RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,466
Posts: 5,509,002
Members: 25,133
Currently online: 494
Newest member: laibcoms

TrekToday headlines

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 3 2011, 05:28 AM   #16
Kamdan
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Trek Nation...Good, Bad, or Indifferent?

I nearly fell outta my chair with hysterical laughter when he said he liked the fact his Dad cheated on his Mom, it made him "seem more human".
It made me scream out loud, "YOUR OWN MOTHER WAS ONE OF HIS MISTRESSES DURING HIS FIRST MARRIAGE!!!” Why do you think she landed a lead role in The Cage? She was dismissed because she was a HORRIBLE actress (emphasis on the "WHORE") and the executives knew she was there because she was sleeping with the producer. Seriously, what happened to Roddenberry’s surviving daughter? Last I heard, she tried to sue Majel Barrett. I’m sure she would have much more interesting stories for Rod to hear, rather than hearing Nichelle Nichols’ MLK story… AGAIN. Also, I wish that he would have spoken with Harlan Ellison about Roddenberry. He always worth a few laughs and doesn't beat around the bush about people.
Kamdan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 3 2011, 09:59 PM   #17
Warp Coil
Rear Admiral
 
Warp Coil's Avatar
 
Location: MD, USA
Re: Trek Nation...Good, Bad, or Indifferent?

Just watched it today. Not bad but not amazing. It acknowledges that Gene Roddenberry wasn't perfect but overall paints him in a positive light. It also seems to cast a bright, positive light on Trek and Trek fans in general.
__________________
"I managed to find Uno and Checkers, and also parts of Battleship and most of the pieces of Candy Land, which I figure, I can mix together to create a fabulous new game, CandyShipBattleLand. War never tasted so good." - Lorelai Gilmore
Warp Coil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 3 2011, 11:20 PM   #18
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: Trek Nation...Good, Bad, or Indifferent?

Any news on if this will be available via streaming or on DVD?
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4 2011, 05:12 AM   #19
borg3060
Lieutenant Commander
 
borg3060's Avatar
 
Location: Out of sight, out of mind
Re: Trek Nation...Good, Bad, or Indifferent?

At the Vegas con this past August, Rod confirmed that it will be available on DVD at some point soon, with additional cut scenes.
__________________
Smoke me a kipper-- I'll be back for breakfast!
borg3060 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4 2011, 05:20 AM   #20
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Trek Nation...Good, Bad, or Indifferent?

Some clips which did not appear in the TV airing have just been posted here:

http://trekmovie.com/2011/12/02/trek...ilable-online/
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4 2011, 06:29 AM   #21
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Trek Nation...Good, Bad, or Indifferent?

borg3060 wrote: View Post
At the Vegas con this past August, Rod confirmed that it will be available on DVD at some point soon, with additional cut scenes.
More of him whining about his daddy issues?
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2011, 09:16 AM   #22
Nick Ryder
Fleet Captain
 
Nick Ryder's Avatar
 
Location: Milwaukee, WI Da Brew City
Re: Trek Nation...Good, Bad, or Indifferent?

I thought it wasn't too bad - given that it was only a 2 hour thing - couldn't go into every single nuance. Although I was originally thinking for some reason that it would have been an actual sort of mini-series type thing. More than one 2 hour show. Considering he was working on this documentary for a looooong time, 2 hours is all they could do?

I don't know feels like there was a LOT they cut out for timing's sake. Interviews I'm sure he had done that weren't aired, elements that weren't there. For all we know there was a longer first cut of it, that mentioned the "first family", that went into some of the other aspects. But then again... this is a Science Channel/Discovery Communications production. They're pretty good at hacksaw editing. "Eh, that's boring... let's hear Uhura's MLKJr story!" even though many of us fans have heard that story so many times in so many ways. Although Majel disappointed me, you think she'd have SOMETHING more to say - or at least they could have picked her doing a more forthcoming interview. It's not like Rod was the first one to put a mic in front of her.

But keep in mind, this was also meant for a general audience, not just us Trekkies. We know all this stuff - there was really very little that we haven't seen in other documentaries, special features, interviews or books. I was actually kinda of glad to see some of the home movies from the Roddenberry family. And the Save Enterprise people. I'm glad to see that was included. It also sort of did a somewhat decent job at portraying us fans in a better light than "Trekkies" did - although the guy in the Borg costume with the vox box and the rather unattractive woman in the Borg Queen outfit sort of were there for the "freak show" element... but those kids he interviewed were pretty cute. 6 Years old and they knew every bit about the show.

