RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,702
Posts: 5,431,605
Members: 24,833
Currently online: 404
Newest member: PlainSimplGarak


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 > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 1 2013, 05:15 PM   #166
RandyS
Vice Admiral
 
RandyS's Avatar
 
Location: Randyland
View RandyS's Twitter Profile
Re: Was Roddenberry a Terrible Writer?

BillJ wrote: View Post
RandyS wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post

If Roddenberry had remained truer to his roots, The Next Generation might be more fondly remembered by general audiences.

I find much of The Next Generation dull and self-important. It took itself too seriously and forgot it was suppose to be entertainment.
You can make THAT argument about pretty much anything that's been on TV for the last decade.
So you're saying that The Next Generation was a trend-setter?
It would be nice if it had been. Then, TV wouldn't be the forgettable garbage it is now.
RandyS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1 2013, 05:33 PM   #167
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Was Roddenberry a Terrible Writer?

RandyS wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
RandyS wrote: View Post

You can make THAT argument about pretty much anything that's been on TV for the last decade.
So you're saying that The Next Generation was a trend-setter?
It would be nice if it had been. Then, TV wouldn't be the forgettable garbage it is now.
Interesting statement. Though by most accounts we're in a new "Golden Age" thanks to groundbreaking programs on cable.
__________________
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.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1 2013, 05:58 PM   #168
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Was Roddenberry a Terrible Writer?

TNG was a trendsetter. It was a pioneer in first-run syndicated scripted drama/action programming, and started the wave in such programming that dominated the '90s.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1 2013, 06:12 PM   #169
LOKAI of CHERON
Commodore
 
LOKAI of CHERON's Avatar
 
Location: Post-apocalyptic ruins of my once mighty Homeworld.
Re: Was Roddenberry a Terrible Writer?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Trek Survivor wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
If Roddenberry had remained truer to his roots, The Next Generation might be more fondly remembered by general audiences.
Huh? At least here in the UK, I find TNG is VERY fondly remembered by loads of people that I wouldn't even call Trek fans. Possibly more than TOS.
Here is the States, TOS is the one the general audiences still know after all these years. That was true even prior to the Abramsverse films. TNG and the rest of the spin-offs really have dropped from the minds of the public.
It's EXACTLY the same situation here in the UK IMHO. Obviously this is purely anecdoctal, but pretty much EVERY non-fan I speak to knows Kirk/Spock/Bones and TOS as Star Trek. A steep recognition drop-off begins with TNG - with a veritable plunge into the abyss of total oblivion for DS9, VOY and ENT.

Certainly, TNG is the most popluar of the modern Trek pantheon in the UK, but doesn't come close to the cultural awareness and penetration TOS still enjoys.
__________________
YOU MONOTONE HUMANS ARE ALL ALIKE... FIRST YOU CONDEMN, THEN ATTACK.
LOKAI of CHERON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1 2013, 07:03 PM   #170
drt
Commander
 
Re: Was Roddenberry a Terrible Writer?

trevanian wrote: View Post
TNG was a mediocre show with moments of greatness, and it will probably date as badly as any SF series that lasted long enough to be remembered. That hardly compares to TOS or FIREFLY or to put it on a more comparable playing field, DS9.
I think shows like the original Star Trek and Firefly are more beloved because their premature cancellations leaves fans with a feeling of untapped potential, so they want more, whereas TNG/DS9/VOY by lasting seven years each are perceived as having their stories play out to a natural conclusion.
drt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1 2013, 07:08 PM   #171
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Was Roddenberry a Terrible Writer?

Geoff Peterson wrote: View Post
RandyS wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post

So you're saying that The Next Generation was a trend-setter?
It would be nice if it had been. Then, TV wouldn't be the forgettable garbage it is now.
Interesting statement. Though by most accounts we're in a new "Golden Age" thanks to groundbreaking programs on cable.
Agreed. I'd put most modern programs up against a lot of the network shows we consumed as kids. Is anyone really going to argue that Charlie's Angels or Marcus Welby M.D. were vastly superior to, say, The Walking Dead or American Horror Story or The Americans or even Castle or CSI or Leverage or whatever?

