Hated it

[Dukhat]

No, it wouldn't. TNG was repurposed Star Trek: Phase II, which was a Roddenberry creation. Ergo it would not have existed without Roddenberry.

And that was my point: If someone else had been given the reigns to TNG instead of Roddenberry, then we would have had a completely different dynamic for the show (not based on Phase II) that would have worked just as good if not better than what we got with Roddenberry.

 

[eyeresist]

And that was my point: If someone else had been given the reigns to TNG instead of Roddenberry, then we would have had a completely different dynamic for the show (not based on Phase II) that would have worked just as good if not better than what we got with Roddenberry.

Spoken with the authority of one who has actually visited that alternate reality and returned to preach the gospel of Roddenberry Sucks.

 

[BigJake]

No, it wouldn't. TNG was repurposed Star Trek: Phase II, which was a Roddenberry creation. Ergo it would not have existed without Roddenberry.

And that was my point: If someone else had been given the reigns to TNG instead of Roddenberry, then we would have had a completely different dynamic for the show (not based on Phase II) that would have worked just as good if not better than what we got with Roddenberry.

Yes, I'm glad you've visited all the alternate realities and can state that with confidence. That is a totally defensible position.

But hey, let's be constructive here, because I actually think I spy the seeds of a genuinely interesting topic for the TNG forum. Does anyone know of completely different people who were approached for TNG and what ideas they might have had for it? Those might make for some entertaining what-ifs.

 

[fireproof78]

No, it wouldn't. TNG was repurposed Star Trek: Phase II, which was a Roddenberry creation. Ergo it would not have existed without Roddenberry.

And that was my point: If someone else had been given the reigns to TNG instead of Roddenberry, then we would have had a completely different dynamic for the show (not based on Phase II) that would have worked just as good if not better than what we got with Roddenberry.

That's an interesting point and raises the question of "What did Roddenberry contribute to TNG that led to the show's success?"

And this is not meant to be mean spirited or critical of Roddenberry as what I have read about the man was that he could be a bit of a hands-on person who wanted to make something work that fit his vision. But, reading other BTS details indicates that Roddenberry's involvement was not a guarantee of success for the next show.

So, I'm curious to hear other points of views of why Roddenberry was the key to Trek's success.

 

[Dukhat]

Spoken with the authority of one who has actually visited that alternate reality and returned to preach the gospel of Roddenberry Sucks.

Yes, I'm glad you've visited all the alternate realities and can state that with confidence. That is a totally defensible position.

In case this went over both of your heads based on your flippant responses, this was just my opinion.

However, I stand by what I wrote. And, suffice it to say, since neither of you have access to said alternate reality either, you'd have no authority to dispute my opinion as incorrect.

That's an interesting point and raises the question of "What did Roddenberry contribute to TNG that led to the show's success?"

At the risk of further annoying the two previous posters, I don't think TNG's eventual success had anything to do with Roddenberry per se. It had more to do with fact that Star Trek, at its height of popularity, was back on television for the first time, and everybody wanted it back. It could have had the lousiest actors, the dumbest producers, the most inane storylines, or the shittiest special effects, and people still would have watched it for the simple fact that it was Star Trek. It was in the right place at the right time (at least, syndication-wise).

Something like that would never happen with televised Trek these days. Just look at ENT for proof of that.

 

[BillJ]

Spoken with the authority of one who has actually visited that alternate reality and returned to preach the gospel of Roddenberry Sucks.

By the same token, no one should turn their back or get down on their knees to worship Roddenberry. Take either stance and Roddenberry will surely do something unsavory to you.

Just ask the people he worked with.

 

[MacLeod]

TNG's "Parallels" amongest others such as TOS & DSN's Mirror Universe episodes etablished that there were multiple alterante realties/parallel universe use what ever description you like. The new films simply take place in one of those.

 

[Commishsleer]

TNG's "Parallels" amongest others such as TOS & DSN's Mirror Universe episodes etablished that there were multiple alterante realties/parallel universe use what ever description you like. The new films simply take place in one of those.

Yes but how were we (the audience of ST09) to know if it were a Mirror Universe or a replacement universe that happened in FC or City on the Edge of Forever.
As people have pointed out it doesn't really matter except to the fans as the Abrams films are not likely to deal with the Prime Universe.

 

[doubleohfive]

TNG's "Parallels" amongest others such as TOS & DSN's Mirror Universe episodes etablished that there were multiple alterante realties/parallel universe use what ever description you like. The new films simply take place in one of those.

Yes but how were we (the audience of ST09) to know if it were a Mirror Universe or a replacement universe that happened in FC or City on the Edge of Forever.
As people have pointed out it doesn't really matter except to the fans as the Abrams films are not likely to deal with the Prime Universe.

It really amazes me that nearly six years later people are still upset about this when Abrams and his team bent over backwards to preserve everything that came before their first film. Mind-boggling.

For what it's worth, my opinion on the matter: it's a new universe created by Nero's shenanigans, that exists alongside all the other parallel and alternate universes and timelines we've seen already. Everything from the "Prime" universe still happened, it's just the timeline has been reset and we're following this universe now.

The greatest surprise/joy in the 2009 film was that Spock Prime wasn't able to restore the timeline and that for once, we (the audience) were going to have to live with it. No easy reset, still preserving what we know happened before, but wiping the storytelling slate clean for new adventures with familiar characters. It could not have been done in a more fan-friendly way.

 

[BigJake]

Spoken with the authority of one who has actually visited that alternate reality and returned to preach the gospel of Roddenberry Sucks.

Yes, I'm glad you've visited all the alternate realities and can state that with confidence. That is a totally defensible position.