So it wasn't 'horrible' but it wasn't spectacular either. I think it could have been longer but then again you are trying to fit in over 50 years of story in to 2 hours. Really should have been a multi-night event sort of thing. Maybe like the initial 2 hour thing to whet the appetite and then 1 hour shows every night for like 5 nights that go into more detail about Roddenberry's impact and influence on each series. Like Night 2 - TOS, Night 3 - TNG, Night 4 -The Spin offs - TAS, DS9, VOY, Ent, Night 5 - The Future of Trek - at least it would let things take a more in depth look.

But Rod does have some serious daddy issues - although... speaking as someone who lost his own father a few years back, you do tend to both sort of look favorably on your late old man and not so favorably. It's an odd balance. And since he lost his pop at a fairly young age, I'm sure there are a lot of issues - and maybe this was his way of trying to work through it.

I wouldn't nominate it for any awards. But at least we fans weren't completely looked at as complete and utter freaks
__________________
"Here you are in the club with your bottle full of Bud, you got grillz you got bling, but playa you don't know a thing..." Alice Cooper - Disco Bloodbath Boogie Fever
Nick Ryder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29 2011, 06:39 PM   #23
Paper Moon
Commander
 
Re: Trek Nation...Good, Bad, or Indifferent?

I just watched the rerun of this last night, and I gotta say, I really liked. Yes, there were issues: no mention of Roddenberry Sr.'s first marriage, a little (read: waaaaay) too much of Gene Roddenberry = Visionary stuff at the beginning, a paucity of interviews with the original actors (just Nichelle Nichols as far as I can recall).

But there was some really great stuff in there. I had heard Nichols' MLK story before, but not in that level of detail. (For instance, I hadn't heard that it was the only show MLK and Coretta would let their children stay up for.) And the people I was watching with, who are fans, and have seen many Star Trek episodes, but don't have the same amount of behind-the-scenes knowledge that I do, were profoundly moved by her story. I mean, for crying out loud, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Star Trek fan! And he thought it was important that Uhura stay on the Enterprise. How cool is that?

And we got new interviews with people that we, as members of the Star Trek community, owe a lot. DC Fontana, Ron Moore, Michael Pillar, and, of course, Rick Berman. (Say what you will about Berman, but without him, we would have a lot less to discuss here at TrekBBS. A lot less.) I thought the new interviews were interesting and had the benefit of more hindsight than earlier interviews, so we had new perspectives, etc. I mean, when was the last time someone sat down with Dorothy Fontana to talk about Star Trek and filmed it?

Also, we had George Lucas talking about Star Trek. Whoa. You know, he basically said that, without Star Trek, he would've had a lot harder time doing Star Wars, noting that Star Trek gave him precedent to not be realistic in space. I thought Roddenberry Jr. handled that sequence very well, and I liked the inclusion of the clip of Roddenberry Sr. talking about Star Wars.

On the downside, we really did have too much stuff about Gene Roddenberry being a "visionary," especially at the beginning. I thought they did a good job of bringing him back down to earth, but I think they set him up too high to begin with.

Yes, Gene had a vision of the future. And it was a beautiful one, too. Frakes summed it up perfectly: "In the 24th century, there will be no hunger, there will be no greed, and all the children will know how to read." When people ask me what Star Trek is about, that's what I tell them. And when you realize the time in which Gene had this idea, an era of Vietnam, JFK being shot, people rioting in the streets, the Cuban Missile Crisis... in many ways, it was a terrible time. And Roddenberry said that someday it won't be like this. We're not all gonna die in a mushroom cloud; it's going to be better than that.

But to call Roddenberry a "visionary," in my opinion, is a bit excessive. And it's much too easy to give Roddenberry waaaay too much credit. For example, I think it's safe to say that we owe TNG and everything that came after to the overall commercial success of Star Trek II, III and IV. And that only happened because Roddenberry was "kicked upstairs" and other people (Harve Bennett and Leonard Nimoy in particular) took over on the ground. TMP may have been a work of art, but it was far from a commercial success. Gene had a vision, but he had a hard time executing its portrayal effectively. And I think that's an important distinction to keep in mind.

I think this film is important to the Star Trek community for that very reason. It forces us in a healthy way to examine the man without whom we would not be having this discussion today. (For all his faults, we can say that about the Great Bird.)