Even on the genre front, I'll put Sleepy Hollow or Warehouse 13 or Once Upon a Time up against The Six Million Dollar Man or the original Battlestar Galactica any day.
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1 2013, 07:35 PM   #172
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Was Roddenberry a Terrible Writer?

drt wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
TNG was a mediocre show with moments of greatness, and it will probably date as badly as any SF series that lasted long enough to be remembered. That hardly compares to TOS or FIREFLY or to put it on a more comparable playing field, DS9.
I think shows like the original Star Trek and Firefly are more beloved because their premature cancellations leaves fans with a feeling of untapped potential, so they want more, whereas TNG/DS9/VOY by lasting seven years each are perceived as having their stories play out to a natural conclusion.
A lot of that TOS potential played out in fanfic, authorized novels, and to a slight degree in the movies. I'd say TOS is the way it is because it was good.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1 2013, 07:50 PM   #173
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Was Roddenberry a Terrible Writer?

trevanian wrote: View Post
drt wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
TNG was a mediocre show with moments of greatness, and it will probably date as badly as any SF series that lasted long enough to be remembered. That hardly compares to TOS or FIREFLY or to put it on a more comparable playing field, DS9.
I think shows like the original Star Trek and Firefly are more beloved because their premature cancellations leaves fans with a feeling of untapped potential, so they want more, whereas TNG/DS9/VOY by lasting seven years each are perceived as having their stories play out to a natural conclusion.
A lot of that TOS potential played out in fanfic, authorized novels, and to a slight degree in the movies. I'd say TOS is the way it is because it was good.
Yeah, I'm not certain longevity is really the issue here. The Twilight Zone ran for six or seven seasons, but it's still regarded as a classic of TV science fiction

Honestly, I suspect TOS vs. TNG is largely a generational thing.
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1 2013, 09:20 PM   #174
RandyS
Vice Admiral
 
RandyS's Avatar
 
Location: Randyland
View RandyS's Twitter Profile
Re: Was Roddenberry a Terrible Writer?

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
drt wrote: View Post

I think shows like the original Star Trek and Firefly are more beloved because their premature cancellations leaves fans with a feeling of untapped potential, so they want more, whereas TNG/DS9/VOY by lasting seven years each are perceived as having their stories play out to a natural conclusion.
A lot of that TOS potential played out in fanfic, authorized novels, and to a slight degree in the movies. I'd say TOS is the way it is because it was good.
Yeah, I'm not certain longevity is really the issue here. The Twilight Zone ran for six or seven seasons, but it's still regarded as a classic of TV science fiction

Honestly, I suspect TOS vs. TNG is largely a generational thing.
That's probably true nowdays. But in my case, I wasn't born til almost a year after TOS' cancellation, and was 17 when TNG came on, and was always a fan of both.

Blame my mom. She loved TOS from it's 1966 premire, and I watched the first wave of reruns with her as a baby (so she claimed, anyway).
RandyS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1 2013, 11:15 PM   #175
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Was Roddenberry a Terrible Writer?

2takesfrakes wrote: View Post

And for as much as I love TOS for all its camp and sense of adventure, I'm sure we can also agree that The Next Generation was Gene Roddenberry's pièce de résistance.
I admit this makes me chuckle. Since when have we Trekkies ever agreed on anything? As this board proves every day.

Seriously, I not sure you can assume there's some sort of consensus on this point . . . .
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1 2013, 11:29 PM   #176
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Was Roddenberry a Terrible Writer?

Christopher wrote: View Post
Closed Caption wrote: View Post
Furthermore, I don't understand how regarding the assignment of director credit to Wise as something that was earned is incompatible with the notion that Roddenberry was a hands-on producer, another assignment of negotiated credit that was also certainly earned.
Exactly. It's completely bizarre to try to argue that an entire tentpole feature film could possibly be the work of only one person. Film is a collaborative enterprise.

But I should point out that I was not debating whether Roddenberry or Wise was more responsible for the entire film. I was responding specifically to the assertion that Roddenberry "delivered beautiful and stunning imagery onscreen." Roddenberry was a writer. He was responsible for the ideas and words and characterizations in the film (along with Harold Livingston, Alan Dean Foster, and Jon Povill). But it makes no sense to credit him for the visual aspects of the film. The look of the film is the responsibility of the director, the director of photography, the editor, the production designer, and the art and visual effects departments, so those were the people I credited.
Yeah, the entire discussion of this issue has morphed into something it wasn't to begin with. Such is the web.