In case this went over both of your heads based on your flippant responses, this was just my opinion.

Yes. A thoroughly laughable one.

Sorry, but "any random schmoe could have come up with as good or better TNG than Roddenberry" is not even remotely plausible as a speculation (if it was, the entire body of Trek fan productions would be treasured parts of the Criterion collection right now). It's pretty funny that you honestly can't seem to see that.

[EDIT: Further comments again redacted as redundant.]

 

[BillJ]

Spoken with the authority of one who has actually visited that alternate reality and returned to preach the gospel of Roddenberry Sucks.

Yes, I'm glad you've visited all the alternate realities and can state that with confidence. That is a totally defensible position.

In case this went over both of your heads based on your flippant responses, this was just my opinion.

Yes. A thoroughly laughable one.

Sorry, but "any random schmoe could have come up with as good or better TNG than Roddenberry" is not even remotely plausible as a speculation (if it was, the entire body of Trek fan productions would be treasured parts of the Criterion collection right now). It's pretty funny that you honestly can't seem to see that.

[EDIT: Further comments again redacted as redundant.]

I think it is safe to wonder whether someone else could've made a better series. Paramount sure thought so as Roddenberry was their fourth or fifth choice.

 

[Smellmet]

TNG's "Parallels" amongest others such as TOS & DSN's Mirror Universe episodes etablished that there were multiple alterante realties/parallel universe use what ever description you like. The new films simply take place in one of those.

Yes but how were we (the audience of ST09) to know if it were a Mirror Universe or a replacement universe that happened in FC or City on the Edge of Forever.
As people have pointed out it doesn't really matter except to the fans as the Abrams films are not likely to deal with the Prime Universe.

It really amazes me that nearly six years later people are still upset about this when Abrams and his team bent over backwards to preserve everything that came before their first film. Mind-boggling.

For what it's worth, my opinion on the matter: it's a new universe created by Nero's shenanigans, that exists alongside all the other parallel and alternate universes and timelines we've seen already. Everything from the "Prime" universe still happened, it's just the timeline has been reset and we're following this universe now.

The greatest surprise/joy in the 2009 film was that Spock Prime wasn't able to restore the timeline and that for once, we (the audience) were going to have to live with it. No easy reset, still preserving what we know happened before, but wiping the storytelling slate clean for new adventures with familiar characters. It could not have been done in a more fan-friendly way.

Exactly my feelings. Imagine the uproar if they'd have just binned everything and started over, with characters that didn't fit and ships that looked totally different. I for one would have hated that and probably disowned Trek at that point.

At least this way things have been preserved to an extent so things can't be completely crapped on by whatever director/writer came next, but frees them to tell some new stories within a familiar setting. I like it.

 

[BigJake]

^^ To "wonder whether" is fine as far as it goes. I'll refer you again to my question upthread:

But hey, let's be constructive here, because I actually think I spy the seeds of a genuinely interesting topic for the TNG forum. Does anyone know of completely different people who were approached for TNG and what ideas they might have had for it? Those might make for some entertaining what-ifs.

That's perfectly possible to wonder about without engaging in any of this over-the-top weirdness about how Roddenberry was History's Greatest Monster and totally irrelevant to the success of actual TNG.

 

[BillJ]

That's perfectly possible to wonder about without engaging in any of this over-the-top weirdness about how Roddenberry was History's Greatest Monster...

"History's Greatest Monster"? No. But also someone that couldn't be trusted any farther than I could throw him.

 

[Dukhat]

Yes. A thoroughly laughable one.

Sorry, but "any random schmoe could have come up with as good or better TNG than Roddenberry" is not even remotely plausible as a speculation (if it was, the entire body of Trek fan productions would be treasured parts of the Criterion collection right now). It's pretty funny that you honestly can't seem to see that.

Yes, you should be laughing, at the inanity of your own response.

Saying "Only Roddenberry could have created TNG" is like saying "Only Sydney Newman could have created Doctor Who," when it turned out that Russell T. Davies did it just fine, thank you very much.

There were other successful sci-fi shows around this period. Babylon 5. Stargate. The X-Files. Any of the people responsible for creating those shows could have helmed TNG and it wouldn't have worked out any better or worse (reread my post about TNG's perfect timing).

Your hangup seems to be that you can't stand that people are harping on Roddenberry, not that he was the best showrunner for the series.

 

[BigJake]

^^ Hmm. Not as successful as hoped for. Next.

There were other successful sci-fi shows around this period

Actually all of the examples you mention came half a decade or more after TNG, which arguably paved the way for them.

But it's not the assertion that someone else might have been able to create a show as successful as TNG without Roddenberry that doesn't work (as I already noted). It's the assertions that this inevitably would have happened and that Roddenberry was irrelevant to the actual TNG's success that look like totally irrational, desperate overcompensation, because someone happens to have mentioned preferring the GBG to Abrams and that somehow threatens you. It's bizarre and unnecessary.

 

[Dukhat]

 

[BigJake]

I'll take that lame response to mean I made my point. Spoken like a gentleman, sir.

 

[Dukhat]

Keep thinking that then. It's obvious that this particular discussion is over.

 

[BillJ]

But it's not the assertion that someone else might have been able to create a show as successful as TNG without Roddenberry that doesn't work (as I already noted). It's the assertions that this inevitably would have happened and that Roddenberry was irrelevant to the actual TNG's success...

We honestly don't know how relevant to TNG's success Roddenberry actually was though. Between stories of Gene being sick, his lawyer running interference between Gene and the rest of the production and Justman, Gerrold, Fontana suing for co-creator status, I think it is easy to question just how much of TNG's success was directly attributable to Roddenberry.