generations was crap but had at least one good line in it, and Insurrection and Nemesis were too awful to contemplate.

DaveJB wrote:

Stofsk wrote:And as for The Cage, I don't know what problems you have with the casting but I found it one of the best examples of Star Trek period. Jeffrey Hunter does not have the same level of charisma as William Shatner, but they were playing two different characters anyway.

Of the Cage-specific cast, I did like Hunter and the guy who played the ship's doctor. However, Majel Barrett and the actress who played the yeoman were pretty forgettable, and the guy who played the helmsman came across like Barney Rubble on speed. The big problem overall with the casting and characterisation was that Pike/Hunter sorely needed another strong character to play off of, and The Cage (and the hypothetical Star Trek series it would have led into) was set up with Pike playing off the two least interesting characters in the ensemble. Really, the casting and characterisation aren't that bad in of themselves, but they combine in just about the worst possible way.

As for the overall storyline of The Cage, I actually do quite like it; I didn't mean to stick it in the same boat as TMP overall. I do feel that it became kind of aimless in the middle of the story, but not to nearly the same extent as TMP.

Majel Barrett as Number One is actually one of the characters in The Cage that most intrigued me. She's such an enigma we don't even have her name. But I agree about Yeoman Colt and Lt Tyler. Grace Lee Whitney and George Takei were much better as replacement characters. (I wish they'd kept Grace on the show)

Uraniun235 wrote:TFF is still a better movie than Insurrection or Nemesis.

I must admit that Nemesis had the distinction of killing off the series whereas TFF merely wounded it.

Stofsk wrote:It's a real shame that TNG didn't get any really good films. The only good one was FC, really, and even that I dislike. Generations was crap but had at least one good line in it, and Insurrection and Nemesis were too awful to contemplate.

I think part of the problem is that they let the actors make a few too many requests. Patrick Stewart wanted to be more of an action star IIRC. Brent Spiner wanted a bunch of things too, and all in all their attempts to run around and make everyone happy shot themselves in the foot. There's something to be said for adversity when filming. That and the lack of interpersonal conflict among the crew was a huge problem. I can understand Gene's idea, but conflict and drama make for a good movie, not "Oh I'm sorry, I was completely wrong and please accept my apologies" with a plastered on smile.

Lack of interpersonal conflict isn't a huge issue. The TOS gang got along like BFFs and it shows. Like how Spock sacrificed himself at the end of TWoK, and then in the next film everyone agreed to stuff their careers in the shitter when they stole the Enterprise to take it to Genesis and grab Spock's resurrected body. There was genuine warmth for each other, like when Sulu tells Kirk 'great to see you again' from the bridge of the Excelsior.

The problem with the TNG films is that the writing flat out sucked. Most everything else was fine - the actors were in top form, the visuals were fantastic, the direction was ok. You start hitting problems though when the plot for Generations just didn't make any sense, or how radically different the borg became from their TNG depiction. Insurrection was so dull I can barely remember any of it, and Nemesis was so bad it nearly killed the franchise for good (it certainly struck the nail into the coffin of TNG). A lot of those problems are from writers and producers, and it's a good deal more complicated than having a lack of interpersonal drama or conflict.

Frankly the writers (and the fans) complaining about this strikes me as misguided a criticism. And it shows how weak they were as writers too. I watch a show like nBSG and see how every goddamn character is at each other's throats and you know what? I don't give a fuck about any of them, I'm sitting there hoping the cylons come by and nuke every one of those losers to oblivion. But when it comes to the characters on TOS or TNG? Even DS9? I give a shit. You don't need to show characters get drunk and cry ABLOOBLOO all the fucking time or go 'I HATE YOU DAD' like Apollo does and call it 'drama'. (nBSG is just an example I'm using, I could use other shows - to keep it in the Star Trek universe, I couldn't give a shit about any of the characters in Voyager or Enterprise)

Stofsk wrote:Lack of interpersonal conflict isn't a huge issue. The TOS gang got along like BFFs and it shows. Like how Spock sacrificed himself at the end of TWoK, and then in the next film everyone agreed to stuff their careers in the shitter when they stole the Enterprise to take it to Genesis and grab Spock's resurrected body. There was genuine warmth for each other, like when Sulu tells Kirk 'great to see you again' from the bridge of the Excelsior.

They were friends, but there was conflict- they would shout at each other, they would vocalize doubts about each other and what they were doing, it was clear that there were real differences of opinion and method, especially among Kirk/Spock/McCoy.

"Character conflict" does not mean "at each others' throats," or doesn't have to. It can be done just as well, if not better, by simply introducing some clash of character and personality, to reflect that human beings may get along wonderfully but seldom get along without friction.

Because it's often the moments of friction that define the characters. We learn more about who Dr. McCoy is by the times he gets riled up talking to Spock, or when he's acting as Kirk's confidant and asking if Kirk's judgment in a given matter is objective, then we do any other way.

Well, Baffalo's point seems to have been that one of the problems with TNG was too much agreement and too many rushes toward reconciliation, and not enough friction among the core characters to highlight their personalities.

Maybe he's just off-base about that. Or maybe I misunderstood.

Such is life.