Yes, Roddenberry Jr. has Daddy issues. But so what? Lots of people do. As someone who never knew his own grandfather, to whom I owe so much, I am frankly envious of Roddenberry Jr.'s ability to learn so much about his own father. I thought that the film did a good job of exploring a very poignant emotional question: how do I come to terms with the death of a man that I did not like in life but whom I now desperately want to know? I'm sure Roddenberry Jr. is not the only person to have grappled with those feelings.

Lastly, as someone who found Star Trek when he really needed to find Star Trek, I appreciated the inclusion of some stories about why Star Trek means so much to the fans. I know it is not a universal, but I think many Star Trek fans do form an emotional connection with the franchise that is hard to explain. And I appreciated Roddenberry Jr.'s effort to do so respectfully. And I think he succeeded.
Paper Moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29 2011, 06:45 PM   #24
Paper Moon
Commander
 
Re: Trek Nation...Good, Bad, or Indifferent?

Nick Ryder wrote: View Post
But Rod does have some serious daddy issues - although... speaking as someone who lost his own father a few years back, you do tend to both sort of look favorably on your late old man and not so favorably. It's an odd balance. And since he lost his pop at a fairly young age, I'm sure there are a lot of issues - and maybe this was his way of trying to work through it.
Nick Ryder, I just reread your message, and realized that I may have come across as dismissive of your point here. My apologies. On the contrary, I think you have hit the nail on the head here. It really is an odd balance, and I thought the film did a good job of showing us how Jr. was working out his own issues.

I also really agree with your points about this film being for a general audience (and not just us) and about the film's portrayal of the fans. A few "out-there"'s, but overall, pretty good.

My apologies for the double post, everyone.
Paper Moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3 2012, 05:54 AM   #25
antiquityscion
Commander
 
Re: Trek Nation...Good, Bad, or Indifferent?

Paper Moon wrote: View Post
I just watched the rerun of this last night, and I gotta say, I really liked. Yes, there were issues: no mention of Roddenberry Sr.'s first marriage, a little (read: waaaaay) too much of Gene Roddenberry = Visionary stuff at the beginning, a paucity of interviews with the original actors (just Nichelle Nichols as far as I can recall).

But there was some really great stuff in there. I had heard Nichols' MLK story before, but not in that level of detail. (For instance, I hadn't heard that it was the only show MLK and Coretta would let their children stay up for.) And the people I was watching with, who are fans, and have seen many Star Trek episodes, but don't have the same amount of behind-the-scenes knowledge that I do, were profoundly moved by her story. I mean, for crying out loud, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Star Trek fan! And he thought it was important that Uhura stay on the Enterprise. How cool is that?

And we got new interviews with people that we, as members of the Star Trek community, owe a lot. DC Fontana, Ron Moore, Michael Pillar, and, of course, Rick Berman. (Say what you will about Berman, but without him, we would have a lot less to discuss here at TrekBBS. A lot less.) I thought the new interviews were interesting and had the benefit of more hindsight than earlier interviews, so we had new perspectives, etc. I mean, when was the last time someone sat down with Dorothy Fontana to talk about Star Trek and filmed it?

Also, we had George Lucas talking about Star Trek. Whoa. You know, he basically said that, without Star Trek, he would've had a lot harder time doing Star Wars, noting that Star Trek gave him precedent to not be realistic in space. I thought Roddenberry Jr. handled that sequence very well, and I liked the inclusion of the clip of Roddenberry Sr. talking about Star Wars.

On the downside, we really did have too much stuff about Gene Roddenberry being a "visionary," especially at the beginning. I thought they did a good job of bringing him back down to earth, but I think they set him up too high to begin with.

Yes, Gene had a vision of the future. And it was a beautiful one, too. Frakes summed it up perfectly: "In the 24th century, there will be no hunger, there will be no greed, and all the children will know how to read." When people ask me what Star Trek is about, that's what I tell them. And when you realize the time in which Gene had this idea, an era of Vietnam, JFK being shot, people rioting in the streets, the Cuban Missile Crisis... in many ways, it was a terrible time. And Roddenberry said that someday it won't be like this. We're not all gonna die in a mushroom cloud; it's going to be better than that.

