Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....
Santa Kang wrote:
He could have made a lot more money making traditional westerns, which were extremely popular at that time, to my understanding. And this show was not, exactly, favored by TV execs. So what you are saying is complete and utter non-sense. Next..
You actually think that Roddenberry didn't want to make money?
You know what else was popular at that time? Space exploration. You know who America's newest heroes were? Astronauts. So a show taking the tropes of Westerns set in space would be something the execs would look at. They liked it enough to green light a second pilot. A somewhat unusual move in those days.
To quote Khan, " I know something of those years. Remember, it was a time of great dreams, of great aspiration".
I'm not saying Gene Roddenberry didn't want to make money, that would be foolish, because money means the continuation of his medium.
He could have made money a lot easier doing traditional television.
Now let me remind some of you from the older generations what was NOT popular back then. Racial tolerance! And that is one of the first things Gene fought to represent in the bridge crew!
Actually that was the network's suggestion. Diversity was something they were looking for. See Trek's sister show Mission Impossible
and I Spy
ETA: The book you need to read is Inside Star Trek
by Justman and Solow. It might burst a few bubbles though.
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.