Anyway, my position is really that the auteur theory is false, not only in general, but first of all in the case of TMP, and in the case of TMP that goes for whomever we assign as the primary source of work, whether the credited director Wise, or even, as if he had been the director, Roddenberry himself.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1 2013, 11:34 PM   #177
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Was Roddenberry a Terrible Writer?

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
2takesfrakes wrote: View Post

And for as much as I love TOS for all its camp and sense of adventure, I'm sure we can also agree that The Next Generation was Gene Roddenberry's pièce de résistance.
I admit this makes me chuckle. Since when have we Trekkies ever agreed on anything? As this board proves every day.

TNG, Roddenberry's pièce de résistance? Hardly. His health was failing, his judgment was poor, his writing had deteriorated badly (seriously, the dialogue in "Hide and Q" is painfully inept and amateurish), he'd bought too fully into his "visionary" persona to have his story priorities straight, and he shut his collaborators out of their due credit and let his lawyer abuse them and drive them away. Much of the show's concepts came from its uncredited co-creators David Gerrold, D.C. Fontana, and Bob Justman -- and most of what Roddenberry brought to the table was just recycled from his former projects (Picard, Riker, and Troi were based on Phase II's matured Kirk, Decker, and Ilia, while Data was a cross between Xon and Questor).

And it didn't become a really good show until after he stopped having much of a say in its creation. It was Michael Piller's pièce de résistance, perhaps (although I'm tempted to say that was Legend instead), but not Roddenberry's.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 2 2013, 12:02 AM   #178
Melakon
Vice Admiral
 
Melakon's Avatar
 
Location: Unmarked grave, Ekos
Re: Was Roddenberry a Terrible Writer?

Calling TNG Gene's pièce de résistance borders very close to the fan adulation that considered Roddenberry some sort of television god for coming up with Star Trek in the first place, which he unfortunately seemed to believe at times. He'd gotten one series on the air, The Lieutenant, but it only lasted one season. He was desperately trying to put new pilots together and get back on the air to maintain his status as a creator-producer. With Star Trek, he got lucky with the concept and all the people he pulled together who helped flesh it out.

Roddenberry's best work was most likely when he was still hungry.
__________________
Curly: If at first you don't succeed, keep on suckin' til you do succeed.
--Movie Maniacs (1936)
Melakon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 2 2013, 01:20 AM   #179
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: Was Roddenberry a Terrible Writer?

Closed Caption wrote: View Post
Maurice wrote: View Post
Credits like "A Robert Wise Film" are negotiated and don't prove anything.
The statement in question was that one could hardly call TMP a Robert Wise film. Even just the pro forma basis of going by what was negotiated in credits contradicts the extreme position of hardly.

Furthermore, I don't understand how regarding the assignment of director credit to Wise as something that was earned is incompatible with the notion that Roddenberry was a hands-on producer, another assignment of negotiated credit that was also certainly earned.
My point was that the "a ___film" credit is negotiated. The Directed By credit is the one with weight, since it has the DGA behind it, and they make sure the person who actually directed the film gets credit in the appropriate place.
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 2 2013, 01:59 AM   #180
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Was Roddenberry a Terrible Writer?

Closed Caption wrote: View Post
Anyway, my position is really that the auteur theory is false, not only in general, but first of all in the case of TMP, and in the case of TMP that goes for whomever we assign as the primary source of work, whether the credited director Wise, or even, as if he had been the director, Roddenberry himself.
William Goldman's claim was that only Russ Meyer was a true auteur, since he really did do nearly everything on some of his softcore efforts. I'd agree that the auteur business is mostly bunk, but that there are exceptions.

Some of Welles' later films would qualify in my mind. It's justifiable to think of the film as Orson Welles' THE TRIAL, cuz it really ain't Kafka's. Plus that's the one where when there was no money for the crew (Salkinds as producers, what else would you expect?), you have Welles shooting a scene with Anthony Perkins in a car on a rainy day by roping the vehicle to himself and walking backward pulling the car with his own weight while filming Perkins with one hand and using the other to spray the car with rain from a hose. Literally the guy was doing it all. Plus he had a legitimately different view of the material, especially the ending, given that the book was written before The Holocaust and the film made nearly two decades later.
trevanian 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 07:59 AM.

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