But to call Roddenberry a "visionary," in my opinion, is a bit excessive. And it's much too easy to give Roddenberry waaaay too much credit. For example, I think it's safe to say that we owe TNG and everything that came after to the overall commercial success of Star Trek II, III and IV. And that only happened because Roddenberry was "kicked upstairs" and other people (Harve Bennett and Leonard Nimoy in particular) took over on the ground. TMP may have been a work of art, but it was far from a commercial success. Gene had a vision, but he had a hard time executing its portrayal effectively. And I think that's an important distinction to keep in mind.

I think this film is important to the Star Trek community for that very reason. It forces us in a healthy way to examine the man without whom we would not be having this discussion today. (For all his faults, we can say that about the Great Bird.)

Yes, Roddenberry Jr. has Daddy issues. But so what? Lots of people do. As someone who never knew his own grandfather, to whom I owe so much, I am frankly envious of Roddenberry Jr.'s ability to learn so much about his own father. I thought that the film did a good job of exploring a very poignant emotional question: how do I come to terms with the death of a man that I did not like in life but whom I now desperately want to know? I'm sure Roddenberry Jr. is not the only person to have grappled with those feelings.

Lastly, as someone who found Star Trek when he really needed to find Star Trek, I appreciated the inclusion of some stories about why Star Trek means so much to the fans. I know it is not a universal, but I think many Star Trek fans do form an emotional connection with the franchise that is hard to explain. And I appreciated Roddenberry Jr.'s effort to do so respectfully. And I think he succeeded.
+1

Exactly how I felt about the documentary.
antiquityscion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5 2012, 06:10 AM   #26
Paper Moon
Commander
 
Re: Trek Nation...Good, Bad, or Indifferent?

antiquityscion wrote: View Post
+1

Exactly how I felt about the documentary.
Thanks!
Paper Moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 8 2012, 02:31 AM   #27
Anji
Rear Admiral
 
Anji's Avatar
 
Location: Assisting in the birth of baby Horta on Janus VI
View Anji's Twitter Profile
Re: Trek Nation...Good, Bad, or Indifferent?

I am so sorry I missed it. I hope that by making the movie the kid did come to some sort of grip with his father's death. From the videos I've seen of him he took Gene's passing really, really hard. (He seems to be as sensitive as his father was.)

And for that comment about Gene cheating on his wife: if you've ever been in a loveless, or even married for that matter, you'll know that marriage is in the heart and not on a piece of paper. You can be married and fall out of love or not even marry for love in the first place. We don't know what went wrong in the first Roddenberry marriage and we are in no position to judge. We have never heard from Roddenberry's first wife.

Majel a slut....sorry, never gonna believe that one.
__________________
"You may be wrong, but you may be right." - Billy Joel
Anji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 14 2012, 01:17 AM   #28
jefferiestubes8
Commodore
 
Location: New York City
'Trek Nation' Now Available On Digital Download

"Trek Nation" is available on iTunes for $15. Xbox Live customers can purchase the film for 1,200 Microsoft points. You rent "Trek Nation" on Vudu for $4, or buy it there for $14. It can be rented on YouTube for $4.
'Trek Nation' Now Available On Digital Download

It aired on Science Channel back in the Winter and now is available for rental or purchase.


related thread:
What happened to Rod Roddenberry's "Trek Nation" doc?
jefferiestubes8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 18 2012, 02:30 AM   #29
Bumbles861
Admiral
 
Bumbles861's Avatar
 
Location: bbailey861 in Kingston, ON
Re: Trek Nation...Good, Bad, or Indifferent?

I am still hoping that some channel up here will air it. Space, or the Documentary Channel, perhaps.
Bumbles861 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4 2012, 11:13 PM   #30
The Transformed Man
Commander
 
The Transformed Man's Avatar
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
View The Transformed Man's Twitter Profile
Re: Trek Nation...Good, Bad, or Indifferent?

I thought it was pretty good. It tried to present the myth of Gene in a more balanced light... some parts were compelling and some parts... meh.

Certainly well made and mostly interesting, but I would have like to have seen more from people outside of Star Trek that knew him. One of the best moments was when he interviewed a couple of neighbors about his dad.

But if you want a good doc on the Star Trek experience I would certainly recommend Shatner's "Get a Life." While it covers a lot of ground that was presented in the "Trekkies" movies, it really does a great job of discussing the overall mythos of Trek and why people are so attracted to it.

Good stuff.

Yancy
__________________
I have no... precious time at all to spend... nor service to do, till you...
The Transformed Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.